The URL can be used to link to this page

01-15-13 Searchable packet Table of Contents Agenda3 December 4, 2012 City Council minutes Draft minutes10 December 18, 2012 City Council minutes Draft Minutes15 Accounts Payable for period ending December 14, 2012 Draft Resolution25 Accounts Payable for period ending December 21, 2012 Draft Resolution39 Accounts Payable for period ending January 4, 2013 Draft Resolution51 Approve reimbursement of up to $1,400 in travel expenses for travel to Copertino, Italy, by a City Council Member to attend a invited cultural event and renew a long-standing Sister City relationship Staff Report56 A - Policies and Guidelines on Sister Cities for the City of Cupertino, adopted by Cupertino City Council on September 20, 2005 and signed by Patrick Kwok, the mayor at that time.58 Accept resignation of Planning Commissioner Clinton Brownley effective January 23 Staff report61 A - Resignation email62 Improvement Agreement, Roger C. Smith and Brenda Michelle Gaidies-Smith, 10139 Byrne Avenue, APN: 357-11-009 Staff Report63 A - Draft Resolution64 B - Improvement Agreement66 C - Map78 Second reading of an ordinance prohibiting the feeding of waterfowl (namely, geese, ducks, and coots) in City parks and establishing a schedule of fines for such actions in violation o the proposed section of the Municipal Code Staff Report79 A - Draft Ordinance82 B - Red-Lined Version of Existing Ordinance85 Approve the Architectural and Site Approval Application for the Marriot Residence hotel (Main Street) Staff Report88 A - Draft Resolution ASA-2012-1192 B - Approved Resolution No. 12-09897 C - Plan Set123 D - Overall Site Plan (A1.0)132 E - Design Narrative and Response to Resolution 12- 098133 1 F - Landscape, Layout and Planting Plan135 G - Interior Courtyard Detail138 H - September 4, 2012 Staff Report139 Annual renewal of bingo permits for St. Joseph of Cupertino Church and Cupertino Senior Center Coordinating Council Staff report155 A - St. Joseph of Cupertino application156 B - Cupertino Senior Center Coordinating Council application160 Order the abatement of a public nuisance (weeds) pursuant to provisions of Ordinance No. 724 and Resolution No. 12-141 Staff Report166 A - Draft Resolution168 B - Weed Abatement Program 2013170 C - Notice to Destroy Weeds and Program Schedule179 D - Letter to Property Owners181 E - Approved Resolution No. 12-141187 Certification of the Regional Environmental Impact Report (EIR); Consideration of two Ordinances (the Proposed Bag Ordinance and the Proposed Litter Enforcement Ordinance); Direction Regarding the Environmental Review for a Draft Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) Ordinance; and discussion of other potential litter reduction alternatives Staff Report189 A - CEQA Finding of Facts200 B - Draft Resolution Certifying the Final Program EIR262 C - Draft Ordinance No. 9.17265 D - Amendment to Ordinance 9.18271 E - Redline Amendment to Ordinance 9.18276 F - Public Comments on Proposed Bag Ordinance281 Council assignments for local and regional organizations and agencies No written materials312 2 AGENDA CUPERTINOCITYCOUNCIL~SPECIALMEETING SUCCESSORTOTHEREDEVELOPMENTAGENCY~REGULARMEETING 10350TorreAvenue,CommunityHallCouncilChamber Tuesday,January15,2013 5:05PM CITYCOUNCILMEETING ROLLCALL K5:05PM CLOSED SESSION 1.Subject:ConferencewithRealPropertyNegotiator(GovernmentCode54956.8); Property:22100StevensCreekBoulevardCupertino,CA95014;APN35710007; NegotiatingParties:CityManagerandDirectorofParksandRecreation;Under Negotiation:termsandconditions 2.Subject:ConferencewithLaborNegotiator(GovernmentCode54957.6);Agency designatednegotiators:DirectorofAdministrativeServices,CityManager,and DaniaTorresWong;Employeeorganizations:OE3;CEA;CityAttorneysGroup; Unrepresented PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE K6:45PM ROLLCALL CEREMONIALMATTERSANDPRESENTATIONS POSTPONEMENTS 3 Tuesday,January15,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Thisportionofthemeetingisreservedforpersonswishingtoaddressthecouncilon anymatternotontheagenda.Speakersarelimitedtothree(3)minutes.Inmostcases, Statelawwillprohibitthecouncilfrommakinganydecisionswithrespecttoamatter notlistedontheagenda. CONSENTCALENDAR Unlessthereareseparatediscussionsand/oractionsrequestedbycouncil,staffora memberofthepublic,itisrequestedthatitemsundertheConsentCalendarbeactedon simultaneously. 3.Subject:December4,2012CityCouncilminutes RecommendedAction:Approveminutes Draftminutes Page:10 4.Subject:December18,2012CityCouncilminutes RecommendedAction:Approveminutes DraftMinutes Page:15 5.Subject:AccountsPayableforperiodendingDecember14,2012 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13001 DraftResolution Page:25 6.Subject:AccountsPayableforperiodendingDecember21,2012 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13002 DraftResolution Page:39 :AccountsPayableforperiodendingJanuary4,2013 7.Subject RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13003 DraftResolution Page:51 4 Tuesday,January15,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency 8.Subject:Approvereimbursementofupto$1,400intravelexpensesfortravelto Copertino,Italy,byaCityCouncilMembertoattendaninvitedculturaleventand renewalongstandingSisterCityrelationship RecommendedAction:ApprovetravelexpensesfromtheCityCouncilbudgetline item StaffReport APoliciesandGuidelinesonSisterCitiesfortheCityofCupertino,adoptedby CupertinoCityCouncilonSeptember20,2005andsignedbyPatrickKwok,the mayoratthattime. Page:56 9.Subject:AcceptresignationofPlanningCommissionerClintonBrownleyeffective January23 RecommendedAction:Accepttheresignation,directstafftopostthevacancyand includethevacancywiththeinterviewsalreadyscheduledforJanuary29 Staffreport AResignationemail Page:61 10.Subject:ImprovementAgreement,RogerC.SmithandBrendaMichelleGaidies Smith,10139ByrneAvenue,APN:35711009 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13004 Description:ThroughtheimprovementagreementwiththeCity,theapplicantsfora buildingpermitforaresidentialdevelopmentwillbeobligatedtoconstructCity specifiedstreetimprovements,includingcurb,gutter,sidewalkanddriveway approachalongthefrontageoftheirbuildingsite StaffReport ADraftResolution BImprovementAgreement CMap Page:63 5 Tuesday,January15,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency SECONDREADINGOFORDINANCES :Secondreadingofanordinanceprohibitingthefeedingofwaterfowl 11.Subject (namely,geese,ducks,andcoots)inCityparksandestablishingascheduleoffines forsuchactionsinviolationoftheproposedsectionoftheMunicipalCode RecommendedAction:ConductthesecondreadingandenactOrdinanceNo.12 2101:AnOrdinanceoftheCityCounciloftheCityOfCupertinoadoptingSection 13.04.130PoftheCupertinoMunicipalCodeprohibitingthefeedingofwaterfowlin CityparksandamendingSection1.12.160Btosetafinespecificallyforthiscode violation StaffReport ADraftOrdinance BRedLinedVersionofExistingOrdinance Page:79 PUBLICHEARINGS 12.Subject:ApprovetheArchitecturalandSiteApprovalApplicationfortheMarriot Residencehotel(MainStreet) RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13005approvingtheproposed refinementstothepreviouslyapprovedArchitecturalandSiteApproval(ASA2011 24)fortheMarriotResidencehotel Description:ApplicationNo(s):ASA201211;Applicant:KevinDare(500Forbes, LLC);Location:SEcornerofVallcoParkwayandFinchAvenue;APN:31620079, 078085;ArchitecturalandSiteapprovalforrefinementstoapreviouslyapproved hotel;Proposedrefinementstothearchitecturedetailsofthehotelareconsistent withtheSeptember4,2012Addendumtothe2009FinalEnvironmentalImpact Report StaffReport ADraftResolutionASA201211 BApprovedResolutionNo.12098 CPlanSet DOverallSitePlan(A1.0) EDesignNarrativeandResponsetoResolution12098 FLandscape,LayoutandPlantingPlan GInteriorCourtyardDetail HSeptember4,2012StaffReport Page:88 6 Tuesday,January15,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency 13.Subject:AnnualrenewalofbingopermitsforSt.JosephofCupertinoChurchand CupertinoSeniorCenterCoordinatingCouncil :Conductthepublichearingandrenewthepermits RecommendedAction Staffreport ASt.JosephofCupertinoapplication BCupertinoSeniorCenterCoordinatingCouncilapplication Page:155 ORDINANCESANDACTIONITEMS 14.Subject:Ordertheabatementofapublicnuisance(weeds)pursuanttoprovisionsof OrdinanceNo.724andResolutionNo.12141 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13006 StaffReport ADraftResolution BWeedAbatementProgram2013 CNoticetoDestroyWeedsandProgramSchedule DLettertoPropertyOwners EApprovedResolutionNo.12141 Page:166 15.Subject:CertificationoftheRegionalEnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR); ConsiderationoftwoOrdinances(theProposedBagOrdinanceandtheProposed LitterEnforcementOrdinance);DirectionRegardingtheEnvironmentalReviewfora DraftExpandedPolystyrene(EPS)Ordinance;anddiscussionofotherpotentiallitter reductionalternatives :A.AdoptResolutionNo.13007certifyingtheFinalProgram RecommendedAction EnvironmentalImpactReportandadoptingassociatedCaliforniaEnvironmental QualityAct(CEQA)FindingsofFactfortheCityof"»¶«¸º¯´µ¹ReusableBag Ordinance;B.ConductthefirstreadingofOrdinanceNo.132102:AnOrdinanceof theCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinoaddingChapter9.17totheCupertino MunicipalCoderegardingregulationofsingleusecarryoutbags;C.Conductthe firstreadingofOrdinanceNo.132103:AnOrdinanceofTheCityCouncilOfThe CityOfCupertinoamendingChapter9.18(StormwaterPollutionPreventionAnd WatershedProtection)ofTheCupertinoMunicipalCodetoaddresslitter managementandantilitterenforcementinconjunctionwiththe"¯º¿¹stormwater permit;D.DirectstafftohireaconsultanttoconductthenecessaryCEQAreview foranExpandedPolystyrene(EPS)foamfoodwarebanatrestaurants 7 Tuesday,January15,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency StaffReport ACEQAFindingofFacts BDraftResolutionCertifyingtheFinalProgramEIR CDraftOrdinanceNo.9.17 DAmendmenttoOrdinance9.18 ERedlineAmendmenttoOrdinance9.18 FPublicCommentsonProposedBagOrdinance Page:189 16.Subject:Councilassignmentsforlocalandregionalorganizationsandagencies RecommendedAction:Selectassignments Nowrittenmaterials Page:Nowrittenmaterials REPORTSBYCOUNCILANDSTAFF ADJOURNMENT 8 Tuesday,January15,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency SUCCESSORTOTHEREDEVELOPMENTAGENCYMEETING Canceledforlackofbusiness. The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. Any interested person, including the applicant, prior to seeking judicial review of the city council’s decision with respect to quasi-judicial actions, must first file a petition for reconsideration with the city clerk within ten days after the council’s decision. Any petition so filed must comply with municipal ordinance code §2.08.096. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities.If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk’s office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. 9 DRAFTMINUTES CUPERTINOCITYCOUNCIL SUCCESSORTOTHEREDEVELOPMENTAGENCY RegularMeeting Tuesday,December4,2012 CITYCOUNCILMEETING PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE At6:45p.m.MayorMarkSantorocalledthemeetingtoorderintheCouncilChamber, andledthePledgeofAllegiance. ROLLCALL Present:MayorMarkSantoro,ViceMayorOrrinMahoney,andCouncilmembersBarry Chang,RodSinks,andGilbertWong.Absent:None. CEREMONIALMATTERSANDPRESENTATIONS None POSTPONEMENTS None ORALCOMMUNICATIONS RandyBryant,headoftheAutomotiveDivisionandVicePresidentoftheAcademic SenateforDeAnzaCollege,introducedChrisDove,theICCAutomotiveTechnology Rep.Mr.BryantthankedCouncilandthecommunityforitssupportinpassing Proposition30.HeexplainedthattheAutomotiveDivisionholdsclasses4daysaweek andontheweekendsandhas800enrollmentseachquarter,includingacurrent enrollmentof147women.Henotedthattheyrecentlyreceivedagrantforasolarlab, ownanelectricdemonstrationvehicle,andjuststartedagreentransportation alternativefuelsprogram.Thedivisionrecentlyheldthefirstelectricvehicletraining classforanycollegeintheWesternUnitedStatesandispartneringwithacompanyto providetrainingforfleettechnicianswithtuitionoffsetbyStatefunds. 10 Tuesday,December4,2012CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency MaureenJonesdistributedahandouttitled, ,µ¸«ThanaToothache:UntreatedDental DiseaseinOurSchool"®¯²ª¸«´ !Shementionedexamplesfromthehandoutincluding astudydonebetweenAlamedaCountyandSantaClaraCountyinwhichAlameda fluoridated90%ofthewaterandSantaClaraCounty12%ofthewater.Shenotedthat theresultsoftoothdecaywereexactlythesameinKindergartnersandalittlehigherin SantaClaraCountyforThirdgradersduetoAlamedaCountyofferingtoothsealants. Shealsoexplainedhowsealantsareimportantbecausetoothdecayisonthesurfaceof themolarsandthatsendingchildrentobedwithbabybottlesincreasestoothdecay.She notedthatinalloftheexamples,ingestingfluoridedidnothingforthechildrenand sincefluorideis80%cumulativeingrowingchildren,itisbadfortheirhealth. NaiHsuehintroducedherselfasthenewDistrict5SantaClaraValleyWaterDistrict Boardmember. Team -«¼«¸Give4¶!CupertinosaidthattheydidtheSusanG.Komen3daywalk whichis60milesin3daystohelpraise$6.5millionforbreastcancerresearch.They notedthattheCouncilandcommunitysupportwasremarkableandthatCouncil membersjoinedthemontheirtrainingwalks.TheysaidthatBreastCancerAwareness monthisinOctober. CharlesJohnsonsaidthatheisanewbusinessownerinCupertinowhocaresaboutthe community.Henotedthatthereneedstobeactiveparticipationinthelocalparksand libraries,andthathehasconcernthatgraffiti,litter,andothercrimeisruining neighborhoods.Hesaidheenjoysthetreesbutthatthefruitfromfruittreesthatare plantedtoreplacetheorchardsfallontosidewalksandisdifficulttoremove. CONSENTCALENDAR None SECONDREADINGOFORDINANCES None PUBLICHEARINGS KNone ORDINANCESANDACTIONITEMS 1.Subject:EnactordinancetoamendcontractwithCaliforniaPublic$³¶²µ¿««¹ RetirementSystem(CalPERS)forasecondtier,2%at60retirementplan RecommendedAction:ConductthereadingandenacturgencyOrdinanceNo.12 2100:AnOrdinanceoftheCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinoauthorizingan amendmenttothecontractbetweentheCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinoand 11 Tuesday,December4,2012CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency theBoardofAdministrationoftheCaliforniaPublicEmployeesRetirementSystem anddeclaringtheurgencythereof CityClerkGraceSchmidtreadthetitleoftheordinance.WongmovedandMahoney secondedtoreadtheordinancebytitleonly,andthattheCity"²«¸±¹reading wouldconstitutetheonlyreadingthereof.Ayes:Chang,Mahoney,Santoro,Sinks andWong.Noes:None. WongmovedandMahoneysecondedtoenacturgencyOrdinanceNo.122100. Ayes:Chang,Mahoney,Santoro,SinksandWong.Noes:None. REPORTSBYCOUNCILANDSTAFF ELECTIONOFMAYORANDVICEMAYOR 2.Subject:CouncilmemberselectMayor WongmovedandSinkssecondedtonominateOrrinMahoneyasMayor.The motioncarriedwithChangabstaining. 3.Subject:CouncilmemberselectViceMayor MahoneymovedandChangsecondedtonominateGilbertWongasViceMayor. ThemotioncarriedwithChangabstaining. OATHSOFOFFICE :Mayortakesoathofoffice 4.Subject CityClerkGraceSchmidtsworeinnewlyelectedMayorOrrinMahoney. 5.Subject:ViceMayortakesoathofoffice FormerCupertinoMayorandVicePresidentoftheSantaClaraCountyBoardof EducationMichaelChangsworeinnewlyelectedViceMayorGilbertWong. 12 Tuesday,December4,2012CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency COMMENTSBYNEWMAYOR 6.Subject:CommentsbynewMayorandpresentationofgifts IncomingMayorOrrinMahoneypresentedagavelplaqueandasportinggoodsgift certificatetooutgoingMayorMarkSantoro.CityManagerDavidBrandtpresenteda pensetonbehalfofstafftooutgoingMayorMarkSantoro. MayorMahoneythankedformerMayorSantoroandtheotherCouncilmembersfor agreatyearwithsignificantaccomplishmentsincluding:hiringanewCityManager; updatingtheMcClellandRanchMasterPlan;MainStreetapproval;Crossroads ShoppingCenterDevelopment;newGreenBuildingordinance;andwinddownof theRedevelopmentAgency.HereassuredtheresidentsthattheCityCouncilalways triestomakethebestdecisionsforthewholeofCupertinoandthattaxdollarsare wellspentforresidents,workers,andvisitorstoCupertino.Henotedthathewill haveregularbusinesshoursandwouldfollowupontheLeveragingEthnic Diversity(LED)workshop.MayorMahoneyinvitedeveryonetowatchtheStateof theCityonJanuary30. COMMENTSBYCOUNCILMEMBERSANDPUBLIC 7.Subject:CommentsbyCouncilmembers CouncilmemberstookturnsmakingcommentsincludingthankingoutgoingMayor SantoroforhisworkasMayor,thankingfellowCouncilmembersforworking togethertomakegooddecisionsfortheresidents,wishingincomingMayor MahoneyandincomingViceMayorWongagoodyear,thankingtheresidentsand commissionersformakingCupertinoagreatcitytolivein,andthankingthe 2®«¸¯¬¬¹officeandCitystaffforalloftheirhardwork. 8.Subject:Membersoftheaudienceareinvitedtospeak ThefollowingindividualsspokewelcomingthenewMayorandViceMayorand thankingtheoutgoingMayorandotherCityCouncilmembersfortheirleadership thispastyear: KevinMcClellanonbehalfoftheCupertinoChamberofCommerce MichaelGottwald AnnaonbehalfoftheSiliconValleyLeadershipGroup MartyMiller,PlanningCommissioner 13 Tuesday,December4,2012CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency FormerMayorSandyJames MaheshNihalani RECEPTION 9.Subject:Thepublicisinvitedtoattendareceptioninthelobby MayorMahoneyinvitedthepublictoattendareceptioninthelobby. ADJOURNMENT At7:40p.m.,themeetingwasadjourned. ____________________________ GraceSchmidt,CityClerk Staffreports,backupmaterials,anditemsdistributedattheCityCouncilmeetingare availableforreviewattheCity"²«¸±¹Office,7773223,andalsoontheInternetat www.cupertino.org.ClickonAgendas&Minutes,thenclickontheappropriatePacket. MostCouncilmeetingsareshownliveonComcastChannel26andAT&TUverse Channel99andareavailableatyourconvenienceatwww.cupertino.org.Clickon Agendas&Minutes,thenclickArchivedWebcast.Videotapesareavailableatthe CupertinoLibrary,ormaybepurchasedfromtheCupertinoCityChannel,7772364. 14 DRAFTMINUTES CUPERTINOCITYCOUNCIL SUCCESSORTOTHEREDEVELOPMENTAGENCY SpecialMeeting Tuesday,December18,2012 CITYCOUNCILMEETING ROLLCALL At3:35p.m.MayorOrrinMahoneycalledthespecialmeetingtoorderintheCouncil Chamber,10350TorreAvenue,Cupertino,California. Present:MayorOrrinMahoney,ViceMayorGilbertWong,andCouncilmembersBarry Chang(3:39p.m.),MarkSantoro,andRodSink.Absent:none. STUDYSESSION 1.Subject:CivicCenterMasterPlanFramework RecommendedAction:StaffrecommendsthatCouncilacceptthereportand providedirectiontostaff Writtencommunicationsforthisitemincluded: StaffPowerPointpresentationandAttachmentAhandout: "»¶«¸º¯´µCivic CenterMasterPlanFramework,July26,ustu! DirectorofPublicWorksTimmBordenintroducedCIPManagerKatyJensen;Karen Alschuler,GlobalLeaderforUrbanDesignsatPerkins+WillArchitecture,whoalso participatedintheplanningandarchitecturefortheLibraryandCommunityHall withSMWMArchitects;andnotedProjectManagerCarmenLynaughwasinthe audience. DirectorBordengavesomebackgroundandsaidparkingbecameanissuein2010 becausethelibrarywassopopular.Hesaidthatin2011,$100,000wasbudgetedto performaparkingstudyonhowtosolvetheparkingproblems,structuralupgrades foranolderCityHall,andenergyefficiencymeasures.Hesaidthisbudgetwasnot 15 Tuesday,December18,2012CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency enoughtosolvetheparkingproblembutitcouldbeincorporatedintoalargerplan, forawholeCivicCenterproject.Henotedthatthe$100,000wasdownsizedto $50,000tocreateaframeworkforalongrangemasterplan,keepingparkingin mindbutalsoincludingotheropportunitiesforthesite.Heexplainedthatinthe springof2012,Perkins+WillwashiredandinternalworkinggroupsfromPublic Works,theCity,§´§«¸¹office,CommunityDevelopmentandtheLibrarywere setuptoholdworkshopsanddevelopalongrangeplan.InAugust2012,Perkins+ Willcompletedtheframeworkwhichwouldbethestartingpointforthenextstepof seekingpublicengagement.AfterAugust,thecostprojectionsweredevelopedfor Counciltounderstandthethreealternatives.Allarelongtermplansthatgivea broadrangeofcostsforthedifferentplans.DirectorBordensaidthatwewanttobe acivicfacilitythatfitswithintheneighborhood,isclosetoarterialroadwaysand bicycletransit,andiseasilywalkabletoCivicCenterviadifferentpathwayslike TownCenterLane.HesaidthesuccessofCityfacilitiesliketheLibraryand CommunityHallhascompetedwithdemandsforparking.Additionally,theaging ofCityHallmakesitnecessarytotakeacomprehensivelookforlongterm solutions. KarenAlschulersaidthatherinitialstudiesfocusedonexistingandpotential parkingspaces,certainhighdemandtimesoftheday,andtheconditionoftreesin somelocations.ShewentthroughthePowerPointslideswhichincludedthesite character,trafficandparking,andwaysinwholeofhowthesiteisused.Shesaid theylookedatactivityduringtheweekday,morningandafternoon,andweekends; Shenotedtheexistingparkingspacesare224total;104onthestreet;120devotedto Cityuse,foremployees(107)andCityvehicles(16);andconcludedthatlessthan halfofthespacesareavailabletothepublic.Sheaddedthat90%ofvehiclesare singleoccupancy. DirectorBordendiscussedthethreealternativesfortheCivicCenternotingeach planwouldincludeacreektrail,increasedparking,andasolarenergyinfrastructure withinthenewbuildings.Alternative1:CivicNetworkfeatures:anewdrivewayat PacificaAve.;enhancedpedestrianandbikepathways,improvedexistingCityHall upgrades,modificationstospaceallocationsandseismicdeficiencies;addressed trafficattheintersectionofPacificaAve.andTorreAve.;nonewbuildings;net increaseof78spaces.Alternative2:CivicYouthfeatures:anewTeenCenterwith outdoorbasketballcourt,classrooms,andotherprogrammingneartheLibrary Field;solarcellsatoptheTeenCenter;aonelevelparkinggarageundertheTeen Centerfor170cars;reconfiguredLibraryfieldwithCricketretained;aplayground; LibraryPlazademonstrationgarden;improvedCityHallasperAlternative1;net 16 Tuesday,December18,2012CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency increaseof160spaces.Alternative3:CivicLifefeatures:anewCityHallinits currentlocationwithbettermeetingandpermittingcenter,emergencyfacility,and alignment;anewCommunityCenterwithmeetingrooms,classrooms,performance andexhibitionspaces;arebuiltLibraryPlazatosupportcommunityneedswith festivalareasandaretainingthefountain;aonelevelparkinggarageunderthe CommunityCenterandCityHall;newpicnicareaandplayground;netincreaseof 133spaces. KatyJensenreviewedthecostprojectionsforthethreealternatives,notingthatthe plancouldoccurovera5,10,or20yearperiod,orlonger:Alternative1:Civic Network,forstructuralmodifications,developingpedestrianwalkwaysandaccess, andrenovatingtheexistingCityHallwouldcost$3.8million.Thiswouldinvolve movingthepermittingfunctionuptothefirstfloor.Anewsurfaceparkingwould cost$1.9millionandothersiteamenitieswouldcost$4.3million;totalcost projectionis$10million.Alternative2:CivicYouth,foraddinganewTeenCenter withundergroundparking,anewentryplaza,andbasketballcourtswouldcost $36.9million;structuralmodifications,developingpedestrianwalkwaysandaccess, andrenovatingtheexistingCityHallwouldcost$3.8million;anewsurfaceparking lotbehindCommunityHallwouldcost$600,000;andothersiteamenitiesofchanges toLibraryPlaza,addingatrail,andplaygroundwouldcost$2.2million;totalcost projectionis$43.5million.Alternative3:CivicLife,anewCityHallandCommunity Centerwithundergroundparkingwouldcost$86million;anewsurfaceparkinglot behindCommunityHallandbyMemorialGrovewouldcost$1.9million;andother siteamenitiesofchangestoLibraryPlaza,addingapicnicarea,trail,and playgroundwouldcost$5.1million;totalcostprojectionis$93million. MayorMahoneyopenedthemeetingtopubliccomments. MarkFink,CupertinoLibrariansaidtheLibraryhas3300visitorsonaverageand thatdependsonwhatprogramsarebeingoffered.Heobservedthattheymayonly needabout2040moreparkingspaces,dependingonlocationandwherepeople wanttopark.ForCommunityHallbookings:theLibrarybooksaboutathirdofthe time;theybookuptoayearinadvanceonSaturdays,Wednesdayevenings,every Friday;insummertheybookmorefrequently,includingWednesdayafternoonsfor ©®¯²ª¸«´¹programsbuttheyareflexiblewiththoseneeds.Hesaidhewouldliketo addadedicatedmeetingspaceintheLibraryandlikedtheideaofconvertingthe currentcourtyardinfrontoftheLibrarytoameetingspace.Headdedthattheyonly havetheStoryRoomwhichaccommodates25people,bookingCommunityHall, andtheynowofferprogramsatQuinlanCommunityCenterduetothelackof 17 Tuesday,December18,2012CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency availabilityatCommunityHall.Hesaidtheyneedspacetofitatleast50peopleand iftheCityislookingatputtinginaTeenCenter,theyshouldlookatwherepeople arecomingfrom,howfartheytravel,thecurrentusesatthecurrentTeenCenter, andstaffingoptions.TheLibraryhasanaverageof50programsamonthand3000 peoplevisitamonth,includingstorytimesintheLibrary.Hesaidthereneedstobe moreprogrammingonthe©®¯²ª¸«´¹side. Councildirectedstafftobringbackmoreinformationonthefollowingtopics:public opinion;demandinlibraryprogrammingandfacilitiesbeingbooked,andtheneed foradditionalmeetingspaceforcommunitygroups;publicoutreachtoneighbors nearthetrail;reducingthesizeofLibraryField;cricketandsoccercommunityinput; ashorttermparkingmanagementsolution;studyingthecostofanadjacentlibrary courtyardaddon;possiblelocationofayouthcenternearLibraryField;public inputregardingundergroundparkingandperhapspartiallyundergroundparking; theissueoftrafficflow;sourcingmoneytogoaheadwithprojectbeforespending moneyonpublicoutreach;projectedcostofanenclosedlibrarycourtyard;moving parkingbythetrailclosertotheLibrary;publicinputwiththeincreaseofparking andcreatinganotherparkingproblemwithincreasedsuccess;amultipurpose spaceformeetings,activities,andextendedteenactivitiesinsteadofaperforming artscenter;thesquarefootageoftheplaygrounds;thefrequencyofuseforthe currentCommunityHall;andadequacyofthecurrentLibrary. CLOSEDSESSION At5:33p.m.Councilrecessedtoaclosedsession,andreconvenedinopensessionat 6:45p.m. 2.Subject:ConferencewithLegalCounselInitiationofLitigationpursuantto subdivision(c)ofSection54956.9OneCase MayorMahoneyannouncedthatCouncilobtainedbriefingfromlegalcounseland gavedirection. 3.Subject:ConferencewithLegalCounselSignificantExposuretoLitigationpursuant tosubdivision(b)ofSection54956.9OneCase MayorMahoneyannouncedthatCouncilobtainedbriefingfromlegalcounselandno actionwastaken. 18 Tuesday,December18,2012CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE At6:48p.m.MayorOrrinMahoneyreconvenedthespecialCityCouncilmeetingand ledthePledgeofAllegiance. ROLLCALL Present:MayorOrrinMahoney,ViceMayorGilbertWong,andCouncilmembersBarry Chang,MarkSantoro,andRodSink.Absent:none. CEREMONIALMATTERSANDPRESENTATIONS None POSTPONEMENTS None ORALCOMMUNICATIONS RhodaFrysaidthatintheeveningyoucanseeaplumeofsmokenearLehigh.Shesaid shetalkedwiththeBayAreaAirQualityManagementDistrict(BAAQMD)aboutthe plumeandwasinformedthattheyhavetechnologyavailabletoseevisualemissions andhydrochloricacidintheplume.Shealsosaidthattheplumehadbeengonefora timeandnowitisbackandsheisconcernedaboutthehydrochloricacidthatisinthe plume.ShesaidthatBAAQMDtoldherthereisadelayintheCountydueto understaffinganddifficultygettingpermitstoputthetechnologyinplaceonaregular basis.Ms.FryaskedCounciltourgetheCountytoputthetechnologyinplace.Shealso saidthattheCountydoesnothaveamethodinplacetocapturecertainviolationssuch asaninstancewhenahugeamountofcementcoveredthemountainwithdustbecause ahatchwasaccidentlyopenedandthecementblewout.Shesaidthesetypesof violationsarenotcapturedandavailabletothepublic,butthatBAAQMDisworking ontheissue.Ms.FrysaidthemosturgentissueisforCounciltourgetheCountyto expeditethetechnology.CouncilaskedMs.FrywhoshespoketoatBAAQMDandshe saidthatshespoketoBrianBatemanbutshedidnothaveanythinginwriting.Council suggestedthatshewritealettertoBAAQMDandperhapsattendaBoardof Supervisorsmeetingaswell. LeslieFowler,activistforahealthyenvironment,saidthattheSantaClaraCounty WaterDistrictauthorizedwaterfluoridationandaskedCounciltoconsiderherpoints. Shesaidthatin2001theCenterforDiseaseControlsaidthatthemainwayfluoridation worksistopicalandwheningested,issuesoccur.Shesaidthatin2006theAmerican DentalAssociationissuedawarningtoparentsofbabiesundersixmonthsnottomix fluoridatedwaterwithformulabecausefluoridegoestothebrainandthebrainblood 19 Tuesday,December18,2012CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency barrierisnotdevelopedininfantsundersixmonths.Ms.Fowleralsosaidthatthe HarvardPublicSchoolofHealthconfirmedthatfluorideatlessthantwopartsper millioninthewaterlowerstheIQofchildrenandtheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency scientistunionpublicallyopposedwaterfluoridationsin2007.Shealsosaidthaton January7,2011,theU.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServicesrecommended reducingtheleveloffluorideaddedtowaterbecause41%ofAmericanshavetooth acidosiscausedbyexcessivefluoride.ShesaidthatSanFranciscofluoridatedandtwo thirdsofgradeschoolchildrenhavecavities.Ms.FowlerurgedCounciltooptoutof waterfluoridationforthehealthofresidentsandforthe(0¹ofthechildren. CatherineCoesaidthatshelivesnexttoJollymanParkandthatithasbecomeafull timeplaceforoffleashdogs.Shesaidthateverydaydogsareoffleashandthatis impactingthequalityoflife,causingpeopletoputupfenceswheretheyª¯ª´ºhaveto before.Sheaskedforassistanceinenforcingleashlaws.ShesaidthatCupertinoªµ«¹´º haveanissuewithdogs,butanissuewithpeopleandfeelsitshouldbeaddressed.She saidthatasocialmediasitecalledFoursquarelistsJollymanParkasadogparkandthat theYelpsitesaysitisagreatplaceforyourdog.Shealsosuggestedthatstaffgoto socialmediasitesandcorrectthingsthatarenotaccurate. CityManager,DavidBrandtsaidaCodeEnforcementOfficercouldbesentonrounds tocheckonoffleashdogsinthatpark. CONSENTCALENDAR WongmovedandSinkssecondedtoapprovetheitemsontheConsentCalendaras recommendedwiththeexceptionofitem14whichwaspulledfordiscussion.Ayes: Chang,Mahoney,Santoro,Sinks,andWong.Noes:None.Abstain:None. :November5CityCouncilminutes 4.Subject RecommendedAction :Approveminutes 5.Subject:November13CityCouncilminutes RecommendedAction:Approveminutes 6.Subject:AccountsPayableforperiodendingOctober26,2012 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.12132 7.Subject:AccountsPayableforperiodendingNovember2,2012 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.12133 20 Tuesday,December18,2012CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency 8.Subject:AccountsPayableforperiodendingNovember9,2012 :AdoptResolutionNo.12134 RecommendedAction 9.Subject :AccountsPayableforperiodendingNovember16,2012 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.12135 10.Subject:AccountsPayableforperiodendingNovember21,2012 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.12136 11.Subject:AccountsPayableforperiodendingNovember30,2012 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.12137 12.Subject:AccountspayableforperiodendingDecember7,2012 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.12138 13.Subject:FinancialReportsforFiscalYear201112 RecommendedAction:Acceptthereports 14.Subject:AdoptresolutionamendingtheUnrepresented$³¶²µ¿««¹Compensation ProgrambytransferringthepositionsofAssistantCityAttorneyandDeputyCity AttorneyintothisgroupandtransferringtheCityManagerPositionoutofthis group;adoptresolutionamendingtheCityAttorney$³¶²µ¿««¹Compensation ProgrambytransferringtheCityManagerpositionintothisgroupandrenamingit theAppointed$³¶²µ¿««¹CompensationProgramconsistingoftheCityManager andCityAttorneyandanyrequiredrelatedaction :AdoptResolutionNo12139amendingResolutionNo.12 RecommendedAction 121amendingtheUnrepresentedEmployeeCompensationProgram;adopt ResolutionNo.12140amendingResolutionNo.12122amendingtheCityAttorney EmployeesCompensationProgrambyrenaming/establishinganAppointed EmployeesCompensationProgram CityManagerDavidBrandtandCityAttorneyCarolKoradesteppedawayfromthe daisduetoaconflictofinterestonthisitem. CouncilmemberSantorosaidthattheimmediatevestingofmedicalbenefitswas specifiedintheCity ººµ¸´«¿¹contractbutnotintheCity,§´§«¸¹contract.He askedtomodifythelanguagetoreflecttheunderstandingofimmediatevestingfor bothpositions. 21 Tuesday,December18,2012CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency MahoneymovedandWongsecondedtoadopttheresolutionswithanamendment toclarifythelanguagetospecifyanimmediatevestingofretireemedicalbenefitsfor boththeCityAttorneyandtheCityManagerpositions.Themotioncarried unanimously. :DeclareweedsanuisanceandsethearingdateofJanuary15forobjections 15.Subject toproposedremoval RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.12141 16.Subject:AlcoholicBeverageLicense,BombayOvenInc,20803StevensCreekBlvd RecommendedAction:ApproveAlcoholicBeverageLicense,BombayOvenInc 17.Subject:AlcoholicBeverageLicense,SafewayInc,WestHomesteadRoadandNorth DeAnzaBoulevard RecommendedAction:ApproveAlcoholicBeverageLicense,SafewayInc 18.Subject:CitizensOptionforPublicSafety(COPS)ProgramFundsof$100,000 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.12142toapprovethe201213COPS grantfundingrequest 19.Subject:ImprovementAgreement,GeorgeChiaJungChangandSukYeeChung, 10397PaloVistaRoad,APN:35703027 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.12143 Description:ThroughtheimprovementagreementwiththeCity,theapplicantsfora buildingpermitforaresidentialdevelopmentwillbeobligatedtoconstructCity specifiedstreetimprovements,includingcurb,gutteranddrivewayapproachalong thefrontageoftheirbuildingsite :ImprovementAgreement,RajatGuptaandPujaGupta,22388SantaPaula 20.Subject Avenue,APN:35705034 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.12144 Description:ThroughtheimprovementagreementwiththeCity,theapplicantsfora buildingpermitforaresidentialdevelopmentwillbeobligatedtoconstructCity specifiedstreetimprovements,includingcurb,gutter,sidewalkanddriveway approachalongthefrontageoftheirbuildingsite 21.Subject:ImprovementAgreement,MehrdadMojganiandHomaMojgani,22717San JuanRoad,APN:34217025 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.12145 22 Tuesday,December18,2012CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency Description:ThroughtheimprovementagreementwiththeCity,theapplicantsfora buildingpermitforaresidentialdevelopmentwillbeobligatedtoconstructCity specifiedstreetimprovements,includingcurb,gutter,anddrivewayapproachalong thefrontageoftheirbuildingsite SECONDREADINGOFORDINANCES None PUBLICHEARINGS None ORDINANCESANDACTIONITEMS 22.Subject:MidYearBudgetAdjustment#3 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.12146ApprovingMidYearBudget Adjustment#3 FinanceDirectorDaveWooreviewedthestaffreportandthetotalrevenues increasesanddecreaseschart. ChangmovedandSinkssecondedtoadoptResolutionNo.12146withdirectionto allowstafftousediscretioninusingthebudgetedamountregardingaLehighAir Qualitystudy.Themotioncarriedunanimously. 23.Subject:Adoptionofanordinanceprohibitingthefeedingofwaterfowl(namely, geese,ducks,andcoots)inCityparksandestablishingascheduleoffinesforsuch actionsinviolationoftheproposedsectionoftheMunicipalCode :ConductthefirstreadingofOrdinanceNo.122101:An RecommendedAction OrdinanceoftheCityCounciloftheCityOfCupertinoadoptingSection13.04.130P oftheCupertinoMunicipalCodeprohibitingthefeedingofwaterfowlinCityparks andamendingSection1.12.160Btosetafinespecificallyforthiscodeviolation DirectorofPublicWorksTimmBordenreviewedthestaffreport. CityClerkGraceSchmidtreadthetitleoftheordinance.WongmovedandSinks secondedtoreadtheordinancebytitleonlyandthattheCity"²«¸±¹readingwould constitutethefirstreadingthereof.Ayes:Chang,Mahoney,SinksandWong.Noes: Santoro. REPORTSBYCOUNCILANDSTAFF 23 Tuesday,December18,2012CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency CityManagerDavidBrandtnotedthatthenewEconomicDevelopmentManageris AngelaTsui. Councilmembershighlightedtheactivitiesoftheircommitteesandvariouscommunity events. CouncilagreedtodirecttheCityManagertowritealettertotheBayAreaAirQuality ManagementDistrict(BAAQMD)expressingappreciationforitsconcernforthehealth ofCupertinoresidents. ADJOURNMENT At7:47p.m.themeetingwasadjourned. ____________________________ GraceSchmidt,CityClerk Staffreports,backupmaterials,anditemsdistributedattheCityCouncilmeetingare availableforreviewattheCity"²«¸±¹Office,7773223,andalsoontheInternetat www.cupertino.org.ClickonAgendas&Minutes,thenclickontheappropriatePacket. MostCouncilmeetingsareshownliveonComcastChannel26andAT&TUverse Channel99andareavailableatyourconvenienceatwww.cupertino.org.Clickon Agendas&Minutes,thenclickArchivedWebcast.Videotapesareavailableatthe CupertinoLibrary,ormaybepurchasedfromtheCupertinoCityChannel,7772364. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER, PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIVISION CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3262 www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:January15,2013 Subject Reimbursementofupto$1,400intravelexpensesfortraveltoCopertino,Italy,byaCity CouncilMembertoattendaninvitedculturaleventandrenewalongstandingSisterCity relationship. RecommendedAction Approvereimbursementofupto$1,400intravelexpensesfortraveltoCopertino,Italy,forCity CouncilinternationaltravelexpensesfromtheCityCouncilbudgetlineitem. Discussion TheCityhasbeeninvitedbythegoverningbodyoftheCityofCopertino,Italytosenda representativefromtheCityCounciltoattendtheviewingoftheremainsofSt.Josephinthe restoredshrinewhichisanimportantculturaleventfortheCityofCopertino.Thisevent wouldalsobeanopportunitytoexplorewhetherthehistoricalSisterCityrelationshipbetween Cupertino,CaliforniaandCopertinoItalycouldbereinvigorated.Copertino,Italyand Cupertino,CaliforniaUSAhavehadaSisterCityrelationshipsince1964.Althoughthis relationshiphasnotbeenactivethereisrenewedinterestfrombothlocalitiestoestablishties. Under"»¶«¸º¯´µ¹municipalcode,Chapter2.1:City"µ»´©¯²L2§²§¸¯«¹ Section2.16.030 regardingreimbursement,councilmembersmaybereimbursedforactualandnecessary expensesincurredbyhim/herintheperformanceofofficialdutiesfortheCity.These expendituresmayincludeinternationaltraveluponapprovalbytheCityCouncil. Underthe /µ²¯©¯«¹andGuidelinesonSisterCitiesfortheCityof"»¶«¸º¯´µ !Copertino,Italy isnotyetaformallyrecognizedSisterCity,buthashadanaffiliationwithCupertinodating backalmost50years. _____________________________________ Preparedby:RickKitson,PublicAffairsDirector ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: 56 AKPoliciesandGuidelinesonSisterCitiesfortheCityofCupertino,adoptedbyCupertino CityCouncilonSeptember20,2005andsignedbyPatrickKwok,themayoratthattime. 57 58 59 60 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: January 15, 2013 Subject Accept resignation of Planning Commissioner Clinton Brownley effective January 23. Recommended Action Accept the resignation, direct staff to post the vacancy notice and include the vacancy with the interviews already scheduled for January 29. Discussion Commissioner Clinton Brownley has notified staff of his resignation effective January 23, 2013. This creates an unscheduled vacancy with a term ending January 2015. The City Clerk’s office has already been receiving Planning Commission applications to fill three vacancies expiring in 2013. Cupertino Resolution No. 10-048 states that unscheduled vacancies shall be handled in the following manner: The notice of unscheduled vacancy shall be posted no earlier than 20 days before nor later than 20 days after the vacancy occurs, and at least 10 working days before appointment. The notice of unscheduled vacancy must be posted in the Office of the City Clerk, at the City Hall bulletin board, at the Cupertino Library, and in other places designated by the City Clerk. The unscheduled vacancy would be posted on January 16 which allows for the required 10 working days. Since Planning Commission interviews are already scheduled for January 29, staff recommends including this unscheduled vacancy with those interviews. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A - Resignation email 61 62 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:January15,2013 Subject ImprovementAgreement,RogerC.SmithandBrendaMichelleGaidiesSmith,10139 ByrneAvenue,APN:35711009. RecommendedAction AdoptResolutionNo.13_____. Discussion ThroughtheimprovementagreementwiththeCity,theapplicantsforabuilding permitforaresidentialdevelopmentwillbeobligatedtoconstructCityspecifiedstreet improvements,includingcurb,gutter,sidewalkanddrivewayapproachalongthe frontageoftheirbuildingsite. _____________________________________ Preparedby:ChadMosley,AssociateCivilEngineer Reviewedby:TimmBorden,DirectorofPublicWorks ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: DraftResolution A- ImprovementAgreement B- Map C- 63 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTIONNO.13 ARESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCUPERTINO AUTHORIZINGEXECUTIONOFANIMPROVEMENTAGREEMENTBETWEEN THECITYANDDEVELOPER,ROGERC.SMITHANDBRENDAMICHELLE GAIDIESSMITH,10139BYRNEAVENUE,APN:35711009 WHEREAS,therehasbeenpresentedtotheCityCouncilaproposed improvementagreementbetweentheCityofCupertinoandDeveloper,RogerC.Smith andBrendaMichelleGaidiesSmith,fortheinstallationofcertainmunicipal improvementsat10139ByrneAvenue,andsaidagreementhavingbeenapprovedby theCityAttorney,andDeveloperhavingpaidthefeesasoutlinedintheattached ExhibitA; NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDTHATtheMayorandtheCityClerkare herebyauthorizedtosigntheaforementionedagreementonbehalfoftheCityof Cupertino. PASSEDANDADOPTEDataregularmeetingoftheCityCounciloftheCityof Cupertinothis15thdayofJanuary,2013,bythefollowingvote: VoteMembersoftheCityCouncil AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:APPROVED: ________________________________ GraceSchmidt,CityClerkOrrinMahoney,Mayor 64 ResolutionNo.13 Page2 EXHIBIT ! SCHEDULEOFBOND,FEES,ANDDEPOSITS DEVELOPER:ROGERC.SMITHANDBRENDAMICHELLEGAIDIESSMITH LOCATION:10139BYRNEAVENUE,APN:35711009 PART A. Faithful Performance Bond: $9,705.00 110-2211 PART B. Labor and Material Bond: $9,705.00 110-2211 PART C. Checking and Inspection Fee: $2,593.00 110-4538 PART D. Development Maintenance Deposit: $1,000.00 110-2211 PART E. Storm Drainage Fee – Basin 2 $1,546.58 215-4072 PART F. Street Light – One-Year Power Cost: N/A 110-4537 PART G. Map Checking Fee: N/A 110-4539 PART H. Park Fee: N/A PART I. Reimbursement Fee N/A 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 ATTACHMENT C 10211 . Subject: Improvement Agreement, Roger C. Smith and Brenda Michelle Gaidies-Smith, 10139 Byrne Avenue, APN: 357-11-009. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 13-_____. 10239 78 PUBLICWORKSDEPARTMENT CITYHALL 1010300TORREAVENUE'CUPERTINO,CA950143255 TELEPHONE:(408)7773354www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:January15,2013 Subject Secondreadingofanordinanceprohibitingthefeedingofwaterfowl(namely,geese, ducks,andcoots)inCityparksandestablishingascheduleoffinesforsuchactionsin violationoftheproposedsectionoftheMunicipalCode. RecommendedAction ConductthesecondreadingandenactOrdinanceNo.122101. Discussion OnDecember18,2012,theCityCouncilconductedthefirstreadingofOrdinanceNo. 122101toadoptsection13.04andamendsection1.12oftheCupertinoMunicipalCode withnochanges. OnAugust3,2010theCityCouncilconsideredanordinancetoprohibitthefeedingof birdsinparks.StaffandtheParksandRecreationCommissionrecommendedapproval ofthisordinancetoeliminatethefeedingofwaterfowl,mostlyinMemorialPark, becauseitisunhealthyforthebirds,itcreatesanotherattractionforthegeesetoremain intheparksandcontinuestocreateachallengetoparkusers.Althoughthedraft ordinancewaswrittentoprohibitthefeedingofbirdsingeneral,ParksandRecreation staffclarifiedthatthiswouldpresentaproblemfortheAudubon2µ©¯«º¿¹birdfeeding andthe4HfeedingofchickensatMcClellanRanchPreserve.Thecurrentproposal limitstheprohibitiontowaterfowl. Councildiscussedoptionsregardingthefinestructureandwhetherimprovedsignage wouldaddresstheproblem,orwhetherfineswerenecessarytoemphasizethe consequencesoffeedingthewaterfowl. TheCouncilunanimouslyvotedtoadoptasignprogram,anddirectedstafftoplace multiplelanguagesignsnearwaterlocationswherethegeesecongregate.Thesignslist thereasonswhyfeedingthegeeseisdiscouragedinthepark.Councilalsodirectedstaff 79 toreportbacktoCouncilregardingtheeffectivenessofthesignprogramonpreventing thefeeding. AsreportedtoCouncilonOctober16,2012,theresidentCanadaGoosepopulationhas continuedtoincreaseandtheconflictbetweentheresultingamountofgooseexcrement andthe©µ³³»´¯º¿¹useoftheparkhasalsoincreased.Onanyday,asmanyas260 geesemaybeobservedatMemorialPark.Whilenotthesolereasonforthepopulation increase,feedingofthegeesehascontinuedandcontributedtotheproblem.Thesigns andliteraturearestillinhighlyvisiblelocations."µ»´©¯²¹directionattheOctober16 th meetingwastoproceedwithamanagementprogramtoincludedogservices,lasers, andpossiblyradiocontrolledboats.CouncilalsodirectedstafftobringbackforCouncil considerationanofeedordinance,settingafineforfeedinggeese. TheHumaneSocietyoftheUnitedStatesstatesthat, §´º¯feedingordinanceshelpraise publicawarenessandmaylimitcasual¬««ª¯´ !GeesePeace,theorganizationcitedin thepresentationattheOctober16Councilmeeting,describesanantifeeding th ordinanceasa ³§´ª§ºµ¸¿!steptobegintocontroltheproblem.Feedingbread,corn orother º¸«§º¹!togeeseincreasestheproblembecausethisgivesthemanincentiveto stayinthearea.Italsocausesgeesetoapproachpeoplewhomaybeafraidofthem. Feedinggoslingsmaycause §´«²½¯´ !whichisadeformityofthewingcausedby rapidgrowthoffeathersasresultofahighproteindiet(bread,corn).AsGeesePeace notes, %««ª¯´geesealsocausesthegeesetocongregateinthefeedingarea,increasing thenuisancelevelinthatareaandcausesgeesetobecomeaggressiveastheyfightover the¬µµª ! Section13.04.130PoftheMunicipalCodewillbeaddedtoprohibitanypersonfrom feedingorinanymannerintentionallyprovidingfoodtoanywaterfowl(geese,ducks, orcoots)inanyCitypark. ,theCouncilseemedtofavorafineschedulefor InitsdiscussiononOctober16 th violationsoftheproposedordinancelessthanthestandardadministrativecitation scheduleestablishedinSection1.10.060B.Thecurrentfineschedulestatesthatcode citationswillresultinfinesof$100,$200,and$500,respectively,forthefirst,second, thirdandsubsequentviolations.Staffisrecommendingthatviolationsofthe WaterfowlFeedingProhibitionOrdinancebeaddedtothelistofviolationsinSection 1.12.010Ftoestablishfinesof$50,$100,and$200,respectively.Additionally,warnings maybegiventofirsttimeviolators. 80 FiscalImpact: Therewillbesomecostsforenforcementandadministrationofthiscitationprogram; howeveritisanticipatedthatenforcementwillbeonlyoccasionalandwillbereactive ratherthanproactive. _____________________________________ Preparedby:TimmBorden,DirectorofPublicWorks DavidBrandt,CityManager ApprovedforSubmissionby: Attachments: ADraftOrdinance BRedLinedVersionofExistingOrdinance 81 ORDINANCENO.122101 ANORDINANCEOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCUPERTINO ADOPTINGSECTION13.04.130POFTHECUPERTINOMUNICIPAL CODEPROHIBITINGTHEFEEDINGOFWATERFOWLINCITYPARKS ANDAMENDINGSECTION1.12.160BTOSETAFINESPECIFICALLY FORTHISCODEVIOLATION THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCUPERTINODOESHEREBY ORDAINASFOLLOWS: Section1.CodeAmendment.Section13.04.130PandSection1.12.010Fof theCupertinoMunicipalCodeareherebyadoptedtoreadasfollows: Section13.04.130P.FeedingWaterfowlProhibited. Nopersonshallfeedorinanymannerintentionallyprovidefoodtoany waterfowl(geese,ducks,orcoots)inanyCitypark. Section1.12.010ViolationofCode. A.Itisunlawfulforanypersontoperformanyactthatisprohibited,madeor declaredtobeunlawfuloranoffensebythecode,ortoviolateanyprovisionor failtocomplywithanyoftherequirementsofthiscode.Aviolationofany provisionorfailingtocomplywithanyofthemandatoryrequirementsofthe codeshallconstituteamisdemeanor,exceptwheretheviolationisspecifically declaredtobeaninfraction. B.Notwithstandingtheabove,anyviolationconstitutingamisdemeanor may,inthediscretionoftheCityAttorney,bechargedandprosecutedasan infraction. C.Whenaviolationofaprovisionofthiscodewhichotherwiseconstitutesan infractioncontinuestooccurandtheviolatorhasbeenchargedwithaviolation ofthesameprovisionasaninfractiononatleastfourseparateoccasionsand withinoneyearhasforfeitedbailoneachsuchoccasion,inthatevent,theCity Attorney,inhisorherdiscretion,maychargeaviolationofanysuchprovision asamisdemeanor. 82 Ordinance No. 12-2101 D.Unlessotherwisespecifiedbythiscode,aninfractionispunishableby: 1.Afinenottoexceed$100forafirstviolation; 2.Afinenottoexceed$200forasecondviolationofthesamechapterof thiscodewithinoneyear;and 3.Afinenottoexceed$500forathirdviolationofthesamechapterof thiscodewithinoneyear. E.Unlessotherwisespecifiedbythiscode,amisdemeanorispunishablebya finenottoexceed$1,000,imprisonmentforatermnotexceedingsixmonths,or bybothsuchfineandimprisonment. F.Unlessotherwisespecifiedbythiscode,afineof$50shallbeissuedforthe firstinfraction,$100forthesecondinfraction,$200forthethirdinfraction,and thereafterofanimalsrunningatlarge,publicnuisance,andrestraintofdogsas specifiedinTitle8,Animals,Sections8.01.030,8.01.130,8.03.010,Title13,Section 13.04.130D,BehaviorofPersonsinParks,and13.04.130P,FeedingWaterfowl Prohibited,ofthe"¯º¿¹ordinancecode.(Ord.092043,2009;Ord.1886,(part), 2001;Ord.1697,(part),1995;Ord.1497,§1,1989;Ord.1179,§1,passed1982; Ord.854,(part),1978;Ord.829,(part),1977;Ord.692,§1,1975;Ord.500,§1, 1971) Section2.StatementofPurpose.ThisOrdinanceisintendedtoprohibit thefeedingofwaterfowlinCityparks.Intheabsenceofsucharule,many people,whilewellintentioned,createnumerousadverseconsequences, includingthespreadofdisease,sicknessofthebirds,andcompetitionforhabitat bynonnativespecies. .ShouldanyprovisionofthisOrdinance,orits Section3.Severability applicationtoanypersonorcircumstance,bedeterminedbyacourtof competentjurisdictiontobeunlawful,unenforceableorotherwisevoid,that determinationshallhavenoeffectonanyotherprovisionofthisOrdinanceor theapplicationofthisOrdinancetoanyotherpersonorcircumstanceand,tothat end,theprovisionshereofareseverable. Section4.EffectiveDate.ThisOrdinanceshalltakeeffectthirtydays afteradoption,asprovidedbyGovernmentCodeSection36937. 83 Ordinance No. 12-2101 Section5.Certification.TheCityClerkshallcertifytothepassageand adoptionofthisOrdinanceandshallgivenoticeofitsadoptionasrequiredby law.PursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection36933,asummaryofthisOrdinance maybepublishedandpostedinlieuofpublicationandpostingoftheentiretext. INTRODUCEDataregularmeetingoftheCupertinoCityCouncilthe 18thdayofDecemberandENACTEDataregularmeetingoftheCupertinoCity Councilthe15thdayofJanuary2013bythefollowingvote: VoteMembersoftheCityCouncil Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST:APPROVED: ____________ GraceSchmidt,CityClerkOrrinMahoney,Mayor 84 ORDINANCE NO. 12-2101 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTING SECTION 13.04.130 P OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE FEEDING OF WATERFOWL IN CITY PARKS AND AMENDING SECTION 1.12.160 B TO SET A FINE SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS CODE VIOLATION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Code Amendment. Section 13.04.130 Pand Section 1.12.010 Fof the Cupertino Municipal Code are hereby adopted to read as follows: Section 13.04.130 P. Feeding Waterfowl Prohibited. No person shall feed or in any manner intentionally provide food waterfowl (geese, ducks, or coots) in any City park. Section 1.12.010 Violation of Code. A. It is unlawful for any person to perform any act that is proh declared to be unlawful or an offense by the code, or to violate fail to comply with any of the requirements of this code. A violation of any provision or failing to comply with any of the mandatory require code shall constitute a misdemeanor, except where the violation declared to be an infraction. B. Notwithstanding the above, any violation constituting a misdemeanor may, in the discretion of the City Attorney, be charged and pros infraction. C. When a violation of a provision of this code which otherwise infraction continues to occur and the violator has been charged with a violation of the same provision as an infraction on at least four separate within one year has forfeited bail on each such occasion, in tha Attorney, in his or her discretion, may charge a violation of anion as a misdemeanor. 85 Ordinance No. 12-2101 Page 2 D. Unless otherwise specified by this code, an infraction is pun 1. A fine not to exceed $100 for a first violation; 2. A fine not to exceed $200 for a second violation of the same this code within one year; and 3. A fine not to exceed $500 for a third violation of the same c this code within one year. E. Unless otherwise specified by this code, a misdemeanor is pun fine not to exceed $1,000, imprisonment for a term not exceedingor by both such fine and imprisonment. F. Unless otherwise specified by this code, a fine of $50 shall first infraction, $100 for the second infraction, $200 for the t thereafter of animals running at large, public nuisance, and restraint of dogs as specified in Title 8, Animals, Sections 8.01.030, 8.01.130, 8.03 13.04.130D, Behavior of Persons in Parks, and 13.04.130P, Feeding Waterfowl Prohibited, of the Citys ordinance code. (Ord. 09-2043, 2009; Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1697, (part), 1995; Ord. 1497, § 1, 1989; Ord. 1179, Ord. 854, (part), 1978; Ord. 829, (part), 1977; Ord. 692, § 1, 1 1971) Section 2. Statement of Purpose. This Ordinance is intended to prohibit the feeding of waterfowl in City parks. In the absence of such a rule, many people, while well-intentioned, create numerous adverse consequences, including the spread of disease, sickness of the birds, and comp by non-native species. Section 3. Severability. Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a co competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwis determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circums end, the provisions hereof are severable. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption,as provided by Government Code Section 36937. 86 Ordinance No. 12-2101 Page 3 Section 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and posting o INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council th 18th day of December and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the 15th_____day of January__________ 20132 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________ ___ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Orrin Mahoney, Mayor 87 COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT CITYHALL 1010300TORREAVENUE'CUPERTINO,CA950143255 TELEPHONE:(408)7773308www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:January15,2013 Subject ArchitecturalandSiteApprovalApplicationfortheMarriotResidenceHotelKASA201211 RecommendedAction StaffrecommendsthattheCityCouncil: 1.ApprovetheproposedrefinementstothepreviouslyapprovedArchitecturalandSiteApproval (ASA201124)fortheMarriotResidencehotel,pursuanttotheattachedDraftResolution (AttachmentA). Description Applications:ASA201211 Applicant:KevinDare PropertyOwner:500ForbesLLC Location:MainStreetsoutheastcornerofVallcoParkwayandFinchAvenue (APN31620085,31620078and31620079) ApplicationSummary: OnSeptember4,2012CityCounciladoptedResolutionNo.12098(AttachmentB)approvingtheModification (M201203)tothepreviouslyapprovedMasterusePermit(U200801andM201109)andArchitecturaland SiteApproval(ASA201124)foramixeduseprojectconsistingof130,500squarefeetofretail,a180roomhotel, afivelevelparkinggaragewithtwolevelsofundergroundparking,260,000squarefeetofoffice,a120unit marketratelive/workrentalloftresidentialdevelopmentwitha9,146squarefootretailcondominiumunit,and modificationstotheparkinggarageandretailfootprints. PursuanttoResolutionNo.12098,thedesignoftheinteriorandexteriorofthehotelwasrequiredtoreturn backtotheCityCouncilforreviewandapproval,andCondition33indicatedthedesiredrefinementstothe hotelarchitecture,colors,anddetailing. : ProjectDataSummary GeneralPlanDesignation:HeartoftheCitySpecificPlanArea SpecificPlan:HeartoftheCitySpecificPlanArea ZoningDesignation:P(CG,OP,ML,Res) GrossLotArea:758,104sf(17.4acres)excludingFinchAvenue FinchAvenueAbandonment:46,500sf(1.1acres) TotalLotArea(3parcels):804,604sf(18.5acres)includingFinchAvenue 88 TotalBuildingArea:135,900sf MaximumBuildingHeight:ys ProjectConsistencywithGeneralPlan:Yes ProjectConsistencywithZoning:Yes EnvironmentalAssessment:Proposedrefinementstothearchitecturedetailsofthehotel areconsistentwiththeSeptember4,2012Addendumtothe 2009FinalEnvironmentalImpactReport Background: Thehotelproposedbytheapplicantisa180roomMarriottResidenceInn.Thishotelisconsidereda businessclasshotelthatprimarilycaterstowardsbusinesstravelersandprovideslimitedamenitiessuch asconferenceandmeetingrooms,kitchenettes,restaurantsthatservefreedailyhotbreakfasts,and businessservicecenters. Discussion: InresponsetodirectionprovidedbyCityCouncilattheSeptember4,2012hearing,andasprovidedinthe ConditionsofApprovaladoptedthroughResolution12098,theapplicantprovidedtherevisedPlanSetand OverallSitePlan(AttachmentsCandD). IndirectresponsetothedesireddesignrefinementsspecifiedinResolution12098,Condition33(B.3.a.through j.)andincoordinationwithStaffandtheconsultingcityarchitect,theapplicantoutlinedadetailedlistof changesintheprovidedDesignNarrativeandResponsetoResolution12098(AttachmentE). ArchitecturalDesign&Materials Asindicatedonthe ,§º«¸¯§²¹&Color+««´ª!providedonsheetH4ofthePlanSet(AttachmentC)thehotel architectureemploysmodernandcontemporarymaterialswitheclecticaccents. Elevations Theexteriorofthefirst,andportionsofthesecond,flooraredenotedbybrickandstoneveneerwork,storefront windows,anddecorativealuminumandmattewhiteacrylicdiffuserwallsconcesthatservetolightthe outdoorpatioareasanddemarcatetheprimaryhotelentrance.Theprimaryentranceisenhancedbya translucentglassandmetalawning(supportedbymetalcables)whiletherestaurantandbarpatiosare accentedwithasimilartranslucentglasscover,withwoodrafters,andlooselyhungdecorativefabric.The restaurant,bar,andexercisepatioareasareenclosedwithpatternedblackmetalrailings.Theremainderofthe secondstoryisshownwithsimplefixedpanewindowsandcementplaster.Immediatelyabovetheprimary entrance,steelsupportelementsforanidentitysignareshown,butwillbesubjecttofurtherreviewand refinementaspartofaseparatesignpermit. Theexteriorfaçadeofthethirdthroughfourthstoriesofthehotelispredominatelycomprisedofcement plasterandinoperablelowreflectiveglasswindows,withmetalbalconiesorspandrelglassservingtoaccent thelowerhalfoftheguestroomsonthesefloors. 89 Thefifthstorygenerallymatchesthesecondstorywiththeminoradditionofaccentuplightingservingto accentuatethemetalroofcanopiesandoverhangsoftheotherwiseflatroof.Immediatelybelowthese overhangs,thewalltreatmentisshownwithmatchingmetalcompositepanels. Thebuildingisfurtherenhancedbylightwelltowers,whichemphasizethebuildingcornersandspanfromthe secondthroughthefifthlevelsofthehotel.Thesetowersareproposedwithglazedglassandsmooth, prefinishedaluminumfinsdesignedtomatchtheroofoverhangsandmetalcompositepanels. MainEntryandPatioAreas Thehotelentrance,bar,andexerciseroompatios,andoutdoorrestaurantdiningaredesignedtobevisually invitingandopentothetownsquaretothesouthwest.Theresultengagesthetownsquare,enlivensthe streetscapeandhelpsactivatetheconnectionbetweenthehotelandtownsquare. LandscapingandStreetscape ThelandscapedesignatthecornerofVallcoParkwayandFinch(nowMainStreet)includesOaktreeswith uplighting,anewsculpturalstreamfeature,whichsignifiesthehistoricflowofthecreek,consistingof meanderingformsofglassaggregatepavingandstones,planting,andimbeddedplaquesproviding informationonthecreekandwatershed.AdditionalfloweringCherrytreesareproposedinraisedornamental plantersalongMainStreet.Thetreesareinplantersduetotheexistingcreekculvert.Thestreamconceptis furtherdevelopedintheplacementanddesignofthestormwatertreatmentareasalongtheHotelfrontage. Thestreetscapeisenhancedwithdecorativestreetlightsthatprovideafestivequalitytothedrive,and interlockingpavingstonesservetoprovidearichcolorandtexturalexperienceandcreatewellarticulated pedestriancrossings. ColorPalette Thehotelincorporateslowcontrast,warmsandandbeigecolorswithsilvermetallicaccents. Interior PursuanttoResolution12098,Condition6,thehotelwasrequiredtoprovidea6,500sf.(minimum) restaurantandmeetingspaceareaonthegroundfloorofthehotelalongthetownsquare.Theproposed planproposesarestaurantandmeetingspaceareaof7,095squarefeet,whichexceedsthisrequirement by595squarefeet.Thefirstfloorplan,asshown,issubjecttominorrevisionastheapplicantworkswith Marriottorefinethelayoutofthebathroomarea,createaprefunctionareaforthe meeting/banquet/restaurantarea,andpotentiallyexpandcirculationpaths. ConditionedItems Asconditioned,Staffwillcontinuetocoordinatewiththeapplicantonlighting,peripherallandscaping, theinteriorcourtyard,thelandscape/plazaareaatthecornerofFinchandVallcoParkway,andthestone ontheexteriorfacade.Asconditioned,staffissupportiveofthearchitectureofthehoteland surroundingsite. Signage: Signagehasnotbeenreviewedorapprovedaspartofthisapplication.Aseparatemastersignprogram andsignpermitshallberequired. 90 NoticingandCommunityOutreach: Thefollowingtableisabriefsummaryofthenoticingdoneforthisproject: NoticeofPublicHearing,SiteNotice&LegalAdAgenda SiteSignagePostedontheCitysofficialnotice (twª§¿¹¶¸¯µ¸ºµº®«®«§¸¯´)bulletinboard(µ´«½««±¶¸¯µ¸ºµº®« Legaladplacedinnewspaper®«§¸¯´) §º²«§¹ºtsª§¿¹¶¸¯µ¸ºµº®«®«§¸¯´PostedontheCityof"»¶«¸º¯´µ¹ 128noticesmailedtopropertyownersWebsite adjacenttotheprojectsite(300foot)+AdvertisedontheCityChannel Allinterestedparties(emailed/noticed) (tsª§¿¹¶¸¯µ¸ºµº®«®«§¸¯´) PublicComments: SincetheSeptember4,2012CityCouncilHearing,nopubliccommentswerereceived. EnvironmentalAssessment: Theproposedrefinementstothepreviouslyapprovedhotelarecosmeticinnatureandareconsistent withanddonotexpandthescopeoftheSeptember4,2012adoptedAddendumtothe2009Final EnvironmentalImpactReport. PermitStreamliningAct: ThismatterisadjudicatoryandissubjecttothePermitStreamliningAct(GovernmentCodeSection 65920K65964).TheCityhascompliedwiththedeadlinesfoundinthePermitStreamliningAct. ProjectReceived:December17,2012 DeemedComplete:December19,2012 SincethisprojectisCategoricallyExempt,theCityhas60days(untilFebruary17,2013)tomakea decisionontheproject.TheCity"µ»´©¯²¹decisiononthisprojectisfinalunlessappealedwithin14 calendardaysofthedateofthemailingofthedecision. _____________________________________ PreparedbyStephenRose,AssociatePlanner ReviewedbyGaryChao,CityPlanner;AartiShrivastava,DirectorofCommunityDevelopment ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: ADraftResolutionASA201211 BApprovedResolutionNo.12098 CPlanSet DOverallSitePlan(A1.0) EDesignNarrativeandResponsetoResolution12098 FLandscape,LayoutandPlantingPlan GInteriorCourtyardDetail HSeptember4,2012StaffReport 91 ASA201211 CITYOFCUPERTINO 10300TorreAvenue Cupertino,California95014 DRAFTRESOLUTION OFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCUPERTINO APPROVINGASITEANDARCHITECTURALAPPROVALFORREFINEMENTS TOAPREVIOUSLYHOTELONAN18ACRESITELOCATEDNORTHOFSTEVENS CREEKBOULEVARDBETWEENFINCHAVENUE(INCLUDINGBOTHSIDESOF FINCHAVENUE)ANDN.TANTAUAVENUE,SOUTHOFVALLCOPARKWAY IDENTIFIEDBYAPNS31620085,31620078AND31620079 SECTIONI:PROJECTDESCRIPTION ApplicationNo.:ASA201211 Applicant:KevinDare PropertyOwner:500Forbes,LLC Location:MainStreetKsoutheastcornerofVallcoParkwayandFinchAvenue (APNs31620085,31620078AND31620079) SECTIONII:FINDINGS WHEREAS,theCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinoreceivedanapplicationforrefinementsto apreviouslyapprovedhotel(locatedonthesoutheastintersectionofVallcoParkway&Finch Avenue),asdescribedinSectionIofthisResolution;and WHEREAS,thenecessarypublicnoticeshavebeengiveninaccordancewiththeProcedural OrdinanceoftheCityofCupertino,andtheCityCouncilhaveheldoneormorepublichearings onthismatter;and WHEREAS,aSecondAddendumtothe2009FinalEnvironmentalImpactReportwasprepared andadequatelyservestoaddresstheenvironmentalreviewoftheproposedapplicationin accordancewiththeCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA);and WHEREAS,theapplicanthasmettheburdenofproofrequiredtosupportsaidapplication;and hassatisfiedthefollowingrequirements: 1)Theproposedproject,attheproposedlocation,willnotbedetrimentalorinjuriousto propertyorimprovementsinthevicinity,andwillnotbedetrimentaltothepublic health,safety,generalwelfare,orconvenience;and 2)Theproposedprojectwillbelocatedandconductedinamannerinaccordwiththe CupertinoComprehensiveGeneralPlan,thepurposeoftheArchitecturalandSite 92 DraftResolutionASA201211January15,2013 ReviewChapteroftheCupertinoMunicipalCode,andcomplieswiththeCalifornia EnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA);and 3)TheproposeddevelopmentisconsistentwiththezoningregulationsandtheSouth VallcoSpecialCenterandSouthVallcoMasterPlan;and 4)TheproposeddevelopmentisconsistentwiththeHeartoftheCitySpecificPlan. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED: Thataftercarefulconsiderationofmaps,facts,exhibits,testimonyandotherevidencesubmitted inthismatter,theapplicationforArchitecturalandSiteApproval,isherebyapproved,subjectto theconditionswhichareenumeratedinthisResolutionbeginningonPage2thereof;and Thatthesubconclusionsuponwhichthefindingsandconditionsspecifiedinthisresolutionare basedandcontainedinthepublichearingrecordconcerningApplicationNo.ASA201211as setforthintheMinutesoftheCityCouncilMeetingofJanuary15,2013,andareincorporatedby referenceasthoughfullysetforthherein. SECTIONIII:CONDITIONSADMINISTEREDBYTHECOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTDEPT. 1.APPROVEDEXHIBITS Thisapprovalisbasedonthefollowingexhibits,includedintheJanuary15,2013staff report,exceptamaybeamendedbytheconditionscontainedinthisresolution. AttachmentCK /²§´2«º! datedDecember7,2012,consistingofHotel RenderingsandpagesH1,H2,H2.1,H3,H4,H5,H5.1,andH6. AttachmentDK .¼«¸§²²Site/²§´! datedNovember15,2012,consistingofsheetA1.0. AttachmentFK +§´ª¹©§¶« Layout,andPlanting/²§´! datedOctober15,2012, consistingofpagesL1,L2.8,andL4.8. AttachmentGK (´º«¸¯µ¸Courtyard#«º§¯²! datedDecember17,2012,consistingofa separate,yetredundantlytitled,L1exhibit. 2.CONCURRENTAPPROVALCONDITIONS TheconditionsofapprovalcontainedinResolutionNo.12054,12055,12056,12098,M 201203,ASA201210,andTM201204shallbeapplicabletothisapproval,unless otherwiseamendedbythisresolution. 3.ANNOTATIONOFTHECONDITIONSOFAPPROVAL Priortobuildingpermitissuance,theconditionsofapprovalsetforthshallbe incorporatedintoandannotatedonthefirstpageofthebuildingplans. 4.LIGHTING&REFLECTIVITY Priortobuildingpermitissuance,theexteriorlightingandmaterialsofthehotelshall requireaphotometricstudytodeterminetheappropriatenumberandenergyoutputof lights,andamount/impactofglareresultingfromthechosenmaterialsandfinishing. 93 DraftResolutionASA201211January15,2013 Pursuanttothisstudy,modificationstotheselectedmaterials,finishing,placement, number,andlocationofthelightingshallbesubjecttoCityreviewandapproval. 5.PERIPHERALLANDSCAPING/SITEFEATURES Priortobuildingpermitfinal,theperipherallandscapingandsitefeaturesshallbe subjecttofinalrefinementandapprovalbytheCommunityDevelopmentDirector. 6.INTERIORCOURTYARD Priortobuildingpermitissuance,thefinaldesignoftheinteriorcourtyardofthehotel shallbesubjecttoCityreviewandapproval. 7.ACCURACYOFTHEPROJECTPLANS Theapplicant/propertyownerisresponsibletoverifyallpertinentpropertydata includingbutnotlimitedtopropertyboundarylocations,buildingsetbacks,property size,buildingsquarefootage,anyrelevanteasementsand/orconstructionrecords.Any misrepresentationofanypropertydatamayinvalidatethisapprovalandmayrequire additionalreview. 8.CONSULTATIONWITHOTHERDEPARTMENTS Theapplicantisresponsibletoconsultwithotherdepartmentsand/oragencieswithregardtothe proposedprojectforadditionalconditionsandrequirements.Anymisrepresentationofany submitteddatamayinvalidateanapprovalbytheCommunityDevelopmentDepartment. 9.CONSTRUCTIONMANAGEMENTPLAN Aconstructionmanagementplanshallbepreparedbytheapplicantandapprovedbystaffprior toissuanceofbuildingpermits.DuringPhaseIand2oftheconstruction,stagingofconstruction andequipmentshalloccurasfarawayfromanyresidentialpropertyaspossible.Theapplicant shallalsoprovideaconstructionmanagerhotlinephonenumberforresidentsoftheadjacent Metropolitancondominiumcomplextocallforconstructionrelatedactivitiesontheprojectsite. ThehotlinenumbershallalsobepostedontheprojectsiteandattheMetropolitancondominium complex.Saidconstructionmanagementplanshallalsoprovidethefollowing: A.ConstructionVehicleAccessandRouting B.ConstructionEquipmentStagingArea C.DustControl(BestManagementPractices) D.HoursofOperation E.StreetCleaningScheduleandProgram 10.MATERIALSANDCOLORS Priortobuildingpermitissuance,theapplicantshallprovidematerialboardswiththe finalselectionofmaterialsandcolorsforthehotelandassociatedgrounds,includingbut notlimitedto,requiringrealstonewhereindicatedforthefirstandsecondstoryveneer, andtheuseofqualitymaterialsfordecorativearchitecturalfeatures,tothesatisfactionof theCommunityDevelopmentDirector. 94 DraftResolutionASA201211January15,2013 11.ALTERATIONS Minoralterationstothehotelorassociatedgrounds,occurringafterbuildingpermit final,includinganychangeofmaterial,color,ordesignofthebuildingshallbesubjectto reviewandapprovalbytheCommunityDevelopmentDirector.Atthediscretionofthe Director,significantalterationscanbereferredtothePlanningCommissionorCity Councilforreviewandapproval. 12.TRANSFORMERS Electricaltransformers,telephonecabinetsandsimilarequipmentshallbeplacedin undergroundvaults.ThedevelopermustreceivewrittenapprovalfromboththePublic WorksDepartmentandtheCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentpriortoinstallationof anyabovegroundequipment.Shouldabovegroundequipmentbepermittedbythe City,equipmentandenclosuresshallbescreenedwithfencingandlandscapingsuchthat saidequipmentisnotvisiblefrompublicstreetareas,asdeterminedbytheCommunity DevelopmentDepartment.Transformersshallnotbelocatedinthefrontorsidebuilding setbackarea. 13.SCREENING Allmechanicalandotherequipmentonthebuildingoronthesiteshallbescreenedso theyarenotvisiblefrompublicstreetareasoradjoiningdevelopments.Screening materials/colorsshallmatchbuildingfeaturesandmaterials.Theheightofthescreening shallbetallerthantheheightofthemechanicalequipmentthatitisdesignedtoscreen. Thelocationofequipmentandnecessaryscreeningshallbereviewedandapprovedby theDirectorofCommunityDevelopmentpriortoissuanceofbuildingpermits. 14.SIGNPROGRAM Asignprogramisrequiredforthisproject.Thesignprogramshallbeapprovedbythe DirectorofCommunityDevelopmentpriortoissuanceofsignpermits. 15.RESTAURANTODORABATEMENT Allnewrestaurantsshallinstallodorabatementsystemstoreduceodorimpactsfromthe restaurantstotheadjacentcommunity.Theodorabatementsystemsshallbeinstalled priortofinaloccupancyoftheassociatedrestaurant(s).Detailedplansshallbereviewed andapprovedbytheDirectorofCommunityDevelopmentpriortoissuanceofbuilding permits. 16.INDEMINIFICATION Totheextentpermittedbylaw,theApplicantshallindemnifyandholdharmlessthe City,itsCityCouncil,itsofficers,employeesandagents(the ¯´ª«³´¯¬¯«ª¶§¸º¯«¹!from andagainstanyclaim,action,orproceedingbroughtbyathirdpartyagainstthe indemnifiedpartiesandtheapplicanttoattack,setaside,orvoidthisordinanceorany 95 DraftResolutionASA201211January15,2013 permitorapprovalauthorizedherebyfortheproject,including(withoutlimitation) reimbursingtheCityitsactual§ººµ¸´«¿¹feesandcostsincurredindefenseofthe litigation.TheCitymay,initssolediscretion,electtodefendanysuchactionwith attorneysofitschoice. 17.NOTICEOFFEES,DEDICATIONS,RESERVATIONSOROTHEREXACTIONS TheConditionsofProjectApprovalsetforthhereinmayincludecertainfees,dedication requirements,reservationrequirements,andotherexactions.PursuanttoGovernment CodeSection66020(d)(1),theseConditionsconstitutewrittennoticeofastatementofthe amountofsuchfees,andadescriptionofthededications,reservations,andother exactions.Youareherebyfurthernotifiedthatthe90dayapprovalperiodinwhichyou mayprotestthesefees,dedications,reservations,andotherexactions,pursuantto GovernmentCodeSection66020(a),hasbegun.Ifyoufailtofileaprotestwithinthis90 dayperiodcomplyingwithalloftherequirementsofSection66020,youwillbelegally barredfromlaterchallengingsuchexactions. PASSEDANDADOPTEDataregularmeetingoftheCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinothis 15dayofJanuary,2013,bythefollowingvote: th VoteMembersoftheCityCouncil AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:APPROVED: ___________________________________________ GraceSchmidtOrrinMahoney CityClerkMayor,CityofCupertino 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 Marriott Residence Inn Cupertino 14 December 2012 Design narrative and response to Resolution 12-098. A part of the Main Street Cupertino development, the Marriott Residence Inn hotel is an integral component of this mixed use project. The architecture offers design connections to the overall develo architectural elements that distinguishes it from its counterparBeing part of this rich mix of buildings and ground level activity, the architecture may be described as contemporary and urban-esque, with eclectic architectural overlays. There are with metal fins to accentuate horizontality, surrounded by composite metal and capped with a metal parapet and canopy. These glass elements provide visual separation for the articulated façade planes that house recessed windows. Recessed and surface mounted light fixtures accent the building at night by highlighting the glass area wall surfaces, ledges, and canopies. Over the main entrance is a glass canopy, supported by a cable a structure, and a composite metal parapet and canopy at the roof. Visually inviting and contributing to pedestrian activity, the bar faces and opens to the town square and is flanked by an outdoor covered patio and decorative fe In response to the resolution 12-098, please see the following for the hotel: a.Architectural and Site Approval application for the design of theing returned back to the City Council for review and approval. b.The exterior architectural design of the hotel will be of the sa Marriott Residence Inn in the Gaslamp District of San Diego. c.Variation in height, wall articulation, etc. 1.The main hotel arrival/entry is accentuated by its unique glass & me structure with hotel signage, differing building façade color, and major roof canopy of composite metal. 2.Added façade detail in cut stone, brick coursing and relief 3.Varied parapet heights 4.Provided articulated façade planes of differing depth 5.Added both brick and stone base material around building 6. between hotel and town square 7.Studied the option to add windows on the south side of the banqu not achieve sufficient benefits over functional requirements of and may over emphasize that area of between areas the 2 buildings. 8.Provided some additional railings at ground level, e.g., fitness / exercise room d.Enhance architectural detailing, etc. similar to above 1.Rescaled canopy & operable door at bar 2.Added detail at ground level bar patio railing, canopies, indoor/outdoor bar with bar counter and terrace / bistro seating e.Provide deep recessed window, etc. 1.Recesses at the window are provided and in keeping with the arch layouts f.Increase horizontal elements 1.Horizontal elements are integrated in a composition of accentuat provide a high degree of variation, including canopies, strong s accentuated glass mullions g.Add patio space 1.Patio area will be addressed as part of a comprehensive landscap light the Finch and Vallco Parkway corner, creating both public,-private, and more private/secure areas along the building (security is important both actual and perceived) h.Pedestrian scale detailing of building and town square 133 1.Streetscape planting, paving materials and patterns, lighting (st will be integrated and addressed in the landscape package. i.Tone down contrasting colors 1.More subtle colors now incorporated j.Provide outdoor dining 1.Accomplished by engaging bar patio that opens to town square This design of the Marriott Residence Inn captures the design sensibility of an urban-esque, contemporary building that is architecturally unique, expresses design and material qu appropriate design and functional layouts, and encourages and actes adjoining spaces within its immediate context. 134 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: September 4, 2012 Subject Modification to the Main Street Cupertino mixed-use development. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council approvethe following: 1.Modification (M-2012-03) to the previously-approved Master Use Permit (U-2008-01 and M-2011-09) and Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2011-24)for a mixed-use project consisting of 130,500 square feet of retail, a 180-room hotel, 260,000 square feet of office and a 120-unit market-rate live/work rental loft residential development, including the modifications to the parking garage and retail.(See Attachment A for the draft resolution). 2.Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2012-10) for the conceptual approval of 120 market-rate rental residential live/work rental loft units and modifications to the parking garage and retail(See Attachment B for the draft resolution). 3.Modification to the previously-approved Tentative Map (TM-2012-04) to subdivide five (5)parcels into six (6) parcels including one lot for the retail, park and town square; one lot for each of the two office buildings; one lot for the hotel; one lot for the market-rate rental residential units; and one common area parcel for the parking garage to serve the retail, hotel and office buildings(See Attachment C for the draft resolution). 4.Second Addendum tothe Final Certified 2009Environmental Impact Report EA-2012-05 (See Attachment D) Staff also recommends additional conditions related to the phasing, parcel ownership, Architectural and Site Review of the site plan, retail buildings, parking garage and live/work rental loft building that are included in the conditions of approval. Description Applications:M-2012-03(EA-2012-05), ASA-2012-10, TM-2012-04 Applicant:Kevin Dare Property Owner:500 Forbes LLC Location:North side of Stevens Creek Boulevard (3 vacant lots) between Finch Avenue and N. Tantau Avenue (APN 316-20-085, 316-20-078 and 316- 20-079) 139 Project Data Summary: General Plan Designation: Heart of the City Specific Plan Area Specific Plan: Heart of the City Specific Plan Area Zoning Designation: P (CG, OP, ML, Res) Gross Lot Area: 758,104 sf (17.4 acres) excluding Finch Avenue Finch Avenue Abandonment: 46,500 sf (1.1 acres) Total Lot Area (3 parcels): 804,604 sf (18.5 acres) including Finch Avenue Total Building Area: 645,776 sf (exclusive of the parking garage) Total Parking: 1,984 spaces(staff recommends 2008spaces) Parking Garage 1: 1,370 spaces Parking Garage 2: 204 spaces(staff recommends 216 spaces) Surface: 325 spaces(staff recommends 337 spaces) Street: 85 spaces Setbacks Stevens Creek Blvd: 1.5:1 (1.5 foot setback for every 1 foot of building height); (Front/Corner Front) minimum 35 feet N. Tantau Avenue: 1.5:1 (1.5 foot setback for every 1 foot of building height): (Corner Front) minimum 35 feet Vallco Parkway: 15 feet from office; 20 feet from parking garage, 15 feet (Street Side Yard) from hotel, and 20 feet from retail or athletic club Side Yard Setback: One-half (1/2) the height of the building, or ten (10) feet, (next to Metropolitan whichever is greater and Rosebowl developments) Proposed Lots Areas: Lot 1: 11 acres (for the retail buildings, park, town square and internal roadways) Lot 2: 1.5 acres (for the corner office building) Lot 3: 1.5 acres (for the office building along Vallco Parkway) Lot 4: 1.5 acres (for the hotel) Lot 5: 1.6 acres (for the market-rate rental live/work loft apartment complex) Common Area Lot: 1.5 acres (for the parking garage for the benefit of parcels 1 through 4) Condominiums: A two-unit retail condominium parcel on Lot 5 consisting ofone condo for the 120-apartment block and a second condo for the ground floor retail block. 140 Development Allocation proposed (total available citywide): Retail Commercial:130,500 square feet, already allocated in 2009 approval (balance of 220,237 square feet available citywide) Office:260,000 square feet, 100,000 square feet of which was already allocated in 2009 approval (balance of 17,956 square feet available citywide, except for North Vallco, which has a balance of 87,746 square feet) Senior Housing:143 units, already allocated in 2009 approval (balance of 1,954) units available citywide) Hotel:180 rooms, already allocated in 2009 approval (balance of 339 rooms available citywide) Project Consistency with General Plan: Yes Project Consistency with Zoning: Yes Environmental Assessment: Second Addendum to the 2009 Final Environmental Impact Report Application Background and Summary: On May 15, 2012, the City Council approved a Modification (M-2011-09) to the Master Use Permit, Master Architecturaland Site Approval, and Tree Removal Permit that were originally granted in January of 2009; Architectural and Site approval (ASA-2011-24) for the conceptual site and design approval of the proposed buildings; a Tentative Map (TM-2011-04) for the 18- acre Main Street Cupertino mixed-use development; and an Addendum to the Final Certified 2009 Environmental Impact Report. The development plan that was approved is labeled Option A(1)-2 (See Attachment E) and includes approval of: 138,700 square feet of retail space, including a maximum allowance of 53,538 square feet (or 38.6% of the total retail space) to be used as restaurant space 180-room, five-story hotel (Marriott Residence Inn) 260,000 square feet of office space consisting of two office buildings each130,000 square feet 143-unit senior market-rate age-restricted apartment complex with underground parking Afive-level above-ground parking garage with two levels of underground parking with 1,414 parking spaces Total parking of 2,176 spaces, including the parking garage for the retail, office and hotel, and the parking garage for the senior housing complex, surface parking within the project site and street parking along the south side of Vallco Parkway A 0.80 acre town square with two retail pad shops Apark and a 20-foot wide buffer along the western perimeter of the site totaling 0.75 acres Tentative Map to subdivide the site into five (5) parcels consisting of one lot for the retail, parking garage, park and town square; one lot for the hotel; one lot for the senior 141 age-restricted housing; and one lot for each office building. No condominiums were approved as part of this approval. Requirements for separate Architectural and Site Approvals for the final review and approval of each of the buildings in accordance with the conditions of approval with all buildings requiring DRC approval, except for the hotel,which requires City Council approval. Approved Development Plan (May 15, 2012) At the May 15, 2012 City Council meeting (See Attachment F for Minutes to the meeting), Sand Hill Property Company indicated that although senior age-restricted housing was still being proposed as part of their Master Plan, they had neither yet been able to find a developer interested in developing the senior housing component of the project, nor a financier who would be willing to finance the development of senior housing at this time. During the discussion at the meeting, the applicant indicated he would be able to build a non-age-restricted market-rate project or a commercial office building with retail on the first floor in the same phase as the rest of the project. Staff had indicated that any additional office space proposed would, however, require a General Plan Amendment to increase the office allocation since there would not be enough office allocation to accommodate additional office building at this time. The City Council expressed concern about the ability of the applicant to complete development of the project if it appeared unlikely that the senior housing site could be constructed in a timely manner, particularly if this parcel were left undeveloped for years. The Council felt this would be detrimental to the function and operation of the project site as a mixed-use development, and more critically, as a pedestrian downtown area, without the critical mass of the maximum retail uses to surround the town square and without ensuring a finished development. 142 As a result, the City Council conditioned the project with a phased timeline, including limiting the approval of the modification application to three (3) years during which time building permits must be filed for Phase I identified as the retail buildings, parking garage, hotel and office buildings, and to four (4) years for Phase II identified as the park and the senior age-restricted housing complex. Additionally, the park is required to be completed within four (4) years of the modification approval. The Council also required the applicant to return to the City Council no later than six (6) months from modification approval to update the Council on the progress related to developing the senior housing complex and discuss alternatives for the senior housing parcel. Discussion Following thisapproval, onAugust 28, 2012, Kevin Dare on behalf of500 Forbes, LLC, submitted applications for a Modification (M-2012-03) to the recently-approvedMaster Use Permitto consider the removal of the age-restriction on the market-rate rental residential apartment complex;Architectural and Site Approval for the conceptualdesign of the market-rate rental residential live/work loft complexand modifications to the parking garage and retail building footprints;a modification to the Tentative Map; anda Second Addendum to the Final Certified 2009 Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Thesefulfill the requirement to provide a plan that can be built entirely in one phase. The applicant notes that they have reviewed the possibilities for senior, age-restricted housing and are still not able to find a developer or financier to back the development of this type of use. They are therefore, requesting to modify the Master Use Permit to propose removing the age-restriction on the market-apartment complex and allow for a substitution of 143 senior age-restricted units with 120 market-rate rental loft units, 19 of which have a live/work component. In addition to the above applications, the applicant is also asking to modify the parking garage and retail building footprints; and amodification to the Tentative Map (TM-2012-04) to subdivide the property into six parcels,includingtwo retail condominium units for ground floor retail uses on the residential parcel Proposed New Development Plan The proposed new development plan(Attachment G)includes: A five-story live/workrental loft apartment complex with 120 market-rate rental units and two retail condominiums on the ground floor of the apartment complex consisting of 9,146 square feet of retail spacefacing the town square (in lieu of the 143 senior housing units). 130,500 square feet of retail space, including a maximum allowance of 52,600 square feet of restaurant use (or approximately 40% of the retail space). (This entails an 8,200 square foot reduction in retail space, including aslight reduction of 938 square feet of restaurant th uses than in the recently-approved May 15 development plan due to the required offset in traffic generation and parking to allow the substitution of 143 senior age-restricted units by120 non-age restricted market-rate rental loft-style units). Additionally, the applicant 143 has made minor adjustments to the size, location and building footprints of the retail buildings to more closely align with the marketing demands of potential tenants for the project site. 260,000 square feet of office consisting of two offices each at 130,000 square feet (no th changes from the May 15 approved plan) th Five-story, 180 room hotel (no changes from the May 15approved plan) Total parking of 1,984 spaces, including a five-level above-ground parking garage with two levels of underground parking to serve the retail, hotel and office uses, an underground parking garage for the live/work rental loft units consisting of 204 spaces, 325 surface parking stalls within the development site, and 85 spaces of street parking along the south side of Vallco Parkway.(This is a reduction of parking from the previously-approved plan which provided a total of 2,176 spaces.) A reduction in the massing, size and footprint of the parking garage along Vallco Parkway. Tentative Map to subdivide the property into six (6) lots and a two-unit condominium(one for the 120-apartment block and one for the retail block). (The previous approval was for five (5) lots, with the parking garage part of the retail, park and town square lot) Architectural and Site Approval for the conceptual review and approval of the market-rate live/work rental loft building and modifications to the building sizes and footprints of the retail buildings and the parking garage.The applicant will be submitting separate Architectural and Site Approval applications for the final designs of the retail, office, hotel and live/work rental loft buildings, the parking garage, the park and the town square following approval of the new development plan. Reduction in the size of the useable area of the park from .75 acres to approximately .55 acres. The Council allowed the reduction in the useable area of the park to accommodate a 20-foot wide landscape buffer along the western perimeter of the site adjacent to the Metropolitan mixed-use complex. Addition of a7,067 square footretail building (retail shop 8) adjacent to the park across from the town square. Reduction in the square footage of “incubator” flex space along the southern perimeter of the parking garage45,000 square feet to 34,419 square feet. The reduction is due to the addition of the new retail building (shop 8) next to the park and additional square footage to the retail space in the live/work rental loft apartment complex. 144 Proposed New Development Plan Consistency with General Plan and Zoning The project site is located in the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area per the General Plan and Zoning map with a specific zoning and land use designation of P(CG, OP, ML, Res).The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as was previously the case with the last modification that was approved by the City Council on May 15, 2012. In accordance with the General Plan, building heights may not exceed 45 feet in the South Vallco area, unless there is a retail component to the building in which case the building height may be extended to a maximum height of 60 feet. The buildings exceeding 45 feet in height are the two office buildings, which will have ground floor retail uses within them; the live/work rental loft apartment building which will have a two-unit retail ground floor condominium facing town square; the hotel, which will have a restaurant on the ground floor facing the town square; and the parking garage serving the retail, hotel and offices, which will have the incubator and retail shops buildings attached to the south side of the parking garage building. The parking garage will be separated from the retail/incubator buildings by a parcel line in order to keep all the retail within one parcel, but will be physically attached with a walkway and function and appear as one building. 145 Architecture and Design Retail Buildings The proposed changes to the retail buildings include minor modifications to the building sizes and footprints to accommodate the marketing demands of the potential retail and restaurant tenants. The City’s Architectural Advisor has reviewed the revised development plan related to the retail buildings and has provided the following comments: Improvethe design of the retail padsin the town square, including the transparent feel of these buildings. Provide special design treatments between retail Shops 7 and 8 buildings to better connect pedestrians/customers between the park and the town square area. Site Plan and Surface Parking Lot Slight modifications have been made to the site plan and surface parking lot with this new development plans. The following are comments provided by the City’s Architectural Advisor: Provide angled parking along the north side of the plaza between the retail Shop 5 building and retail Pad 3 buildingrather than parallel parking to gain additional parking spaces, and to provide more easily accessible parking. A single-wide crosswalk is desirable between theincubator building and the retail Pad 3 building. Lane transitions seem awkward and sharp at the main driveway entrance from Stevens Creek Boulevard. Parking Garage and Attached Retail/Incubator Space Modifications to the parking garage include the reduction in the parking garage volume and additional setbacks along Vallco Parkway from the front elevations. This has reduced the massing along Vallco Parkway and is supported by staff. The garage façade has also beenmoved behind the retail/incubator spaceon the side facing Stevens Creek Boulevard, which is an improvement.However, staff will need to review the retail elevation and the rest of the parking garage elevation so that ithas the look and feel of an upscale Main Street location providing more of a building feel than a utilitarian feel.With the proposed changes, the parking garage, is still five-levels above ground and two-levels below ground at a height of 59 feet 11 inches, which is consistent with the approval of the parking garage granted in May by the City Council for a 60- foot high, five-level above ground garage with the two levels of below ground parking. Further, analley has been added to provide another north-south connection to the parcel, which is an improvement on the circulation since it takes the pressure off the town square loop, particularly where the office complex is concerned.The City’s Architectural Advisor has reviewed the plans and has provided the following additional comments: Left and right turn lanes from the eastern driveway entrance to the parking garage along Vallco Parkway should be required to avoid back-ups onto the street. Access to the parking garage for the hotel valet may not be convenient or speedy. 146 Live/Work Loft Rental Apartment Complex The applicant hassubmitted conceptual architectural elevations, floor plans and site plan for the proposed live/work loft rental apartment complex(See Attachment G). The building will be five- stories consisting of 120 units and 9,146 square feet of retail uses (retail shop 9) on the ground floor facing the town square, and two levels of underground parking. As indicated by the applicant(See Attachment Hfor the applicant’s letter of justification), the proposed live/work loft rental units will be marketed towards professionals with a need for office/work space and will notbe conducive for family living. Allof the units will be loft style studio or one bedroom apartments; however, the ground floor units will have the additional work space area consisting of floor to ceiling glass storefronts.Units which could be suitableand more conducivefor senior living are the studio and strictly one-bedroom units since they are on a single level. A total of 54 units (16 studio and 38 one-bedroom)are proposed in the complex. The other 66one-bedroom units with attached work/loft/den areas are two levels units. The units will range in size from 550 square feet to 1,900 square feet with an average unit size of 1,031 square feet. The unit mixand thepercentage of each unit type are indicated in the tables below: The conceptual architectural style of the building is shown on the elevations, which is proposed to have stucco exterior walls with differing siding materials, aluminum storefront windows along the ground floorfor the live/work units, and accents including painted metal canopies/awnings, translucent glass railings and stone tile. 147 The applicant will be required to submit a separate Architectural and Site Approval application for the finalapartment complex design to bereviewedand approvedby the Design Review Committee (DRC). A condition of approval has been added to this effect. City Architectural Advisor Comments The City’s Architectural Advisor has reviewed the plans and recommends (See AttachmentI)the following additional changes to thedesign of thelive/work rental loft apartment building including: Some examples include: 1.Adding distinctive details to the corners and end caps of the building to emphasize the building. 2.Provide additional design articulation on certain portions of the building so that the changes in surfaces do not appear flat. 3.Additional clarification to better understand the design specifics. 4.Adding transparent balcony features for some units along the Town Square to denote a residential feel. 5.Enhance the ground floor treatmenton the retail buildings. 6.Providing deep set windows to enhance the elevations. 7.Providing adequate and attractive screening for trash enclosures. These above comments have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project. Trafficand Parking A trip generation and parking analysis was prepared by Fehr and Peers (See Attachment Din Appendix Ain the Second Addendum to the Final Certified 2009 Environmental Impact Report which concluded the estimated trip generation for the new development plan would have similar trip generation compared to previous development plans reviewed in the Final Certified 2009 Environmental Impact Reportand the 2012 Addendum to the EIR(See table below). Additionally, the analyses indicated that the new development plan would not result in new or substantially more severe significant intersection and freewayimpacts than were identified in the Final Certified 2009 EIR and 2012 Addendum to the EIR, except that the new development plan would no longer result in a significant level of service impact to the intersection of Bollinger and Lawrence Expressway. 148 The following are the intersections and freeway segments analyzed in the Final Certified 2009 EIR and 2012 Addendum and resulted in significant impacts: Homestead Road/Lawrence Expressway (AM and PM peak hours); Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway (PM peak hour only); Lawrence Expressway/I-280 SB Ramps (AM and PM peak hours); Bollinger Road/Lawrence Expressway (AM and/or PM peak hour); I-280 Eastbround, Lawrence Expressway to I-880 (three segments, PM peak hour only); I-280 Westbound, I-880 to Lawrence Expressway (three segments, AM and/or PM peak hour); Parking The project approved by the Council in May 2012 provided a total of 2,176 parking spaces. This exceeded the unshared requirement per the City Code (2,017 spaces) as well as the unshared ITE demand (1,890 spaces). Applicant’s Proposal The proposed total parking of 1,984 spaces is less than the 2,176 spaces providedin the development plan that was approved in May. However, the parking analyses indicates that proposed 1,984 parking spaces still exceeds the ITE, Institute of Transportation Engineers, (unshared parking demand (1,928 spaces) and the ULI (Urban Land Institute) shared parking demand(1,717 spaces)calculations, and is only slightly below, or 25 spaces short, ofthe City Code unshared parking calculation of 2,009 spaces.(See Parking Analysis Table below) Per the applicant’s proposal,the parking in the underground garage below the residential building will be reserved for residents of the live/work rental apartment complex and will not be shared with other uses on the development site. However, the retail portion will share the surface parking and parking in the main garage along with the rest of the retail spaces on the site. The applicant is 149 also proposing to reserve spaces in the underground garage for the exclusive use of the office complex. The balance of the spaces in the parking garage and the surface parking area are proposed to be shared by the hotel and retail uses. Parking Analysis Table Staff Recommendation Staff recommends adding 24spaces in the following locations for a total of 2,008 spaces. A condition of approval has been provided to require the additional spaces. Residential Garage The applicant is proposing a ratio of 1.7 spaces per unit for the residential complex or a total of 204 spaces in an underground garage below the residential building. Staff believes that the parking ratio should be increased to 1.8 spaces per unit, for a total of 216 spaces (similar to what is being recommendedfor other apartment complexes). This would require an addition of 12 spaces in the underground garage below the residential building. Additionally, in keeping with the parking ordinance, each apartment unit will be assigned at least one covered parking space. Surface parking area near Shop 5 and Pad 3 Buildings Staff believes that 12 additional parkingspacescan be incorporated by converting the parallel parking along the south side of the plaza near the retail Shop 5 building and Pad 3 buildings to angled parking. This would increase the total parking to approximately to 2,008 parking spaces which is comparable to the minimum parking per theCity Code unshared parking requirement of 2,009 spaces. The applicant feels that the parking would reduce the size of the plaza in front of the stores. However, staff believes that the angled parking would provide more of an amenity for shoppers and makeit more attractive to park as compared to the 150 parallel parking. Additionally, the plaza can be designed to be attractive even with the reduced format. The parking amount (2,008 spaces) recommended by staff is one (1)space short of the City’s unshared parking requirement and 80spaces more than the ITE unshared parking demand. The recommended level is relatively higher than that approved forthe original project in 2009 where the projectprovided 1,691 parking spaces which exceededthe estimated unsharedITE parking demand, but was 200 spaces short ofthe unshared parking demand according to the City Code (1,891spaces).Staff believes that the 2,008 spaces will allow adequate parking for each useand ensure the availability of convenient parkingfor retail customers. Student Generation Analyses During the initial review phase of therecent modification application to the Master Use Permit, the applicant at one point proposed to include 120 market-rate studio and one bedroom apartment units on the same site as this housing proposal in thenew development plan.Although the applicant removed the option for market-rate apartments during the Planning Commission meetingof the most recent modification application, a studentgeneration analyses(See AttachmentJ)had been preparedby Schoolhouse Services that estimateda market-rate apartment complex of 120 studio and one-bedroom apartments would generate a total of 32 students, including 18 elementary students, 7 middle school students and 7 high school students. Schoolhouse Services has reviewed (See Appendix B in Attachment D) this housing proposal for the 120 live/work rental loft style units and concludes that there is negligible difference in the expected student generation from the previous study and that further analyses is not needed, since the description of these live/work rental loft units has been further clarified to indicate some units will have a work space with floor to ceiling glass storefronts that would likely preclude its use as a bedroom, that half of the proposed units are lofts and therefore not increase the probability of families living in these units with children, and many of the units would have dens that would not be designed as bedrooms. Tentative Map The tentative map (See Attachment K) proposes to subdivide the property into six (6) lots. Lot 1 is 11 acres and encompasses the retail buildings, the park, the town square and all of the internal roadways and surface parking. Lot 2 includes the corner office building and is 1.5 acres. Lot 3 includes the other office building and is 1.5 acres. Lot 4 is for the hotel and is 1.5 acres. Lot 5 is for the market-rate live/work rental loft apartment complex and includes a two-unit condominium parcel; one for the apartments and the other forthe retail. Lot A, or the sixth lot, is the Common Area Parcel encompassing the parking garage for the benefit of Lots 1-4 (retail, hotel and office uses). The live/work rental loft complex will provide its own underground parking garage. The two-unit condominium parcel on Lot 5, the live/work rental loft apartment complex lot, is necessary because the owner and operator of the live/work apartment complex will be different than the owner and operator of the retail uses. The applicant has agreedthat his proposal is to have all retail on the entire site under singleownership. This means that all of the retail buildings including the retail under the residential component and that attached to the parking garage will be 151 under the same ownership as the retail on Lot 1. A condition of approval to this effect has been added. Regarding the request for an additional parcel for the parking garage, staff believes that the separation of the parking garage for the retail, office and hotel by a common area lot (Parcel A) from the incubator retail buildings on Lot 1 is necessaryas it simplifies the operations of the project. In addition, the common area designation and will prevent it from being sold as a separate parcel with development potential. The tentative map shows a common area easement over all internal roadways, the park and the town square. However, staff has conditioned the project to require the following clarifications be added to the tentative map as was clarified in the previously-approved tentative map in May: All of the internal roadways shall have a public driving and parking access easement over them. Additionally, public access areas may not be closed off without the consent and approval of the Public Works Department. There shall be a public access and use easement across and over the park and the town square. There shall also be a public access easement for vehicular and pedestrian travel to link Stevens Creek Boulevard with Vallco Parkway, the park and the town square. Phasing The applicanthas now indicated that the project can be built in one phase if the market-rate rental loft apartment complex is approved in lieu of the age-restricted apartments. Therefore, staff is recommending a three-year time frame for the entire project. Staff haschanged the original conditions to allow a three-year time frame for the permits. Additionally, in the conditions related to phasing, staff has added Condition D (shown in the underlined text below) to theoriginal set of conditions to ensure that the park and residential project are completed at the same time. A performance bond for the park construction (not less than $1.125 million) shall be required in Phase I. The applicant shall work with staff on the appropriate timing for acceptance of the performance bond and completion of the park. If the park is not completed to the satisfaction of the City within three (3) years from the date of approval of the permit, the City shall have the option of calling in the bond and constructing the park. A. Prior to granting a certificate of occupancy for the first of the hotel or office buildings, the Town Square, street and sidewalk improvements along Finch Avenue loop and the street and sidewalk improvements along the interior roadway connecting Finch Avenue loop to the office parcel shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City. B. Prior to granting a certificate of occupancy for the second of the hotel or office buildings, certificates of completion for shell, core, exterior facades and related landscaping and improvements shall be obtained for at least 50% of the retail approved for the project. C. Prior to granting a certificate of occupancy for the third of the hotel or office buildings, certificates of completion for shell, core, exterior facades and related 152 landscaping and improvements shall be obtained for all the retail buildings located east of Finch Avenue loop. D. Prior to granting a certificate of occupancy for the live/work loft and retail building, the park shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City. Environmental Review Committee Recommendation A Second Addendum to the Final Certified 2009 EIR has been prepared (dated August 2012) (See Attachment D) which studied the new development plan in comparison to the other development plans analyzed in the Final Certified 2009 EIR and 2012 Addendum. A traffic impact and parking analyses and student generation review were conducted and prepared with this Second Addendum. The results of the Second Addendum concluded that the new development plan that is being proposed would not result in new or more substantially significant environmental impacts than previously disclosed in the Final Certified 2009 EIR and 2012 Addendum. On August 16, 2012, the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)reviewed and unanimously recommended approval of the Second Addendum. The ERC, however, provided comments and asked questions for clarifications on the following. Staff responses to each have been provided in italics: 1.Why the proposed parking plan changed the parking layout on the internal street south of the parking garage and retail incubator buildings from angled parking to parallel parking. The ERC also asked if some spaces could be restored to angled parking to gain additional parking spaces.Staff has added a condition to convertthe parallel parking spaces in front of the Shop 5 building and the Pad 3 building to angled parking to gain12additional parking spaces. 2.What is the size of therectangular portion of the park not including the 20-foot buffer space?The reduced park size is approximately 0.55 acres.Including the buffer space brings the park size to 0.75 acres. 3.What is the time framefor the development with the loft housing?The developer indicates thatthe rental loft housing can be built as part of Phase I of the development. 4.Provide connections to Main Street from the Metropolitan housing and retail buildings, particularly emphasizing the sidewalk connections.The project will be required to provide a sidewalk along Stevens Creek Boulevard to ensure that there will be sidewalk connections between this site and the adjacent Metropolitan Cupertino retail. 5.What will the Stevens Creek Boulevard elevation look like and the architecture along the Vallco Parkway side of the proposed housing. It should have active areas.The elevations along Stevens Creek Boulevard and the elevation of the rental loft apartment building facing Vallco Parkway will be provided when the applicant submitsthe individual Architectural and Site Approval applications following approval of the modification to the Master Use Permit. 6.Consider providing a soccer field in the park.Regarding whether a soccer field could be accommodated on site, the Public Works Department determined that a standard full-size soccer field could not fit on the park site given that a minimum size of 100 yards (300 feet) x 70 yards (210 feet) would be needed. However, a small soccer field of 30 yards (90 feet) 153 x 20 yards (60 feet) could be accommodated, but this would essentially take up the entire park size with no margin area around it. 7.Consider a driveway connection to the Rosebowl sitealong the north side of the park.It does not appear that a driveway connection can be made between this site and the Rosebowl sitedue to a large grade difference. However,the plans include a pedestrian connection. 8.Are the residential units proposed as condominiums? Consider a mixed housing of some market-rate loft and some market-rate senior housing on the site.The applicant has indicated that the housing is proposed as rental, and not condominium. They have not explored the idea of mixed housing of some market-raterentalloft and market-raterental senior housing. 9.Did the applicant contact Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac to see if they can offer assistance for senior housing development?Theapplicant has been asked to provide an update at the Council meeting regarding a response to this question. Public Comments The City’s public hearing notices on the project for the September 4, 2012 City Council meeting include a half-page ad in the Cupertino Courier, a notice on the City’s website, and a notice in the Cupertino Scene. Signage has also been placed on site notifying the community of the meeting. At this time, no public comments have been received. The applicant will be conducting a community outreach meeting on August 29, 2012 at 7 p.m. to discuss the new development plans that they will be presenting at the September 4, 2012 City Council meeting. The City has also posted a notice of the applicant’s community outreach meeting on the City website. Staff will provide an update of public comments at the Council meeting. Prepared by Aki Honda Snelling, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development Approved for Submission by: Amy Chan, Interim City Manager Attachments: A:Draft Resolution for M-2012-03 B:Draft Resolution for ASA-2012-10 C:Draft Resolution for TM-2012-04 D:Second Addendum to the Final Certified 2009 EIR and 2012 Addendum E:Approved Development Plan Option A(1)-2 F: Minutes to the May 15, 2012 City Council meeting G: Proposed Development Plan H: Applicant’s Proposal Letter I: City’s Architectural Advisor comments J: Student General Analyses dated January 2012 K: Proposed Tentative Map 154 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:January15,2013 Subject AnnualrenewalofbingopermitsforSt.JosephofCupertinoChurchandCupertino SeniorCenterCoordinatingCouncil. RecommendedAction Conductthepublichearingandrenewthepermits. Discussion TheCupertinoCoordinatingCouncilandSt.JosephofCupertinoChurchhaveapplied fortheannualrenewaloftheirbingopermitsasrequiredbytheMunicipalCode.All formsandfeeshavebeenreceived. The2®«¸¯¬¬¹Department,CentralFireProtectionDistrict,theCountyHealthOfficer, "»¶«¸º¯´µ¹ChiefBuildingInspectorandDirectorofPlanninghaveapprovedthe applications. _____________________________________ KirstenSquarcia,DeputyCityClerk Preparedby: GraceSchmidt,CityClerk Reviewedby: ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: Staffreport AApplicationforSt.JosephofCupertinoChurch BApplicationforCupertinoSeniorCenterCoordinatingCouncil 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:January15,2013 Subject Ordertheabatementofapublicnuisance(weeds)pursuanttoprovisionsofOrdinance No.724andResolutionNo.12141. RecommendedAction Noteobjectionsandadoptthedraftresolutionorderingabatementofapublicnuisance (weeds). Discussion Chapter9.08oftheCupertinoMunicipalCoderequirespropertyownerstoremoveor destroyweedsontheirpropertyforfireprotection.Theweedabatementprocessisin placetonotifythepropertyownersofthisresponsibility,authorizetheCountyto removetheweedsifthepropertyownerªµ«¹´º andallowtheCountytorecoverthe costsofabatement. TheprocessconsistsofeightstepsthatbegininNovemberandgothroughAugustof eachyear.Atthistime,theprocessisatStep4. 1.Countypreparesalistofallpropertiesthathavebeennoncompliantin removingweedsinthelastthreeyearsandprovidesthatlisttotheCity(Nov). 2.CityCounciladoptsaresolutiondeclaringweedsanuisanceandsettinga hearingdatetohearobjectionsbypropertyownerstohavingtheirnameonthe list(NovDec). 3.Countysendsnoticetothepropertyownersonthelistnotifyingthemofthe hearingdateandexplainingthattheymustremoveweedsbytheabatement deadlineofApril30oritwillbedoneforthem,andthecostoftheabatement plusadministrativecostsassessedtotheirproperty(Dec). 4.CityCouncilholdsthehearingtoconsiderobjectionsbypropertyownersand adoptsaresolutionorderingabatement(Jan). 166 5.Countysendsacourtesylettertopropertyownersonthelistnotifyingthem againoftheabatementdeadlineandnotingthattheywillworkwiththe propertyownertobesuretheweedsareremoved(Jan). 6.AfterApril30,thepropertiesareinspectedbytheCountytoverifythatweeds wereremovedandproceedswithabatementiftheinspectionfails.County makesalistofallcostsassociatedwiththeabatementandprovidesthatlistto theCity(JuneJuly). 7.CityCounciladoptsaresolutionsettingahearingdatetohearobjectionsby propertyownersfortheassessedcostsofweedabatement(July). 8.Citynotifiesthepropertyownersontheassessmentlistnotifyingthemofthe hearingdate.(JulyAug). 9.CityCouncilholdsahearing,notesanydisputes,andadoptsaresolutionputting alienassessmentonthepropertiestoallowtheCountytorecoverthecostof weedabatement(JulyAug). FiscalImpact AnyfeeswaivedbytheCouncilwillbebilledtotheCitybytheCountytocovertheir costofservicingtheproperty. _____________________________________ KirstenSquarcia,DeputyCityClerk Preparedby: Reviewedby:GraceSchmidt,CityClerk ApprovedforSubmissionby: DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: A.DraftResolution B.2013WeedAbatementProgramCommencementReport C.NoticetoDestroyWeedsandCityofCupertinoWeedAbatementProgramSchedule D.LettertopropertyownersfromCounty E.ApprovedResolutionNo.12141 167 RESOLUTIONNO.13 ARESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCUPERTINO ORDERINGABATEMENTOFPUBLICNUISANCEPURSUANTTO PROVISIONSOFCUPERTINOMUNICIPALCODECHAPTER9.08AND RESOLUTIONNO.12141 WHEREAS,theCityCouncilhasdeclaredthatthegrowthofweeds,the accumulationofgardenrefuse,cuttingsandothercombustibletrashuponthe privatepropertiesasdescribedinResolutionNo.12141adoptedDecember18, 2012,tobeapublicnuisance;and WHEREAS,afterduenotice,ahearingthereonwasheldattheregular meetingoftheCityCouncilonJanuary15,2013;and WHEREAS,fromtheevidencepresented,bothoralandwritten,itappears tobeinthebestinterestsoftheCitytoacquirejurisdictionoverandabatesaid nuisance. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED: 1.ThattheAgriculturalCommissionerisherebyorderedtoabate suchnuisanceorcausethesametobeabatedbyhavingtheweedsreferredto destroyedorremovedbycutting,discing,chemicalsprayingoranyother methoddeterminedbyhim;thatalldebris,whetherinpilesorscattered,be hauledaway; 2.ThattheAgriculturalCommissionerandhisdeputies,assistants, employees,contractingagentsorotherrepresentativesshallhaveexpress authorizationtoenteruponsaidprivatepropertiesforthepurposeofcausing saidpublicnuisancetobeabated;and 3.Thatanyaffectedpropertyownersshallhavetherighttodestroyor removesuchweedsordebrishimselforherselforhavethesamedestroyedor removedathis/herownexpenseprovidedthatsuchdestructionorremovalshall havebeencompletedpriortothearrivaloftheAgriculturalCommissionerorhis authorizedrepresentativetodestroyorremovethembytheParcelAbatement DeadlineofApril30,2013. 168 ResolutionNo.13Page2 BEITFURTHERRESOLVED: 1.ThattheAgriculturalCommissionershallkeepaccountofabating saidnuisanceandembodysuchaccountinareportandassessmentlisttothe CityCouncil,whichshallbefiledwiththeCityClerk. 2.Saidreportsofcosts,hearingandcollectionproceduresinvolved shallbeprovidedasstatedinChapter9.08. PASSEDANDADOPTEDataregularmeetingoftheCityCounciloftheCityof Cupertinoonthe15thdayofJanuary2013,bythefollowingvote: VoteMembersoftheCityCouncil AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:APPROVED: _______________________________________________________ GraceSchmidtOrrinMahoney CityClerkMayor,CityofCupertino 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 RESOLUTIONNO.12141 ARESOLUTIONOFTHECUPERTINOCITYCOUNCILDECLARING WEEDSONCERTAINDESCRIBEDPROPERTYTOBEAPUBLIC NUISANCEANDSETTINGAHEARINGFOROBJECTIONSTO PROPOSEDREMOVAL WHEREAS,weedsaregrowingintheCityofCupertinouponcertain streets,sidewalks,highways,roadsandprivateproperty;and WHEREAS,saidweedsmayattainsuchgrowthastobecomeafire menaceorwhichareotherwisenoxiousordangerous;and WHEREAS,saidweedsconstituteapublicnuisance; NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDbytheCityCounciloftheCityof Cupertinoasfollows: 1.Thatsaidweedsdonowconstituteapublicnuisance; 2.Thatsaidnuisanceexistsuponallofthestreets,sidewalks,highways, roadsandprivatepropertymoreparticularlydescribedbycommon namesorbyreferencetothetract,block,lot,codearea,andparcelnumber onthereportpreparedbytheAgriculturalCommissionerandattached hereto; 3.Thatthe15thdayofJanuary,2013,atthehourof6:45p.m.,orassoon thereafterasthemattercanbeheard,intheCouncilChamberinthe CommunityHall,CityofCupertino,isherebysetasthetimeandplace whereallpropertyownershavinganyobjectionstotheproposedremoval ofsuchweedsmaybeheard; 4.ThattheAgriculturalCommissionerisherebydesignatedandorderedas thepersontocausenoticeoftheadoptionofthisresolutiontobegivenin themannerandformprovidedinSections9.08.040oftheCupertino MunicipalCode. 187 ResolutionNo.12141Page2 PASSEDANDADOPTEDataregularmeetingofthecityCounciloftheCityof Cupertinothis18thdayofDecember,2012,bythefollowingvote: VoteMembersoftheCityCouncil AYES:Mahoney,Wong,Chang,Santoro,Sinks NOES:None ABSENT:None ABSTAIN:None ATTEST:APPROVED: /s/GraceSchmidt/s/OrrinMahoney ______________________________________________________ GraceSchmidt,CityClerkOrrinMahoney,Mayor,CityofCupertino 188 PUBLICWORKSDEPARTMENT CITYHALL 1010300TORREAVENUE'CUPERTINO,CA950143255 TELEPHONE:(408)7773354www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:January15,2013 Subject CertificationoftheRegionalEnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR);ConsiderationofTwo Ordinances(theProposedBagOrdinanceandtheProposedLitterEnforcement Ordinance);DirectionRegardingtheEnvironmentalReviewforaDraftExpanded Polystyrene(EPS)Ordinance;anddiscussionofotherpotentiallitterreduction alternatives. RecommendedActions AdoptaResolutioncertifyingtheFinalProgramEnvironmentalImpactReport (SCH#2012042013)andadoptingassociatedCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality Act(CEQA)FindingsofFactfortheCityof"»¶«¸º¯´µ¹ReusableBagOrdinance (seeAttachmentA). ConductthefirstreadingofanordinanceaddingChapter9.17totheMunicipal Codetoregulatethedistributionofcarryoutbagsbyretailestablishmentsinthe CityofCupertino. ConductthefirstreadingofamendmentstoChapter9.18tomakelitteringinthe CityofCupertinoaninfractionthatcarriesafine;andtorequire,aspartofthe "¯º¿¹projectreviewprocess,therequirementtoinstallpublicwasteand recyclingbinsonprivatepropertyatnewandredevelopedcommercialandretail siteswithintheCity. DirectstafftohireaconsultanttoconductthenecessaryCEQAreviewforan ExpandedPolystyrene(EPS)foamfoodwarebanatrestaurants. Directstafftocontinuetoexploreadditionallitterreductionstrategiesthatcould bebroughttotheCityCouncilforadoption. Discussion BagOrdinanceandEPSStudy 1 189 OnAugust7,2012,CityCouncilheldalitterplanstudysessionandreceivedanupdate ontheregionalEnvironmentalImpactReview(EIR)processledbySanMateoCounty, whichtheCityhadjoinedasaresponsible(participating)agency.Thediscussionfrom thestudysessionledstafftodraftareusablebagordinance,whichispresentedherefor "µ»´©¯²¹consideration.Theproposeddraftordinanceisconsistentwiththescopeof theregionalEIR.Allmajorprovisionsinthedraftordinancearealsoconsistentwith theprovisionsintheCityofSan)µ¹«¹ordinance,whichwasimplementedonJanuary 1,2012.BasedontheCouncildiscussionsattheAuguststudysession,staffalsodrafted anordinancefor"µ»´©¯²¹considerationthatwouldmakelitteringintheCityof Cupertinoaninfractionwithafine. AsfollowuptotheAuguststudysession,staffisalsorequestingdirectionfromCouncil tohireaconsultanttoconducttheenvironmental(CEQA)reviewforapotentialEPS foamfoodwarepackagingbanatCupertinorestaurants.Staffisalsoindiscussionsto potentiallycollaborateandsharecostswithneighboringcities(e.g.LosAltos,Mountain View,SanJoseandSunnyvale)inhiringaconsultanttoconductaregionalCEQA reviewforanEPSfoamfoodwarebanatrestaurantswithintheparticipating jurisdictions. BackgroundontheRegionalEIRandBagOrdinance InMarch2012,CouncildirectedstafftoparticipateintheSanMateoCountyHealth #«¶§¸º³«´º¹"µ»´º¿¹EIRforaregionalsingleusecarryoutbagban.Intotal, eighteencitiesinSanMateoCountyandsixcitiesinSantaClaraCounty(Campbell, Cupertino,LosAltos,LosGatos,Milpitas,andMountainView)comprisedtheFinal ProgramEIR 2º»ª¿ ¸«§! SomeoftheconsiderationsguidingtheRegionalEIRwere: 1.Theuseofsingleusecarryoutbagsbyconsumersatretailestablishmentsis detrimentaltotheenvironment,publichealthandwelfare. 2.Singleusecarryoutbagscontributetoenvironmentalproblems,includinglitter instormdrains,creeks,thebayandtheocean. 3.Singleusecarryoutbagsprovidedbyretailestablishmentsimposeunseencosts onconsumers,localgovernments,thestateandtaxpayersandconstituteapublic nuisance. AmongtheobjectivesguidingtheRegionalEIRwere: 1.Reduceenvironmentalimpactsrelatedtosingleuseplasticcarryoutbags,such asnegativeimpactstonaturalresources,waterquality,andaquaticlife; 2.Detertheuseofpaperbags;and 2 190 3.Promoteashifttowardshoppingwithreusablebags. Forthisregionaleffort,theCountyactedastheleadagencyandpaidforthe preparationandfinalizationoftheEIR.The24participatingmunicipalitiesare responsibleagencies,aseachindividualmunicipalityhasdiscretionaryapprovalover theproposedordinancewithinitsrespectivejurisdiction.Accordingly,theCitycanrely onthe"µ»´º¿¹EIRandanalysisofenvironmentalimpactswhenconsideringadoption ofitsordinance,aslongasthefinalordinanceisfoundtobeconsistentwiththescopeof theEIR. Itisanticipatedthatacomparableordinancewillbeconsideredwithineachofthe municipalitiesparticipatingintheFinalProgramEIR.Thisregionalapproachis expectedtoeliminatejurisdictionaleconomicdisadvantagesandreducecustomer confusion.Todate,Belmont,Colma,DalyCity,FosterCity,MountainView,Pacifica, PortolaValleyandSouthSanFranciscohaveadoptedordinances,andthecitiesofHalf MoonBay,LosAltos,LosGatos,MenloPark,SanBruno,SanCarlosandWoodside alongwithCupertinoaretakingstepstoconsideradoptioninJanuary2013.Similar ordinancesbecameeffectivein2012intheborderingcitiesofSanJoseandSunnyvale. "»¶«¸º¯´µ¹proposedordinanceresembles(inallkeyaspects)themodelregional ordinance.MinorvariationsthatwouldnotaffecttheoutcomeofthefinalEIRmaybe considered,suchastheimplementationdateofOctober1,2013(othercitieshave selectedApril22,2013)orwhethertoimplementtheeventualincreaseoftheminimum bagchargefromtencentstotwentyfivecents(increasingonJanuary1,2015,inthe draftordinance).Aswritten,theordinancewould: (1)prohibitthefreedistributionofcarryoutbagsdistributedatthepointofsaleat approximately275retailestablishmentsinCupertino; (2)requireretailerswiththeexceptionofrestaurantsandnonprofitstocharge customerstencentsforrecycledpaperbagsandreusablebagsatthepointof sale; (3)increasetheminimumchargeforacarryoutbagto$0.25onJanuary1,2015; (4)exemptcustomersparticipatinginSupplementalFoodProgramsfromhavingto payforacarryoutbag; (5)allowretailerstoprovideprotectiveplasticbags,withouthandles,intendedto segregateproduce,rawmeatandprescriptiondrugs,fortheircustomersatno cost; (6)requireretailestablishmentstokeepacompleteandaccuraterecordofthe purchaseandsaleofanycarryoutbagsforaminimumofthreeyears; 3 191 (7)requireenforcementonacomplaintbasisandthroughrandomcompliancevisits byCitystaff;and (8)takeeffectonOctober1,2013. Thetransitionalperiodbetween"µ»´©¯²¹adoptionofabagordinanceandits suggestedeffectivedateofOctober1,2013wouldgivestorestimetocomplyandto locatereusablebagsasalternativesforcarryoutpurchases.Uponadoptionofthe ordinance,Citystaffwilldesignanddistributeeducationalkitstohelpremindlocal shopperstobringtheirownbags.TheCitywillprovidereusablebagsandreminder kitsatevents,anduponrequestwillgiveafreereusableshoppingbagtoCupertino residentswhocometoCityHall. PublicOutreach StaffhasconductedoutreachthroughtheCupertinoScene;the ReuseBags pageonthe "¯º¿¹website;theCupertinoCourier;theWorldJournalandSingTaonewspapers;and atinformationalstakeholdermeetingsheldforretailersonJanuary8 andresidentsand th shoppersonJanuary9. th CEQAFindingsEnvironmentalImpacts TheFinalProgramEIRexaminedthepotentialenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwith theadoptionoftheproposedordinanceintheStudyArea,whichincludedtheCityof Cupertino.TheDraftProgramEIRwasissuedwitha45daypublicreviewperiod, fromJune22,2012toAugust6,2012.TheFinalProgramEIR,whichincorporatesthe DraftProgramEIRbyreference,aswellasresponsestocommentsreceivedregarding theDraftProgramEIR,wasissuedwitha10daypublicreviewperiodfrom,August31, 2012toSeptember10,2012.BecauseofthelargesizeoftheEIRdocuments,theyare availableonlinethroughthefollowingwebsitelinksratherthanattachedtothis report.AhardcopyofeachdocumentisavailableforreviewintheCity"²«¸±¹Office atCupertinoCityHall. DraftEIR: http://smchealth.org/sites/default/files/docs/EHS/SanMateoCountySingleUseBagBanOr dinance_DEIR%5B1%5D.pdf FinalEIR: http://smchealth.org/sites/default/files/docs/EHS/SanmateoCountyReusableBagOrdinan ceFinalProgramEIR.pdf TheFinalProgramEIRestimatesthevolumeofcurrentplasticbagusagewithinthe StudyArea,whichincludestheCityofCupertino,at552millionbagsperyear.With 4 192 theproposedordinanceineffect,itisanticipatedthat95percentofthatvolumewould bereplacedbyacombinationofpaper(30percent)andreusable(65percent)bags, leaving5percentor27.6millionplasticbagsstillusedeachyearatretailestablishments exemptfromtheordinance.TheFinalEIRidentifiesandanalyzesthepotential environmentalimpactsofsuchashiftinbagusageasfollows: AirQuality:(1)a beneficialimpact associatedwithareductioninemissionsduetoa reductioninthetotalnumberofplasticbagsmanufactured;and(2)a lessthansignificant impact associatedwithanincreaseinemissionsresultingfromincreasedtrucktripsto deliverrecycledpaperandreusablecarryoutbagstolocalretailers. BiologicalResources:A beneficialimpact associatedwithareductionintheamountof singleuseplasticbagsenteringthecoastalandbayhabitataslitter. GreenhouseGas(GHG)Emissions:A lessthansignificantimpact associatedwith increasedGHGemissionsduetoanincreaseinthemanufacturingofsingleusepaper bags. Hydrology/WaterQuality:(1)A beneficialimpact associatedwithareductioninthe amountoflitterandwasteenteringstormdrains;and(2)a lessthansignificantimpact duetoanincreaseintheuseofchemicalsassociatedwithanincreaseinproductionof recyclablepaperbags. UtilitiesandServiceSystems:(1)A lessthansignificantimpact duetoincreasedwater usageresultingfromthewashingofreusablebags;(2)a lessthansignificantimpact due toincreasedwastewatergenerationresultingfromthewashingofreusablebags;and(3) a lessthansignificantimpact duetoanincreaseinsolidwastegenerationresultingfrom increasedusageofpaperbags. Noneoftheimpactsrequiremitigationbecausetheyarealleitherbeneficialorlessthan significant. FinalEIRCertification TheSanMateoCountyBoardofSupervisorscertifiedtheFinalProgramEIRonOctober 23,2012,andissuedaNoticeofDeterminationpursuanttotheCEQAPublicResources Code,Section21000 etseq.andtheCEQAGuidelines,CaliforniaCodeofRegulations, Title14,Section15000 etseq. TheResolutionproposedfor"µ»´©¯²¹adoptionincludesthefindingsrequiredunder CEQAGuidelinesSection15096andisprovidedinAttachmentA. PursuanttoSection15096oftheCEQAGuidelines,theCityofCupertinomayactasa responsibleagencyandconsiderandrelyupontheFinalProgramEIRpreparedand certifiedbytheCountyonOctober23,2012,astheproposedordinanceisconsistent 5 193 withSanMateo"µ»´º¿¹adoptedordinance,andisconsistentwiththescopeofthe FinalProgramEIR.TheCitymaythenproceedwithconsiderationoftheproposed ordinancethroughthelocalgovernmentprocess.ShouldCouncilmakechangestothe proposedordinance,suchchangesmaytriggertheneedforfurtherCEQAreview. LitterReductionRequirements TheMunicipalRegionalStormwaterNPDESPermit(MRP)requiresmunicipal permitteestoimplement,maintainandreportoncontrolmeasuresthatdemonstrate litterreductionfromtheirjurisdictiontothewatersoftheStateby40%beforeJuly2014, 70%beforeJuly2017,and100%beforeJuly2022.Thelongtermlitterplanto accomplish70%and100%reductionisduetotheWaterBoardonFebruary1,2014. Regionalguidance,developedcollaborativelyinDecember2011bytheBayArea StormwaterManagementAgenciesAssociation(BASMAA)withmorethanseventy municipalitiesthataresubjecttotheMRP,establishedatrackingmethodtohelp jurisdictionscalculatethepercentageofreductionachievedbyspecificlittercontrol measures.WaterBoardstaffreviewedseveraloftheinitialshortterm(40%)municipal plansandthetrackingmethod(whichassignedcreditsorpercentagepointstoeach controlmeasure)anddeterminedthatthetrackingmethodwasnotsufficientto accuratelymeasurelitterreduction. MunicipalrepresentativesandWaterBoardstaffmetinAugust2012todiscuss potentialrevisionstotheguidanceandthechallengesofmeasuringlittercontrol measureoutcomes.ASteeringCommitteewasformedandbeganmeetingmonthlyto explorechallengesandsolutionspertainingtocomplianceanddemonstratingthe percentagesoflitterreductionachievedandreportedannuallytotheWaterBoard leadinguptotheduedatesfortargetedpercentages.Assuch,theeffectivenessoflitter controlmeasurescannotbequantifiedinadvanceofWaterBoarddirectionandactual effectivenesswithinajurisdictioncannotbedemonstrateduntilthemeasureshavebeen implemented,testedandevaluated.Underthischallengingperformancebased directionprovidedbytheWaterBoard,therearenoassurancesthatanymeasure adoptedbyaCityCouncilwillultimatelyachievethemandatedreductiontargets. Additionally,citycouncilsarenotabletomakequantifiedpolicy º¸§ª«µ¬¬¹!suchas equatingmeasureslikeadditionalstreetsweepingversusbagorEPSbans. However,thefollowingstatementwasrecentlyprovidedbyWaterBoardstaffto indicatetheiracknowledgementofthetrashloadreductionsthatareanticipatedasa resultofrestrictingthefreedistributionofbagsandEPS: 6 194 3®«RegionalMunicipalStormwaterPermitissuedbytheRegionalWaterBoard inOctober2009requiresmunicipalitiestoreducetrashloadsby40percentby 2014,70percentby2017,and100percentby2022.TheBoardhasnotmandated specificcontrolmeasuresotherthanaminimumnumberoffulltrashcapture devicesandhasnotapprovedloadreductioncreditsforspecifictypesofcontrol measures.However,theBoardexpectsmunicipalitiestodeterminewhich measurestheywillimplementinatimelyandmeasurablemannertoattainthe loadreductionrequirements.Althoughthey(singleusebagandfoamfoodware restrictions)arenotmandatedanddonothaveapprovedtrashloadreduction credits,theRegionalWaterBoardstaffhaveacknowledgedplasticbagsand foamfoodwareareprevalent,andpersistentcomponentsofthetrashload,and restrictionsontheirusewilllikelyresultinsubstantialtrashload¸«ª»©º¯µ´¹ ! BagsandEPSarenottheonlytypesoflitterfoundincreeksandinthestreets.Thin, plasticcarryoutbagsandStyrofoamcupsandfoodcontainersbecametoptargetsfor reductionbecausetheyareprevalentitemscollectedatanylandorcreekcleanupevent. Additionally,duetoavailablealternativematerialsorpractices,theirconsumptioncan bereducedwithoutimposingsevereorlongtermeconomicimpactsonbusinessesor thecommunity.Thesetwofreelydistributedpackagingmaterialsrepresentaunique threattoaquaticlife,wildlife,waterqualityandnaturalresourcesandtheyaredifficult andtimeconsumingtocleanup.EPSbreaksorcrumblesmakingitnearlyimpossible forcleanupcrewstogatherandcontainallthepieces.FloatingpiecesofStyrofoam appeartofishandbirdsaspiecesoffood,andthinplasticbags,weatheredbysunand water,haveapropensitytoshredandtearintopiecesaftertheybecomeentangledin creekbankvegetationorhalfburiedinthesilt,sandandrockbottomsofcreeks. Thecontrolmeasures,whichwerenamedintheinitialguidanceprovidedbyBASMAA remainasthekeylittercontrolmeasureswhichBayAreamunicipalitiesrefertowhen consideringnewinfrastructure,programs,legislationorpracticesthatwillreducetrash andlitterintheirjurisdictions.Thelistoflitterreductionmeasuresincludes:(1)source controls,suchasantilitteringandillegaldumpingenforcement,polystyrenefoodware bans,plasticbagbansandparticipationintheregionalBayAreapubliceducation campaigncalled BetheStreet;(2)interceptionmeasures,suchasadditionalstreet sweeping,additionaldraininletcleaning,andinstallationoftrashcapturedevicesand curbinletscreens;and(3)litterremovalmeasures,suchasholdinglandandcreek cleanupevents.WaterBoardstaffhaveacknowledgedthateffectiveapproachestolitter reductionwillnotbethesameforalljurisdictions,andtheyhaveencouraged municipalitiestoproposecreativeandappropriatelittercontrolsthatcandemonstrate measurablelitterreductionintheirjurisdiction. 7 195 ProactiveMeasuresandAdditionalLitterReductionAlternatives TheCityofCupertinohasbeguntoimplementcontrolmeasuresthatmakesenseforthe community. 1.InOctober2012,theCityinstalledapproximately100trashcapturedevicesand hingedscreensinapproximately50curbinletsnexttohighprioritylitterareas (retailareas).Thefundingforthisprojectwasprovidedbya$47,000grant administeredbytheAssociationofBayAreaGovernments(ABAG).Thecostof ongoingCitymaintenancetopreventthedevicesfrombecomingcloggedby leavesandotherdebrisandfloodingthestreetsduringstormsremains unknown.Thisinstallationmetanother CleanWaterAct mandaterequiredofthe City;itsminimumfulltrashcapturerequirement.TheCityhasapproximately 2,200draininlets.OneoptionavailabletotheCitywouldbetoinstallcurbinlet screensinallofitsretailareas(aroughestimateof300screens).Thetotal installationcostmightbecloseto$120,000($400perinstalledscreen);the ongoingmaintenancecostsofstreetsweepinganddrainclearingcannotyetbe determined(butwouldbesubstantial). 2.TheCitycurrentlysweepsitsstreets,residentialandcommercial,twiceamonth. ThebaselinesweepingfrequencyfortheSanFranciscoBayregionisweeklyin retailareasandtwiceamonthinresidentialareas.Asalitterinterception measure,theCitycouldaugmentitssweepingfrequencyincoordinationwith addinginletscreenslikethosementionedabove,inallretailareasthroughoutthe City.Additionalsweepingcouldalsobeconductedindependentofinstalling morehingedcurbinletscreens.Thelitterreductionwouldnotbeaseffective withoutthescreens,butanincreasedstreetsweeping¬¸«·»«´©¿L«¹¶«©¯§²²¿if ¯º¹donetwiceweeklyinallretail§¸«§¹L½µ»²ªlikelyinterceptasignificant amountoflitter.Increasingsweepinginretailareastoaweeklycyclewouldcost approximately$10,000annually. 3.TheCityhasrecentlypurchasednewpubliclitterreceptaclesfortheplazanextto CityHallandCommunityHall.Addingpubliclitterreceptaclesinhighpriority litterareasandmaintainingthemisanothermeasurepresentedintheBASMAA guidanceonlitterreductionmeasures.Expandingthismeasurebyinstalling publicgarbageandrecyclingreceptaclesinretailareasandadoptingan ordinancetoenforcealitteringprohibitioncouldgaintheCityareductionin litterasasourcecontrolmeasure.Thesecitymaintainedreceptacleswouldbe inadditiontotheinstallationofpublicreceptaclesrequiredofcommercialand 8 196 retaildevelopmentprojectowners,onprivateproperty,asproposedinthelitter ordinance. LitteringEnforcement Anefficientandcosteffectivewaytoreducelitterin"»¶«¸º¯´µ¹creeksandintheSan FranciscoBayistopreventitfromoccurring.Preventativemeasuressuchasadopting anantilitteringordinanceandlimitingfreedistributionofpackagingmaterialswhich arethemostthreateningtonaturalresources,waterquality,andaquaticlife,areamong themosteffectiveandleastexpensivecontrolmeasuresthatacitycanadopt.These measuresengagethepublicintheefforttoreduceconsumption,contain,manageand reducelitter,andraiseawarenessaboutimpactstotheecosystemthatarecausedby certaintypesoflitter. ProposedAmendmentstotheExistingAntilitteringOrdinance ProposedamendmentstoChapter9.18(StormwaterPollutionPreventionand WatershedProtection)oftheCupertinoMunicipalCodearewrittentoaddresslitter managementandantilitterenforcement.Adefinitionforlitterisaddedto9.18.020 (Definitions).Therequirementfornewcommercialandretaildevelopmentprojectsto provideinstalledoutdoortrashrecyclecompostcontainersetsisanexpansionofthe statelawrequiringtrashcontainersinpublicplaces.Additionally,itreflectsthe expandedbin/containermanagementsourcecontrolmeasurenamedintheBASMAA litterreductionguidance.Section9.18.215(LitterPreventionandEnforcement)was addedtomakelitteringintheCityofCupertinoaviolationwithafinepursuanttothe proceduressetforthinChapter1.10oftheMunicipalCode.SectionAaddresses litteringviolations.SectionBrequirespropertyownerstomaintaindisposalorrecycling receptaclesinsuchamannerthatwillpreventlitterfrombeingscatteredtopublicareas, includingarequirementtopreventbinsfromoverflowingandkeepinglidsclosed.A finalrequirementofthepropertyowneristokeeptheperimeter,frontandsidewalksof thepropertyfreeoflooselitter. Withoutthe¶»¨²¯©¹participation,theCityandultimatelythe"¯º¿¹GeneralFundwill bearallofthecostofcompliancewiththenew CleanWaterAct mandates.Thecostfor Cupertinotocomplywithwaterqualitymandatespriortoadoptingnewlittercontrol measurescurrentlyexceedsthestormdrainagefeerevenueforwaterquality compliancebymorethan$100,000peryear.Thecostofadimetoreceiveanew shoppingbagisanticipatedtobelowenoughnottocausefinancialhardshipandhigh enoughtocauseshopperstopausebeforeacceptinganewbagunlessitisnecessary. SanFranciscoBayregionalmunicipalitieshave,forapproximatelytenyears,tried educationalmeasurestoreducelitter.Inthelastdecadecreekcleanupshavebecome 9 197 popular,regionalmediacampaignshavebeendeveloped,Citystaffhavepartnered withteacherstoprovidecreekeducationandmunicipalstaffhaveattendedlocalevents todiscusslittersolutionsdirectlywithcommunitymembers.Yet,whenthenew MunicipalRegionalStormwaterPermitwasadoptedinOctober2009,thecollaborative effortsofmunicipalstafftoeducateratherthanregulatehadfallenshortofbeingableto changebehaviors.Althoughthe"¯º¿¹publiceducationandoutreachonlitterreduction willcontinuetoexpandandimprove,citiesnolongerhavetheoptiontodemonstrate thatlittercanbereducedanderadicatedbyeducationaloutreachalone. Citiesarenowundermandatesanddeadlinestoprevent,interceptandremovelitter fromanyplacewhereitmightreachanaturalwaterbody.Ratherthanrequiringthe citiesandmunicipaltaxpayerstobeartheburdenandcostoflittereradication,itwillbe importantforcitygovernmentstoleadtheircommunitiesinacollaborativeeffort.The tencentchargeforbagsanddevelopingthehabitofbringingbagstothestoreisone waythatthecommunitycanhelpconserve,preserveandprotectthenaturalresources thatbenefitthecommunityatlargewhilehelpingallofthelocalmunicipalitiescomply withlitterreductionandwaterqualitymandates.InCupertinothelitterthatenters localcreeksiswasheddownstreamduringrainstormstothecreeksintheneighboring citiesofSunnyvaleandMountainView.Bothofthesecitieshaveadoptedabag ordinance. SustainabilityImpact Adoptionandimplementationoftheordinanceisintendedtoimprovewaterquality, reducenegativeimpactstoaquaticlife,reducewaste,conservenaturalresources,and reducegreenhousegasemissions. FiscalImpact Theonetimecostforimplementationofareusablebagordinanceisestimatedat $10,000to$14,000tocovereducationandoutreachtoassistbusinessesand shopperswiththetransition. Ongoingcostsofalitterordinancecannotbedetermined,butwillincludestaff timeforenforcement.Itisanticipatedthatlitteringcitationswouldonlybe issuedinconjunctionwiththedailyroutineofcodeenforcementofficersorthe "¯º¿¹stormwaterillicitdischargedetectionandelimination(IDDE)inspectors. Thecostofinstallingpublicgarbage,recyclingandfoodwastebinsfor customersonprivatepropertyatnewcommercialandretailprojectsandthe maintenancethereof,willbetheresponsibilityoftheprojectdeveloperandthe privatecommercialpropertyowner.Theresponsibilityofmaintainingalitter freeareasurroundingallcommercialandretailsiteswillbetheresponsibilityof theprivatepropertyowner. 10 198 ThecosttohireaconsultanttoconducttheenvironmentalCEQAreviewtoallow CityCounciltoadoptanEPSbanatlocalrestaurantsisestimatedtobebetween $7,000and$11,000.Thelowerendofthisrangereflectsanestimateforthe possibilityofacostsharingagreementtoconductaregionalenvironmental reviewbetweentheCityofCupertinoandneighboringcities. _____________________________________ Preparedby:CheriDonnelly,EnvironmentalProgramsManager Reviewedby:TimmBorden,DirectorofPublicWorks ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: ACEQAFindingofFacts BDraftResolutionCertifyingtheFinalProgramEIR CDraftOrdinanceNo.9.17 DAmendmenttoOrdinance9.18 ERedlineAmendmenttoOrdinance9.18 FPublicCommentsonProposedBagOrdinance 11 199 Attachment A CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE REUSABLE BAG ORDINANCES October 23, 2012 200 1. OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION Project Approvals These findings are made with respect to the (as defined Project below) for the Reusable Bag Ordinances (the ) to be adopted by the County of San Mateo (the County) and various municipalities in the County and in Santa Clara County and state the findings of the Board of Supervisors (the Board ) of the County relating to the potential environmental effects of the Project. The following findings are required by the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA (), Public Resources Code Sections 21081, 21081.5 and 21081.6, and CEQA Guidelines Title 14, California Code of Regulations (the ) Sections 15091 through 15093, for the Project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project where an Environ- EIR mental Impact Report () has been certified, which identifies one or more significant impacts on the environment that would occur if the Project is approved or carried out, unless the public agency makes one or more findings for each of those significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale of each finding. The possible findings, which must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, are: a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant impact on the environment. b. Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. c. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. For those significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to below a level of signifi- cance, the public agency is required to find that the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant impacts on the environment. As discussed in detail below, the Project would not result in any significant unavoidable effects; all potential impacts identified by Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR are either beneficial or less than significant such that no mitigation measures are required. The Project EIR determines that no significant impacts on the environment would occur if the Project is approved or carried out and only identifies impacts that would be considered less than significant without need for mitigation and impacts that would be considered beneficial to the environment. Findings for each of the 2 201 impacts considered less than significant or beneficial, as accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale of each finding, are provided below. 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed Ordinances The proposed Reusable Bag Ordinances () would regulate the use of paper and plastic single-use carryout bags w participating municipalities. Participating municipalities include the County of San Mateo and 24 cities in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties: Participating Municipalities, in Addition to the County of San Mateo, in the Program EIR San Mateo County Santa Clara County Belmont MillbraeMilpitas BrisbanePacifica Cupertino BurlingamePortola Valley Los Gatos Colma Redwood City Los Altos Daly City San Bruno Campbell East Palo Alto San Carlos Mountain View Foster City San Mateo Half Moon Bay South San Francisco Menlo Park Woodside For the purposes of the Program EIR, the geographical limits of unincorporated San Mateo County and all of the participating municipalities listed above shall be Study Area known as the . The Program EIR assumes the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance by the County and adoption of ordinances that are identical or materially similar to the Countys Ordinance by each municipality in the Study Area, where the Proposed Ordinances would apply to all retail establishments located within the limits of the Study Area, including those selling clothing, food, and personal items directly to the customer. The Proposed Ordinances would not apply to restaurants or non-profit charitable reuse organizations. The Proposed Ordinances would (1) prohibit the free distribution of single-use carryout paper and plastic bags and (2) require retail establishments to charge customers for recycled paper bags and reusable bags at the point of sale. The minimum charge would be ten cents ($0.10) per recycled paper bag until December 31, 2014, and twenty-five cents ($0.25) per paper bag on or after January 1, 2015. For the County, the Project Sponsor is the Environmental Health Services Division of the County of San Mateo Health System, where Dean D. Peterson, Director, is the project applicant. 3 202 3. PROJECT APPROVALS The Project Approvals constitute the Project for purposes of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and these determinations of the Board. For unincorporated San Mateo County, the Proposed Ordinance would require an amendment to the San Mateo County Ordinance Code with discretionary approval by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. The following approvals would be required: Certification of the Final Program EIR (Board of Supervisors) Adoption of an Ordinance amending the Ordinance Code (Board of Supervisors) Subsequent to adoption of the Ordinance, the County would file a Notice of Determination (NOD), as set forth in Section 21152 of the California Public Resources Code, with the San Mateo County Clerk. For each of the 24 participating agencies, the Proposed Ordinances would require an amendment to the citys municipal code with discretionary approval by the municipalitys city council. The following approvals would be required for each municipality: Consider the Final Program EIR (City Council) Adoption of an Ordinance amending the Ordinance Code (City Council) Subsequent to adoption of the Ordinance, each municipality would file a Notice of Determination (NOD) similar to the NOD to be filed by the County as lead agency after its adoption of the Ordinance. 4. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The County of San Mateos and the participating cities objectives for the Proposed Ordinances include: Reducing the amount of single-use plastic bags in trash loads ( landfills), in conformance with the trash load reduction requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Permit. Reducing the environmental impacts related to single-use plastic carryout bags, such as impacts to biological resources (including marine environ- ments), water quality and utilities (e.g., solid waste). Minimizing the use of paper bags by customers in the participating jurisdictions. 4 203 Promoting a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags by retail customers in the participating jurisdictions. Avoiding litter and the associated adverse impacts to stormwater systems, aesthetics and the marine environment (San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean). 5. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the Record of Proceedi Project shall include, at a minimum, the following documents: NOP The Notice of Preparation () and all other public notices issued by the County in conjunction with the Project; The Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance Draft Program EIR (June 2012) and Reusable Bag Ordinance (formerly Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance) Final Program EIR (August 2012) and all documents cited or referred to therein; All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day public comment period for the Draft Program EIR; All comments and correspondence submitted to the County with respect to the Project, in addition to timely comments on the Draft Program EIR; All findings and resolutions adopted by County decision makers in connec- tion with the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein; All reports, studies, memoranda, staff reports, maps, exhibits, illustrations, diagrams or other planning materials relating to the Project prepared by the County or by consultants to the County, the applicant, or responsible or trustee agencies and submitted to the County, with respect to the Countys compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the Countys actions on the Project; All documents submitted to the County by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the Project, up through the close of the public hearing on October 23, 2012; Minutes, as available, of all public meetings and public hearings held by the County in connection with the Project; Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the County at such information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings; 5 204 Matters of common knowledge to the County, including, but not limited to, those cited above; and Any other materials required to be in the Record of Proceedings Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The custodian of the documents comprising the Record of Proceedings is the Countys Planning and Building Department, whose office is located at 455 County Center, Second Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063. The Board has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the Project. 6. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The County released an NOP of an EIR for the Project on April 6, 2012. Rincon Consultants, Inc., prepared a Draft Program EIR entitled Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance Draft Program EIR under the direction of the County Planning and Building Department. The Draft Program EIR consists of the Draft Program EIR and Appendices, consisting of Appendix A through F. The Draft Program EIR is dated June 2012. A Notice of Completion and copies of the Draft Program EIR were delivered to the State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2012042013) on June 22, 2012. The Draft Program EIR was circulated for a duly noticed 45-day public review period that began on June 22, 2012 and ended on August 6, 2012. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft Program EIR was posted by the County Clerk on June 22, 2012, and published in the San Mateo County Times and San Jose Mercury News (both newspapers of general circulation serving the area in which the Project is located). The NOA of the Draft Program EIR was also sent by mail and/or electronic mail to interested parties (those who had comments on the NOP) and participating agencies. An electronic link to the Draft Program EIR in .pdf format was posted on the Countys website and copies of the Draft Program EIR were made available for review at the County of San Mateo Planning and Building Department and at the following libraries in the Study Area: Serramonte Main Library San Mateo Main Library 40 Wembley Drive 55 West Third Avenue Daly City, CA 94015 San Mateo, CA 94402 Millbrae Library Redwood City Downtown Library 1 Library Avenue 1044 Middlefield Road Millbrae, CA 94030 Redwood City, CA 94063 6 205 Half Moon Bay Library Los Gatos Public Library 620 Correas Street Town Civic Center Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 100 Villa Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 Mountain View Library 585 Franklin Street Milpitas Library Mountain View, CA 94041 160 North Main Street Milpitas, CA 95035 The Countys Planning Commission held an informational public hearing on July 11, 2012, to receive comments on the Draft Program EIR. The County of San Mateo Planning and Building Department prepared a Final Program EIR entitled Reusable Bag Ordinance (formerly Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance) Final Program EIR. Pursuant to Section 15132 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this Final Program EIR consists of (a) revisions to the Draft Program EIR, (b) a list of persons and organizations that commented on the Draft Program EIR, (c) comments received on the Draft EIR, (d) the Countys responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process, and (e) any other information added by the County. The Final Program EIR is dated August 2012. The Final Program EIR was released and distributed to public agencies and other commenters on the Draft Program EIR and for public review, on August 31, 2012, more than 10 days in advance of the scheduled date of consideration of the document for certification by the County Board of Supervisors. Although not required by CEQA, a notice was sent by electronic mail to interested parties (those who had provided comments on the Draft EIR) and participating agencies. Copies of the Final Program EIR were made available for review at the County of San Mateo Planning and Building Department and at libraries listed above, and an electronic link to the Final Program EIR in .pdf format was posted on the Countys website. Copies of the Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR, including appendices, studies, documents and reports referenced EIRs are available for public review at the Planning and Building Department, 455 County Center, Second Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063. Copies of the Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR can also be viewed online at the following website: http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/portal/site/planning. The County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on October 23, 2012 to consider the Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR. At the conclusion of the Board of Supervisors public hearing of October 23, 2012, the Board of Super- visors certified the Final Program EIR (which incorporates the Draft Program EIR, as corrected). 2 206 7. FINDINGS OF FACT The Program EIR assumes the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance by the County and adoption of ordinances that are identical or materially similar to the Countys Ordinance by each municipality in the Study Area. The following references to Proposed Ordinance refer to the adoption of an individual Ordinance in each participating agency of the Final Program EIR: A. IMPACTS DECLARED TO BE BENEFICIAL (NO MITIGATION REQUIRED) Air Quality Impacts: Impact AQ-1: With a shift toward reusable bags, the Proposed Ordinance is expected to substantially reduce the number of single- use carryout bags, thereby reducing the total number of bags manufactured and the overall air pollutant emissions associated with bag manufacture, transportation and use. Therefore, air quality impacts related to alteration of processing activities would be Class IV, beneficial, effect. Biological Resource Impacts: Impact BIO-1: Although the Proposed Ordinance would incrementally increase the number of recycled paper and reusable bags within the Study Area, the reduction in the amount of single-use plastic bags would be expected to reduce the overall amount of litter entering the coastal and bay habitat, thus reducing litter-related impacts to sensitive wildlife species and sensitive habitats. This is a Cl beneficial, effect. Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts: Impact HWQ-1: The Proposed Ordinance would incrementally increase the number of recycled paper and reusable bags used in Study Area, but the reduction in the overall number of single-use plastic bags used in the Study Area would reduce the amount of litter and waste entering storm drains. This would improve local surface water quality, a Class IV, beneficial, effect. B. IMPACTS DECLARED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT (NO MITIGATIONREQUIRED) The Board finds that the environmental impacts identified in the Final Program EIR as being less than significant or as having no impact have been described and analyzed accurately and are less than signifi 7 207 have no impact for the reasons described in the Final Program EIR. Reference should be made to the Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR for a more complete description of the findings regarding these impacts. Specifically, the Board makes the following findings as to the following impacts: Air Quality Impacts: Impact AQ-2: With an expected increase in the use of recyclable paper bags, the Proposed Ordinance would generate air pollutant emissions associated with an incremental increase in truck trips to deliver recycled paper and reusable carryout bags to local retai However, emissions would not exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) operational significance thresholds Therefore, operational air quality impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Impacts Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Impact GHG-1: The Proposed Ordinance would increase the number of recyclable paper bags used in the Study Area. Implementation of the Proposed Ordinance would incrementally increase GHG emissions over existing levels. However, emissions would not exceed thresholds of significance. Therefore, impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Impact GHG-2: The Proposed Ordinance would not conflict with any agencys applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts: Impact HWQ-2: A shift toward reusable bags and potential increase in the use of recyclable paper bags could potentially increase the use of chemicals associated with their production, which could degrade water quality in some instances and locations. However, bag manufactu would be required to adhere to existing regulations, including NPDES Permit requirements, AB 258, and the California Health and Safety Code. Therefore, impacts to water quality from increasing bag processing activities would be Class III, less than significant. 8 208 Impacts to Utilities and Service Systems: Impact U-1: The increase of reusable bags within the Study Area as a result of the Proposed Ordinance would incrementally increase, by a negligible amount, water demand due to washing of reusable bags. However, sufficient water supplies are available to meet the neg increase in demand created by reusable bags. Therefore, water supply impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Impact U-2: Water use associated with washing reusable bags would increase negligibly in the Study Area, resulting in an increase in wastewater generation. However, projected wastewater flows would remain within the capacity of the wastewater collection and treatment system of the Study Area, and would not exceed applicable waste- water treatment requirements of the RWQCB. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Impact U-3: The Proposed Ordinance would alter the solid waste generation associated with increased paper bag use in the Study Area. However, projected future solid waste generation would remain within the capacity of regional landfills. Impacts would therefore be Class III, less than significant. 8. ALTERNATIVES The Program EIR assumes the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance by the County and adoption of ordinances that are identical or materially similar to the Countys Ordinance by each municipality in the Study Area. The following references to Proposed Ordinance refer to the adoption of an individual Ordinance in each participating agency of the Final Program EIR: As noted above, the Project would not result in any significant unavoidable effects. All potential impacts identified by Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR are either beneficial or less than significant such that no mitigation measures are required. In order to select and analyze alternatives that would avoid or sub- stantially lessen any of the Projects identified less than significant adverse environmental effects, the following environmental topics for which less than significant effects were identified in Final Program EIR were considered: Air Quality: Pollutant emissions from paper bag manufacture and delivery. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Emissions from paper bag manufacture delivery, and degradation. Hydrology and Water Quality: Litter in storm drains and waterways associated with plastic and paper bags. 9 209 Utilities and Service Systems: Water use from the manufacture of plastic and paper bags and cleaning of reusable bags, as well as wastewater generation from the cleaning of reusable bags. Solid waste from the disposal of plastic, paper and reusable bags. The following four alternatives are evaluated in the Final Program EIR: Alternative 1: No Project The no project alternative assumes that the Reusable Bag Ordinance is not adopted or implemented. Single-use plastic and paper carryout b continue to be available free-of-charge to customers at most retail stores throughout the Study Area. In addition, reusable carryout bags continue to be available for purchase by retailers. Thus, it is assumed that the use of carryout bags at Study Area retail stores would not materially change compared to current conditions. Alternative 2: Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags at all Retail Establishments Similar to the proposed Reusable Bag Ordinance, this alternative would prohibit Study Area retailers from providing single-use plastic carryout bags to customers at the point of sale and create a mandatory $0.10 charge per paper bag until December 31, 2014, and twenty-five cents ($0.25) per paper bag on or after January 1, 2015. However, under this alternative, the Ordinance would apply to all categories of retail establishments, including restaurants and non-profit, charitable retailers. As a result, under this alternative, no single-use plastic carryout bags would be distributed at the point of sale anywhere within the Study Area. Alternative 3: Mandatory Charge of $0.25 for Paper Bags This alternative would continue to prohibit Study Area retail establishments from providing single-use plastic bags to customers at the point of sale, but would increase the mandatory charge for a single-use paper bag from $0.10 to $0.25 initially rather than on or after January 1, 2015. As a result of the $0.15 mandatory charge increase per paper bag, it is anticipated that this alternative would further and more quickly promote the use of reusable bags since customers would be deterred from purchasing paper bags due to the additional cost. Alternative 4: Ban on Both Single-Use Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags This alternative would prohibit all Study Area retail establishments (except restaurants and non-profit, charitable retailers) from providing single-use plastic and paper carryout bags to customers at the point of sale. It is 10 210 anticipated that by also prohibiting paper carryout bags, this alternative would significantly reduce single-use paper carryout bags within the Study Area, and further promote the shift to the use of reusable bags by retail customers. By banning both single-use plastic and paper bags, customers would be forced to use reusable carryout bags. This is expected the number of reusable bags purchased within the Study Area. A. ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM CONSIDERATION The Program EIR assumes the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance by the County and adoption of ordinances that are identical or materially similar to the Countys Ordinance by each municipality in the Study Area. The following references to Proposed Ordinance refer to the adoption of an individual Ordinance in each participating agency of the Final Program EIR: CEQA requires that all alternatives considered be described, but it does not require a full analysis of alternatives that are infeasible, that do not meet the Project objectives, or that do not potentially reduce environmental impacts. Alternatives considered but eliminated from further consideration for these reasons are addressed in Section 6.5 of the Draft Program EIR and are summarized below. Additional litter removal programs, education efforts, enforcement for littering, and recycling programs for plastic bags: This altern rejected because it does not achieve the Ordinances objectives, including reducing the use of paper bags and promoting a shift toward the use of reusable bags. Ban Styrofoam (polystyrene) in addition to banning single-use plastic carryout bags: This alternative would not achieve the Proposed Ordinances objectives of reducing the environmental impacts related to single-use plastic bags or reduce any of the Proposed Ordinances environmental effects. Environmental impacts related to polystyrene use are outside the scope and objectives of the proposed action. Ban single-use plastic carryout bags, but not charge for paper bags at retailers in the Study Area: This alternative was rejected beca would not reduce customers use of paper bags, which have greater impacts related to air quality, GHG emissions, and water quality than plastic bags on a per bag basis. In addition, this alternative would not achieve the Proposed Ordinances objective of promoting a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags by retail customers to as great a degree as would occur with the Proposed Ordinance. Ban the use of single-use plastic carryout bags by retailers (e restaurants), with the exception of plastic bags made with bio- 11 211 degradable or compostable additives: This alternative was rejected from consideration because the environmental impacts associated with using biodegradable and compostable additives are uncertain at this time. Researchers at California State University Chico Research Foundation tested the degradation of biodegradable bags in composting conditions, and found that they did not degrade (CIWMB 2007; Green Cities California MEA, 2010). Furthermore, these bags reduce the quality of recycled plastics when introduced into the recycling stream and so must be kept separate to avoid contaminating the recycling stream (CIWMB 2007; Green Cities California MEA, 2010). Therefore, it is unclear what environmental impacts may be associated with switching to plastic bags made with biodegradable additives or water-soluble bags. In addition, this alternative would not achieve the objectives of reducing the amount of single-use plastic bags in trash loads (e.g., landfills), in conformance with the trash load reduction requirements of the NPDES Municipal Regional Permit, promoting a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags by retail customers, and avoiding litter and the associated adverse impacts to stormwater systems, aesthetics and the marine environment (San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean). Ban the use of single-use plastic carryout bags by retailers (e restaurants) and apply the ban to doggie waste cleanup bags at public parks: While plastic doggie waste cleanup bags may have certain impacts to the environment, it is assumed that these types of bags represent only a very small percentage of total plastic bag use. In contrast, the use of these types of bags promote the proper disposal of solid waste and benefit water quality in reducing so stormwater pollution. Thus, while this alternative would further reduce the overall number of plastic bags produced and used, it would not promote a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags by retail customers in the Study Area and could potentially increase impacts to stormwater systems. Environmental impacts related to plastic doggie waste cleanup bag use in the Study Area are outside the scope and objectives of the Proposed Ordinance. Implement an action targeting litter from homeless encampments near water bodies: This alternative would not achieve the objectives of reducing the amount of single-use plastic bags in trash loads (e.g., landfills), in conformance with the trash load reduction requirements of the NPDES Municipal Regional Permit and promoting a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags by retail customers. Require retailers to offer incentives for customers to use reus bags (such as paying customers) rather than banning single-use bags: While this alternative may deter some customers from using single- 12 212 use plastic and paper bags, it may not promote the shift to reusable carryout bags by retail customers as effectively and would place a financial burden on the Study Area retailers. B. FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CEQA only requires public agencies to make findings regarding the feasibility of project alternatives in limited circumstances. Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) provides that a public agency may not approve a project unless it makes findings, with respect to each significant project effect, that (1) mitigation has been required to reduce the significant effect, (2) mitigation to reduce the significant effect is within the jurisdiction of another public agency and should be adopted by that agency, and (3) that [s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations . . . make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (Pub. Res. Code § 21081(a), emphasis added, see also CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a).) In Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (CH Oceanside) (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 490, the Court of Appeals confirmed that, where the city found that the only adverse impact of a project could be avoided through the imposition of mitigation measures, it was not required to make any findings regarding the feasibility of proposed alternatives. (Citing Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 351, 379 [CEQA does not require the agency to consider the feasibility of environ- mentally superior project alternatives identified in the EIR if described mitigation measures will reduce environmental impacts to acceptable levels],Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 402, and Laurel Hills Homeowners Ass’n v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521.) The Project would not result in any significant unavoidable effects. All potential impacts identified by Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR are either beneficial or less than significant such that no mitigation measures are required. Accordingly, the County is not required to make findings regarding the feasibility of the alternatives considered in the EIR. C. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts which cannot be avoided. Based on the a contained in the Final Program EIR, implementation of the Project would not result in any significant unavoidable environmental impacts. 13 213 D. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT The Program EIR assumes the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance by the County and adoption of ordinances that are identical or materially similar to the Countys Ordinance by each municipality in the Study Area. The following references to Proposed Ordinance refer to the adoption of an individual Ordinance in each participating agency of the Final Program EIR: Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of the ways in which a proposed action could be growth inducing. This ways in which the Project would foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Based on the analysis contained in the Draft Program EIR, the Project would not be growth inducing as it would not affect long-term employment opportunities or increase the regions population. Employment patterns in the region would not be affected, as there are no known plastic bag manufacturing facilities in the Study Area. In addition, recyclable paper bag use is anticipated to increase incrementally. However, similar to plastic bag manufacturing, employment patterns in the region would not be affected by the Proposed Ordinance, as there are no known paper bag manufacturing plants in the Study Area. However, it should be noted that there is a paper bag manufacturing plant in Buena Park, California. Also, demand for reusable bags can be anticipated to increase. Nevertheless, incremental increases in the use of paper and reusable bags in the region are not anticipated to significantly affect long-term employment at these facilities or increase the regions population. Revenues generated by sales of paper bags would remain with th stores. The Proposed Ordinance would not affect economic growth and therefore would not be significant. No improvements to water, sewer, and drainage connection infra would be necessary for Project implementation. No new roads would be required. Because the Proposed Ordinance would not include any physical development or construction activities and would not involve the of infrastructure into areas that otherwise could not accommodate growth, it would not remove an obstacle to growth. For these reasons, the Project would not result in significant growth-inducing impacts. 14 214 E. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES TO THE ENVIRONMENT The Program EIR assumes the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance by the County and adoption of ordinances that are identical or materially similar to the Countys Ordinance by each municipality in the Study Area. The following references to Proposed Ordinance refer to the adoption of an individual Ordinance in each participating agency of the Final Program EIR: Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that significant irreversible environmental changes associated with a project shall be discussed, including the following: (1) Uses of non-renewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the Project that may be irreversible because a large commitment of such resources makes removal or non-use thereafter unlikely; (2) Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement that provides access to a previously inaccessible area), which generally commit future generations to similar uses; and (3) Irreversible damage that could result from environmental accidents associated with the Project. The intent of the Proposed Ordinance is to reduce the environmental impacts related to the use of single-use carryout bags, and to promote a shift toward the use of reusable bags. As an Ordinance, the Project would not include development of any physical structures or involve any construction activity. Therefore, the Proposed Ordinance would not alter existing land uses or cause irreversible physical alterations related to land development or resource use. To the contrary, the express purpose of the Ordinance is to reduce the wasteful use of resources and associated environmental impacts. Therefore, the Project, as proposed, would not result in significant irreversible environmental changes. 12. SUMMARY Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record, it is determined that: All potential effects on the environment due to the Project are either less than significant, such that no mitigation is required, or beneficial to the environment. 15 215 13. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE The Final Program EIR is hereby incorporated into these findings in its entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the basis for determining the significance of impacts and the comparative analysis of alternatives. 14. RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED Minor changes to the Draft Program EIR have been made since its publication as a result of comments received from organizations and individuals on the docu- ment. Staffinitiated changes include minor corrections and clarification to the text to correct typographical errors. None of the changes affect the analysis or conclusions of the Draft Program EIR. The changes to the Draft Program EIR do not require recirculation of the Program EIR because they do not result in any increased environmental effects that would alter or modify the conclusions of significance contained in the Draft Program EIR. The corrections and additions do not identify any new significant impacts, and, therefore, do not require additional mitigation measures or alternatives to the proposed Project. These are minor changes that do not require recirculation of the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b)). 15. CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Board finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final Program Environmental Impact Report in evaluating the Project, that the Final Program Environmental Impact Report is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and that the Environmental Impact Report reflects the independent judgment of the Board. The Board declares that no significant new impacts or information as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 have been received by the Board after the circulation of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report that would require recirculation. All of the information added to the Final Program Environmental Impact Report merely clarifies, amplifies or makes insignificant modifications to an already adequate EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b). The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo hereby certifies the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Project is adequate and complete in that it addresses the environmental effects of the Project and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. The Final Program Environmental Impact Report is composed of: The backup file material for the Project. The Notice of Preparation. 16 216 The Initial Study and the studies it relies upon. The Draft Environmental Impact Report dated June 2012. The comments on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report and responses thereto as contained in the Final Program EIR dated August 2012. The staff report for the public hearings before the Planning Commission held on July 11, 2012 and September 12, 2012. The staff report for the public hearing before the Board of Supervisors held on October 23, 2012. The minutes of the hearings and all documentary and other testimonial evidence submitted thereat. The Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof. Findings CEQA Compliance : As the decision-making body for the Project, the Board has reviewed and considered the information contained in the findings and supporting documentation. The Board determines that the findings contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project. The Board finds that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and applicable State and County Guidelines and that the County complied with CEQAs proce- dural and substantive requirements, such that the public was provided meaningful opportunity to comment regarding potential environmental effects of the Project. The 45-day public review period for the Draft Program EIR was June 22, 2012 to August 6, 2012. The 10-day public review period for the Final Program EIR was August 31, 2012 to September 10, 2012. The EIR concludes that the Project, as proposed, will result in impacts considered less than significant or beneficial to the environment. Review by the Decision Making Body Prior to Approval : The Final Program EIR was prepared and reviewed under the supervision and directions of the County of San Mateos Planning and Building Department staff. The Board is the final decision-making body for approval of the Project. The Board has received and reviewed the Final Program Environmental Impact Report prior to certifying the Final Program Environmental Impact Report and prior to making any decision to approve or disapprove the Project. Independent Judgment of Lead Agency : The Final Program Environmental Impact Report reflects the Countys independent judgment. Public Resources Code Section 21082.1 requires any environmental impact report or draft environmental impact report, prepared pursuant to the requirements of this division, to be prepared directly by, or under contract to, a public agency. The County has exercised independent judgment in accordance with this section retaining its own environmental consultant and directing the consultant in preparation of the Draft and Final Program Environmental Impact Report. 17 217 Conclusions : The Project would not result in any significant unavoidable effects. All potential impacts identified by Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR are either beneficial or less than significant such that no mitigation measures are required. 16. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM All potential impacts identified by Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR are either beneficial or less than significant such that no mitigation measures are required. Therefore, no mitigation monitoring program is required or necessary. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this ____ day of ____________, 2012. 18 218 County of San Mateo Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance Program EIR Attachment B Section 2.0 Project Description P A C I F I C O C E A N Bing Maps Hybrid: (c) 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data s baselayer data from San Mateo County Information Services Depart Project Location (San Mateo County) Aerial Map of 0 36Miles Participating City* in County of San Mateo and San Mateo County) Participating Cities in * Cities not included in Study Area: San Mateo County Atherton and Hillsborough Figure 2-1 County of San Mateo 219 County of San Mateo Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance Program EIR Section 2.0 Project Description Milpitas Mountain View Los Altos Cupertino Campbell Los Gatos Bing Maps Hybrid: (c) 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers. Additional baselayer data from San Mateo County Information Services Department, May 2012. Project Location 01.252.5Miles (Participating City Boundary in Santa Clara County) Aerial Map of Participating Cities in Santa Clara County Figure 2-2 County of San Mateo 220 Attachment C COUNTY OF SAN MATEO PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: September 12, 2012 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:Consideration of: (1) the certification of a Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final Program EIR)that analyzes the adoption of a Reusable Bag Ordinance (formerly Single-Use Bag Ban Ordinance) by the County of San Mateo and by cities in San Mateo County (Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Pa Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Franci Woodside) and by cities in Santa Clara County (Milpitas, Cuperti Gatos, Los Altos, Campbell, Mountain View); and (2) a proposed Reusable Bag Ordinance Regulating the Distribution of Single-Use Carryout Bags by Retail Establishments (Except Restaurants). PROPOSAL The applicant, the County Environmental Health Services Division Reusable Bag Ordinance (Proposed Ordinance) to be implemented within areas of unincorporated San Mateo County. The Proposed Ordinance will pr- tion of plastic bags by retail establishments and require these customers for recycled paper bags and reusable bags at the point of sale. The minimum charge would be ten cents ($0.10) per paper bag until De and twenty-five cents ($0.25) per paper bag on or after January 1, 2015. A stores may retain the charges to compensate the stores for increased costs related to compliance with the Proposed Ordinance. The Proposed Ordinance restaurants, take-out food establishments, or non-profit charitable reuse organizations. The Proposed Ordinance exempts retail customers participating in the California Special Supplement Food Programs and the CalFresh program from the paper bag charge. The Proposed Ordinance would be effective on April 22, and consumers time to comply with the Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of Supervisors: 1.Certify the Final Program EIR,and 2.Adopt the Reusable Bag Ordinance. 221 SUMMARY It is estimated that retail customers within the County and part San Mateo County consume approximately 386 million plastic bags other participating agencies in Santa Clara County are included,s to approximately 546 million plastic bags per year. According to the Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags prepared by Green Cities California in March 2010, most used plastic bags end up in landfills or as litter. The Proposed Ordinance draws on ordinances from other cities in California of San Jose) and is the product of outreach and feedback from ci Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San B San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, and Woodside, all pa in the Final Program EIR) and business representatives (e.g., Chambers of Com local businesses)in San Mateo County. The objectives of the Proposed Ordinance a to: Reduce the amount of single-use plastic bags in trash loads, in conformance with the trash load reduction requirements of the NPDES Municipal Regional Permit. Reduce environmental impacts related to single-use plastic carryout bags, such as impacts to biological resources, water quality, and utilities Deter the use of paper bags by customers in the County. Promote use of reusable carryout bags by retail customers in theCounty. Avoid litter and associated adverse impacts to stormwater system and the marine environment (San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Oc In addition to the County and 18 listed cities in San Mateo Counalso invited Santa Clara cities to participate in the Countys Program Environmen Report (Program EIR) to encourage regional reusable bag use. Inclusion of a cit scope of the Program EIR would allow thatcity to use the Program EIR to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act in the adoption of their own b The cities of Milpitas, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Los Altos, Campbeland Mountain View choose to be included in the Program EIR. The Final Program EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the adoption of an identical or similar ord the County and each of the 24 participating agencies. The Draft Program EIR analyzes the following issue areas in whic Ordinance may result in potentially significant environmental impacts: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology/Water Utilities and Service Systems. The Draft Program EIR concludes Ordinance may result in some negative environmental impacts in these issue areas, but -2- 222 that these impacts would be less than significant such that no m needed, and that the Proposed Ordinance would also result in ben these issue areas. CL:pac -CMLW0606_WPU.DOCX -3- 223 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: September 12, 2012 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Consideration of: (1) the certification of a Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final Program EIR),pursuant to the California Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA), that analyzes the adoption of a Reusa Ordinance (formerly Single-UseBag Ban Ordinance) by the County of San Mateo and by cities in San Mateo County (Belmont, Brisbane, Burl Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo P Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San San Mateo, South San Francisco, Woodside) and by cities in Santa County (Milpitas, Cupertino, Los Gatos, LosAltos, Campbell, Mountain View); and (2) a proposed Reusable Bag Ordinance (formerly Single-Use Bag Ban Ordinance) that would apply to retail establishments (in those selling clothing, food, and personal items directly to the but would not apply to restaurants nor charitable reuse organiza would (1) prohibit the free distribution of single-use carryout paper and plastic bags and (2) require retail establishments to charge cus recycled paper bags and reusable bags at thepoint of sale (minimum charge would be ten cents ($0.10) until December 31, 2014 and tw- five cents ($0.25) on or after January 1, 2015), within unincorp areas of San Mateo County. County File Number: PLN 2012-00136 PROPOSAL Summary of Ordinance Provisions The applicant, the County Environmental Health Services Division Reusable Bag Ordinance (Proposed Ordinance) to be implemented wi unincorporated San Mateo County. The Proposed Ordinance will: Prohibit the distribution of plastic bags by retail establishmen law already restricts local jurisdictions from imposing a fee on-use plastic 224 1 bags, the Proposed Ordinance imposes a cost pass-throughby prohibiting the free distribution of single-use carryout paper and plastic bags. Require retail establishments to charge customers for recycled p reusable bags at the point of sale. The minimum charge would be ($0.10) per paper bag until December 31, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) per paper bag on or after January 1, 2015. Allow the recycled bag charge to be retained by the affected sto the stores for increased costs related to compliance with the Pr Define the specific factors (durability and washability) that qu Exclude restaurants, take-out food establishments, or any other business that receives 90%or more of its revenue from the sale of prepared food to be eate or off its premises. Exclude non-profit charitable reuse organizations. Exempt retail customers participating in the California Special Food 2 Programs and the CalFresh program from having to pay the charge for a paper bag. Ordinance Implementation The Proposed Ordinance would: Be effective on April 22, 2013, giving stores and consumers time the ordinance and locate reusable bags as alternatives to carry purchases from stores. Require regulated retail establishments to keep complete and accurate records (including documents of the purchase and sale of any recycled pa reusable bag) for a minimum period of three years from the date of purchase and sale. Be enforcedby complaint response, as well as random compliance visits by Environmental Health Specialists. For stores out of compliance, the Environmental Health Services follow up with an educational letter for first time violations u well as outlining re-inspection fees charged for subsequent re-inspection visits. 1 A cost-share system where some or all of the cost of a product is passe-through from the purchaser to the receiver of the product. 2 The CalFresh (Food Stamp) program provides electronic benefits f-income households to buy food at most grocery stores. - 2 - 225 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the Supervisors: 1.Certify the Final Program EIR, and 2. Adopt the Reusable Bag Ordinance. BACKGROUND Report Prepared By: Camille Leung,Project Planner Applicant: Dean D. Peterson, Director of Environmental Health S SanMateo Location: Once adopted, the Ordinancewould apply to all of unincorporated San Mateo County. The Study Area of the Final Program EIRconsidersa bag ordinance adopted within unincorporated San Mateo County as well as a similar ordi the 18 participating cities in San Mateo County and six particip County. Environmental Evaluation: The Draft Program EIR was issued with a 45-day public review period from June 22, 2012 to August 6, 2012. The Final Program EIR(which includes the Draft Program EIR by reference and corrections) was issued with a 10-day Public Review period from August 31, 2012 to September 10, 2012. Chronology: DateAction March 23, 2012 - County enters into an Agreement with Rincon Consultants, Inc., to perform environmental consulting services, including preparation of a Program Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report for the project. April 6, 2012 - The County of San Mateo prepares a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Program EIR and distributes the NOP for agency and public review for a 30-day review period. April May 2012 - The County conducts seven public scoping meetings during the NOP comment period, which take place in Half Moon Bay (April 18), San Mateo (April 19), Mountain View (April 25), South San Francisco (April 26), Campbell (May 2), Milpitas (May 3) and Redwood City (May 3). June 22, 2012 - Public releasedate of Draft Program EIR. - 3 - 226 July 11, 2012 - Planning Commission Informational Public Hearing of the Draft Program EIR. August 6, 2012 - End of Draft Program EIR 45-day Public Review and Comment Period. August 31, 2012 - Public release date of Final Program EIR.Final Program EIR released with new name of Reusable Bag Ordinance, formerly Single-UseBag Ban Ordinance,to better communicate the positive purpose of the ordinance. September 10, 2012 - End of Final Program EIR10-day Public Review period. September 12, 2012 - Planning Commission public hearing. DISCUSSION A.IMPACTS OF CARRYOUT BAGS FROM THE GROCERY BAG MEA Many cities and counties that have adopted bag ordinances have r Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags (Grocery Bag MEA), prepared by Green Cities California in March 2010, to significance of actions that they may take to cut back on the use of single-use 3 grocery bags. The Countys Reusable Bag Ordinance Draft Program EIR relies on the Grocery Bag MEA for information about single-use grocery bags including existing regulations, life-cycle analysis, and potential impacts on the environment. The following is an overview of findings on various types of carout bags from the 4 Grocery Bag MEA. Single-Use Plastic Bags:Nearly 20 billion single-use high density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic grocery bags are used annually in Ca and most end up in landfills or as litter. In fact, of the four types of bags considered, plastic bags hadthe greatest impact on litter. Single-Use Paper Bags:Kraft paper bags are recycled at a significantly higher rate than single-use plastic bags. Still, over its lifetime, a single-use paper bag has significantly larger greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions results in greater atmospheric acidification, water consumption,e production than plastic bags. 3 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) authorizes the u Assessments (MEAs) in orderto provide information which may be used or referenced in EIRs o negative declarations (CEQA Guidelines Section 15169). 4 Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags, Green Cities California, March 2010, Page1. - 4 - 227 Single-Use Biodegradable Bags: Although biodegradable bags are thought to be an eco-friendly alternative to HDPE plastic bags, they have greater environmental impacts at manufacture, resulting in more GHG emis and water consumption than conventional plastic bags. In addition, biodegradable bags may degrade only under composting conditions. Therefore, when littered, they will have a similar impact on aes marine life as HDPE plastic bags. Reusable Bags:Reusable bags can be made from plastic or cloth and are designed to be used up to hundreds of times. Assuming the bags are reused at least a few times, reusable bags have significantly lo environmental impacts, on a per use basis, than single-use bags. 1.County Bag Consumption and Impact As previously stated, almost 20 billion plastic grocery bags, orproximately 5 531 bags per person, are consumed annually in California. Based on this estimate, retail customers within the County and participating municipalit of San Mateo County consume approximately 386 million plastic ba year. When the otherparticipating agencies in Santa Clara County are included (listed in Table 2 of this report), the number rises to approximatel 6 546 million plastic bags per year. - At the County-level, singleuse plastic carryout bags have been found to contribute substantially to the litter stream and to have advers 7 marine wildlife. The prevalence of litter from plastic bags in the urban - environment compromises the efficiency of infrastructure systems to channel stormwater runoff, leading to increased cleanup costs for the 8 County. The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Muni Regional Permit (MRP) requires Permittees (including all municip within San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties) to reduce trash loads municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) by 40% by 2014, 70% b 2017, and 100% by 2022. Specifically, each Permittee is require a Short-Term Trash Load Reduction Plan which must describe control measures and best management practices, including any trash redu ordinances that are currently being implemented or planned for i- tion, to attain a 40% trash load reduction from its MS4 by July adoption of the Proposed Ordinance is included in the Countys S-Term Trash Load Reduction Plan, submitted to the Water Board on February 1, 5 Source: Green Cities California MEA, 2010; and CIWMB, 2007. 6 Table 2-1 of the Draft Program EIR. - 7 United Nations 2009, CIWMB 2007, County of Los Angeles 2007. 8 Baseline Trash Load and ShortTerm Trash Load Reduction Plan, County of San Mateo, February 1, 2012. - 5 - 228 2012. The County of San Mateo will receive a 10%reductioncredit for 9 Ordinance adoption. 2.Effects of Fees on Single-Use Bag Use Per the Grocery Bag MEA, fees and bans on bags in the United Sta other regions of the world have resulted in dramatic drops in co For instance, Washington, D.C., saw bag use drop almost 80%after requiring a 5-cent charge for checkout bags, with 78%of businesses 10 reporting positiveor no impact to their sales. Fees on single-use bags reflect some or all of the actual production cost (approximately 1112 per plastic bag and approximately 15 to 25 cents per paper bag), as well as the environmental cost of the bags, and serve as a disincentive purchase. Several cities and counties in California have previo- sidered or passed similar ordinances within their respective jur These include, but are not limitedto, the Cities of San Francisco, Palo Alto, San Jose, Sunnyvale, Berkeley, Millbrae, Fairfax, Manhattan Beac Santa Monica, Calabasas, Huntington Beach, Dana Point, Laguna Be and Long Beach, and the Counties of Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Maand Alameda. B. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE 1.Basic Objectives of the Ordinance As listed in the Reusable Bag Ordinance Final Program EIR, the objectives of the Proposed Ordinance areto: Objective 1: Reduce the amount of single-use plastic bags in trash loads (e.g., landfills), in conformance with the trash load redu requirements of the NPDES Municipal Regional Permit (NPDES MRP). Objective 2:Reduce the environmental impacts related to single-use plastic carryoutbags, such as impacts to biological resources (including marine environments), water quality, and utilities (s waste). Objective 3: Deter the use of paper bags by customers in San Mateo County. - 9 BaselineTrash Load and ShortTerm Trash Load Reduction Plan, County of San Mateo, February 1, 2012. 10 Bag ban is good, but lets change behavior,Tara Gallagher, Portland Tribune, August 01, 2012. 11 AEA Technology, 2009. 12 City of Pasadena, 2008. - 6 - 229 Objective 4: Promote a shift toward the use of reusable carryoutbags by retail customers in San Mateo County. Objective 5: Avoid litter and associated adverse impacts to stormwater systems, aesthetics and the marine environment (San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean). 2.Origin of a Regional Approach On September 27, 2011, the Board of Supervisors held a workshop took comments from a number of individuals and business represen (e.g., chambers of commerce). At the conclusion of the workshop Board provided direction to staff to meet with cities within the Count develop an ordinance that could be implemented regionally. On October 3, 2011, San Mateo County Supervisors Groom and Tissi sent a letter (Attachment E) to all city mayors in San Mateo Cou them to participate in a Countywideworking group to develop an ordinance that would apply consistently across as many jurisdictions in Sa County as possible. The working group focused primarily on four of the ordinance: (1) which types of bags should be banned at the point-of- sale; (2) whether, in conjunction with a ban on the issuance of single-use carryoutbags at the point-of-sale, to require a fee for paper bags; (3) which, if any, types of establishments to exclude from the ordinances requirements; and (4) how the ordinance would be enforced. Many cities in the County participated in the Countywideworking group, including all cities that are now considering adoption of an ide similar ordinance to the Countys Proposed Ordinance, as listed Table 1 Municipalities in which County Environmental Health Services Division Staff would Regulate Implementation of Ordinance San Mateo County BelmontMillbrae BrisbanePacifica BurlingamePortola Valley ColmaRedwood City Daly CitySan Bruno East Palo AltoSan Carlos Foster CitySan Mateo HalfMoon BaySouth San Francisco Menlo ParkWoodside - 7 - 230 Working group discussions expressed a common desire to include a establishments and not to include restaurants, non-profit charitable retailers, nor protective product bags (e.g., produce/meat bags). 3.County Consultation with Industry Representatives Environmental Health Services Division staff consulted with the Grocers Association (CGA) in order to gauge their memberships a- tance to a bag ordinance. The CGAencouraged a consistent regional approach that applies to all retailers. Division staff also sen the farmers market managers informing them of the possible ordi Division staff also spoke with several dry cleaners and toured local dry cleaning plants. After reviewing the dry cleaning process, it w that a protective plastic cover was needed to ensure that clothe clean and protected from lint and other material during storage. from local plants underscored that a reusable garment bag is not- ically feasible at this time and sparks concerns of contaminatio bags. Further, the industry is making strides to reduce their u and encourages their customers to recycle plastic protective cov Further, creek and coastal cleanups do not report this type of plastic to be an issue. 4.Basis of Policy Direction Based on review of information collected from the working group, bag ordinances in the Bay Area and inother cities in the State, information from the Grocery Bag MEA, and consultation from County Counsel, Environmental Health Services Division staff established the fol guiding principles for its Reusable Bag Ordinance: Include all retail establishments: Level playing field for all retail establishments is critical for acceptance by retailers. Ban single-use plastic bags only and apply fee to recycled paper bags: Based on a comparison of pending and adopted bag ordinances in California included as Attachment C, all of the listed ordinance the exception of the City of Carpinterias ordinance, apply a ban on plastic single-use bags, not both plastic and papersingle-use bags. Most ordinances restrict the distribution of paper bags to recyc paper bags and have imposed a fee (in most cases, a 10-cent per bag fee with some increasing to 25 cents after a set time). Include single-use biodegradable bags inban, based on the Grocery Bag MEA: As stated previously, biodegradable bags have greater environmental impacts at manufacture, resulting in more GHG - 8 - 231 emissions and water consumption than conventional plastic bags a may degrade only under composting conditions. Therefore, when littered, they will have a similar impact on aesthetics and mari HDPE plastic bags. Therefore, biodegradable bags are included in the ban on plastic bags. Exclude restaurants:18 of the 25 ordinances listed in Attachment C exclude restaurants from the requirements of the ordinance. It be noted that the City of San Francisco expanded its ordinance i February 2012 to apply to restaurants and encountered strong opposition by the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition on this basis and issues related to CEQA compliance. Exclude non-profit charitable retailers: A handful of pending and adopted ordinances in the region exempts this type of retail establishment (e.g., Millbrae, Sunnyvale, San Jose, Monterey). Additionally, by the nature of their business, these organizations reduce the waste stream and use proceeds from purchases to fund charitable efforts. Exclude produce bags: Plastic produce bags (plastic bags with no handles) are presently a best-practices tool in the prevention of food cross contamination and to maintain the cleanliness of shopping and checkout stands at retail establishments. Based on the guiding principles listed above, Environmental Heal Division staff decided to model San Mateo Countys Proposed Ordi after an ordinance adopted by the City of San Jose. At a meeti- vened with representatives of 15 of the 20 incorporated cities i County, cities indicated support for this direction. 5.Outreach Plan A comprehensive outreach plan has been developed that will include extensive outreach to retailers and the public. Outreach effort phased to address pre-adoption of the Ordinance, providing for extensive outreach between Ordinance adoption and implementation, and then ongoing outreach after Ordinance implementation. County outreac in the pre-adoption phase have included support for participating agencies through email updates, press releases to local media, public eve appearances by the Bag Monster, websites, social media, as well as CEQA-related public scoping meetings. County outreach efforts betwee Ordinance adoption and implementation will also involve press re local media, public events, websites, social media, and will als support for participating agencies within the County through e-newsletters, reusable bag give-aways, partnerships with non-profit environmental - 9 - 232 agencies, and coordination with retailers for in-store campaigns. County ongoing outreach after implementation will include continued sup participating agencies within the County through e-newsletters and continued public campaigns through websites and social media. E jurisdiction will be responsible to identify and lead additional outreach efforts within their jurisdictions. C.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 1.Type and Scope of EIR The Proposed Ordinance is a discretionary project subject to the- mental review requirements of the California Environmental Quali (CEQA). Therefore, County of San Mateostaff have prepared a Final Program EIR (which includes the Draft Program EIR by reference including corrections) examining the Ordinances potential environmental i To increase the reach of the Countys efforts to encourage regio bag use, the County invited Santa Clara cities to participate in EIR as participating agencies.It should be noted that the Environmental Health Services Division only has enforcement authority within S County and that each cities outside of the County would be respo enforcing their own ordinance. Inclusion of a city in the scope would allow the city to use the EIR to comply with the Californi- 13 mental Quality Act in the adoption of their own bag ordinance. Six (6) cities in Santa Clara County choose to be included in the EIR. cities, in addition to the County of San Mateo, in the Program F listed below: Table 2 Participating Municipalities, in addition to the County of San M in the Program EIR San Mateo CountySanta Clara County BelmontMillbraeMilpitas BrisbanePacificaCupertino BurlingamePortola ValleyLos Gatos ColmaRedwood CityLos Altos Daly CitySan BrunoCampbell East Palo AltoSan CarlosMountain View Foster CitySan Mateo Half Moon BaySouth San Francisco Menlo ParkWoodside 13 The Program EIR does not preclude any requirement for individual further environmental review. - 10 - 233 The Final Program EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the adoption of an identical or similar ordinance in the County and 24 participating agencies. It should be noted that, consensus a the cities indicated support for the proposed ordinance language of the cities expressing that they did not feel comfortable expa restrictions of the Ordinance within their own jurisdictions bey City of San Joses ordinance. Further the proposed language was reviewed by several Chambers of Commerce and business associations, all o stressed that their support was contingent on consistency of loc ordinances region-wide. 2.Summary of Environmental Impacts a.Plastic Bag Replacement Assumptions The Final Program EIR estimates that the total volume of plastic bags 14 currently used in the study area is 552million plastic bags per year. The Final Program EIR assumes a reduction in plastic bag use after the adoption of the Ordinance, with assumptions that plastic bag would be replaced by recycled paper bags and reusable bags in th following proportions: Ninety-five percentof the total volume of plastic bags currently used in the study area (525 million plastic bags per year) would be replaced by recycled paper bags (30% of total) and reusable bags (65% of total) as a result of the Reusable Ban Ordinance. Five percentof the existing single-use plastic bags used in the study area (27 million plastic bags) would remain in use, as the Proposed Ordinance does not apply to some retailers who distribute single-use plastic bags. 15 Based on an estimate of 52 uses per reusable bag , 6.9 million reusable bags would replace 359 million single-use plastic bags. Based on the above assumption, the approximately 552 million single-use plastic carryout bags currently used in the study area annually would be reduced to approximately 200 million total bag a result of the Proposed Ordinance. 14 Based on statewide data indicating anestimate of 531 bags used per person,multiplied by the population of each participatingmunicipality. 15 A reusable carryoutbag would be used by a customer once per week for one year (52 t conservative estimate as a reusable bag, as required by the Prop capability of being used 125 times. - 11 - 234 b.Potential Environmental Impacts of Ordinance The Initial Study included in Appendix A of the Draft Program EIR identifies issue areas in which the adoption of the Proposed Ord would not result in any potential significant impact. Conversel Final Program EIR identifies and analyzes the following issue areas in which the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance may result in less significant or beneficial environmental impacts: Air Quality: While the Proposed Ordinance would reduce the total number of bags manufactured and the overall air pollutant emissions associated with bag manufacture, the Proposed Ordinance would generate air pollutant emissions associated with an incremental increase in truck trips to deliver recycled paper and reusable carryoutbags to local retailers. Biological Resources:The Proposed Ordinance would reduce the amount of single-use plastic bags which would be expected to reduce the overall amount of litter entering the coastal and bay habitat, thus, reducing litter-related impacts to sensitive wildlife species and sensitive habitats. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions: The Proposed Ordinance would increase the number of single-use paper bags used in the Study Area, resulting in an incremental increase in GHG emissions compared to existing conditions. Hydrology/Water Quality:While the Proposed Ordinance would incrementally increase the number of recycled paper and reusable bags used in the Study Area, which may result in an increase in the use of chemicals associated with their productio and associated water quality impacts, bag manufacturers would be required to adhere to existing water quality regulations. Al the Proposed Ordinance would reduce the overall number of single-use plastic bags used in the Study Area, reducing the amount of litter and waste entering storm drains. Utilities and Service Systems: While the Proposed Ordinance would increase the number of reusable bags within the Study Area, resulting in an incremental increase in water demand and wastewater generation by a negligible amount due to washing of reusable bags, projected wastewater flows would remain within the capacity of the wastewater collection and treatment system of the Study Area. Also, the Proposed Ordinance would - 12 - 235 increase paper bag use and related solid waste generation in the Study Area. However, projectedfuture solid waste genera- tion would remain within the capacity of regional landfills. Attachment D of this staff report includes a more detailed descr of the environmental issues relative to the Proposed Ordinance, identified significant environmental impacts and residual projec impacts. In summary, the Final Program EIR concludes that the Ordinance may result in some negative environmental impacts in t above issue areas, but that these impacts would be considered le than significant without need for mitigation or the Ordinance ma in beneficial impacts in these issue areas. As the Final Program EIR does not identify any significant impacts requiring mitigation, mitigation measures are included in the Final Program EIR. It should be noted that minor revisions were made to the Propose Ordinance after the release of the Draft Program EIR. These changes, as shown in tracked changes in Attachment B, clarify th dry cleaning bags would not be subject to the requirements of the Ordinance and adds a fee exemption for CalFresh (Food Stamp) program participants. These revisions to the Proposed Ordinance would not result in any change in the level of project-related environmental impact as analyzed in the Final Program EIR for the project. c. Project Alternatives As required by CEQA, the Final Program EIR examines a range of alternatives to the Proposed Ordinance (Project)that feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives. A brief summary of each alternative is provided below. Alternative 1: No Project The no project alternative assumes that the Reusable Bag Ordinance would not occur. The existing retail establishments would continue to provide single-use bags free of charge to the customers. Under Alternative 1, the Proposed Ordinances less than significant impacts related to water and wastewater demand from washing reusable bags would beeliminated, however, this alternative would not achieve the Proposed Ordinances beneficial effects relative to air quality, biological resources (sensitive species), and hydrology water quality, nor would it result in litter reduction. - 13 - 236 Alternative 2: Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags at All Retail Establishments This alternative would prohibit all retail establishments in the Study Area from providing single-use plastic bags to customers at the point of sale, including restaurants and other retailers not covered by the Proposed Ordinance. Under Alternative 2, the Ordinance would eliminate distribution of allsingle-use plastic carryout bags within the Study Area. It is assumed that the additional plastic bags that would be removed under this alternative would be replaced by recyclable paper bags. Compared to the Proposed Ordinance, Alternative 2 would result in equal or reduced impacts in the areas of biological resources and hydrology/water quality, due t the reduction in the use of single-use plastic bags. Alternative 2 would result in equal or increased impacts compared to the Proposed Ordinance in the areas of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and utilities and service systems, due to the increased use and disposal of paper bags. Alternative 3: Mandatory Charge of $0.25 for Paper Bags Alternative 3 is identical to the Project except that itwould increase the mandatory charge from $0.10 to $0.25 per recycled paper bag. Alternative 3 would further promote the use of reusable bags since customers would be deterred from pur- chasing paper bags due to the additional cost. Alternative 3 would result in equal or reduced impacts compared to the Proposed Ordinance in the areas of biological resources, hydrology/water quality, and utilities and service systems, due to reduced paper bag use. Similarly, compared to the Proposed Ordinance, Alternative 3 would result in reduced impacts in the areas of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Alternative 4: Ban on Both Single-Use Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Alternative 4 is identical to the Project except that it would prohibit retail establishments from providing both single-use plastic and paper carryout bags to customers at the point of sale. Alternative 4 would be considered environmentall superior among the alternatives, as it would have greater overal environmental benefits compared to the Proposed Ordinance. This alternative would result in beneficial effects to the envir- ment compared to existing conditions in the areas of air quality biological resources, GHG emissions, hydrology/water quality andutilities and service systems. - 14 - 237 These alternatives are described and evaluated in detail in Sect 6.0, Alternatives, of the Draft Program EIR. Environmental Health Services staff has discussed the possibility of implementing Alternatives 2 through 4 with each of the participatingagencies. A majority of the jurisdictions made it clear that they would not to consider a different policy direction, due to factors outline Basis of Policy Direction in Section B.4 of this staff report. Therefore, since the original project has been shown to result in less than significant impacts which do not require mitigation and ben impacts in some areas, the applicant has decided not to pursue a the alternatives and remain with the proposed language. d.Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period During the 45-day comment period for the Draft Program EIR, the County received 29 comments. The following is a summary of the commenters: Twenty-twocomments were received from individual members of the public (10 from San Mateo County residents, 3 from Santa Clara County residents, and 9 unknown). Fourcomments were received from participating agencies with questions regarding the CEQA process or corrections to the Draft Program EIR. Onecomment was received from a retailer (e.g., IKEA), in support of the Proposed Ordinance. Twocomments were received from environmental organizations in support of the Ordinance or one of the Project Alternatives (e.g., the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club supports Alternative 2). Eleven of the 29 comments expressed opposition to the Proposed Ordinance, for reasons including the following: Fivecomments stated that plastic bags are currently being reused or recycled. Fourcomments suggested that the fee for recycled bags is too high or would hurt the economy. - 15 - 238 Threecomments stated that use of reusable bags may pose health and sanitation risks, due to lack of washing. Other commenters expressed the opinion that the Ordinance is over-regulation and/or places a burden on businesses. D.SCHEDULE FOR REUSABLE BAG ORDINANCE Hearing Schedule Public Release Date of Draft Program EIRJune 22, 2012 Planning Commission Informational Public HearingJuly 11, 2012 August 6, 2012 End of 45-day Draft Program EIR Public Review and Comment Period Public Release Date of Final Program EIRAugust 31, 2012 September 10, 2012 End of 10-day Final Program EIR Public Review and Comment Period September 12, 2012 Second Planning Commission Public Hearing for Consideration Program EIR of the Final and the Proposed Ordinance Program October 23, 2012 Board of Supervisor Public Hearing to certify Final (Tentative) EIR and adopt ordinance (1st reading) Program October 30, 2012 Board of Supervisor Public Hearing to certify Final (Tentative) EIR and adopt ordinance (2nd reading) Ordinance Implementation Schedule Proposed effective date of ordinanceApril 22, 2013 Minimum charge would be ten cents ($0.10) per recycled paper April 22, 2013 bagDecember 31, 2014 January 1, 2015 Minimum charge would be twenty-five cents ($0.25) per recycled paper bag ATTACHMENTS Copies of the Reusable Bag Ordinance Final Program EIR are available at the following locations: 1.County of San Mateo Health System Environmental Health Services, Alameda de las Pulgas, Suite 100, San Mateo, California, 94403 a ; electronically at http://www.smchealth.org/BagBan 2.County Planning Department, 455 County Center, Second Floor, Red California, 94063 and electronically at http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/planning; and - 16 - 239 3.At the following libraries: Half Moon Bay Library Serramonte Main Library 620 Correas Street 40 Wembley Drive Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 Daly City, CA 94015 Millbrae LibraryMountain View Library 1 Library Avenue585 Franklin Street Millbrae, CA 94030Mountain View, CA 94041 San Mateo Main LibraryLos Gatos Public Library 55 West 3rd AvenueTown Civic Center San Mateo, CA 94402100 Villa Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 Redwood City Downtown Library 1044 Middlefield RoadMilpitas Library Redwood City, CA 94063160 North Main Street Milpitas, CA 95035 A.Reusable Bag Ordinance Final Program EIR Study Area Map B.Proposed Draft Ordinance, dated August 9, 2012 C. Comparison of Pending and Approved Bag Ordinances in California, August 2012 D. Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measure Residual Impacts from Final Program EIR E. Letter from San Mateo County Supervisors Groom andTissier, dated October 3, 2011 CL:pac - CMLW0607_WPU.DOCX - 17 - 240 County of San Mateo Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance Program EIR Attachment B Section 2.0 Project Description P A C I F I C O C E A N Bing Maps Hybrid: (c) 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data s baselayer data from San Mateo County Information Services Depart Project Location (San Mateo County) Aerial Map of 0 36Miles Participating City* in County of San Mateo and San Mateo County) Participating Cities in * Cities not included in Study Area: San Mateo County Atherton and Hillsborough Figure 2-1 County of San Mateo 241 County of San Mateo Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance Program EIR Section 2.0 Project Description Milpitas Mountain View Los Altos Cupertino Campbell Los Gatos Bing Maps Hybrid: (c) 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers. Additional baselayer data from San Mateo County Information Services Department, May 2012. Project Location 01.252.5Miles (Participating City Boundary in Santa Clara County) Aerial Map of Participating Cities in Santa Clara County Figure 2-2 County of San Mateo 242 Attachment B Single UseReusableBag Ordinance Ban–Draft Ordinance Language March 05, 2012August 9, 2012 Definitions A."Customer" means any person obtaining goods from a retail establishment. B.“Garment Bag” means a travel bag made of pliable, durable material withor withouta handle,designed to hang straight or fold double and used to carry suits, dresses, coats, or the like without crushing or wrinklingthe same. Nonprofit charitable reuser B."" means a charitable organization, as defined in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or a distinct operating unit or division of the charitable organization, that reuses and recycles donated goods or materials and receives more than fifty percent of its revenues from the handling and sale of those donated goods or materials. C."Person" means any natural person, firm, corporation, partnership, or other organization or group however organized. D."Prepared food" means foods or beverages which are prepared on the premises by cooking, chopping, slicing, mixing, freezing, or squeezing, and which require no further preparation to be consumed.“Prepared food” does not include any raw, uncooked meat product or fruits or vegetables which are chopped, squeezed, or mixed. Recycled paper bag E."" means a paper bag provided at the check stand, cash register, point of sale, or other point of departure for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment that contains no old growth fiber and a minimum of forty percent post- consumer recycled content; is one hundred percent recyclable; and has printed in a highly visible manner on the outside of the bag the words "Reusable" and "Recyclable," the name and location of the manufacturer, and the percentage of post-consumer recycled content. "Public eating establishment F." means a restaurant, take-out food establishment, or any other business that receives ninety percent or more of its revenue from the sale ofpreparedfood to be eaten on or off its premises. Retail establishment G."" means any commercial establishment that sells perishable or nonperishable goods including, but not limited to, clothing, food, and personal items directly to the customer; and is located within or doing business within the geographical limits of the County of San Mateo. “Retail establishment” does not include public eating establishments or nonprofit charitable reusers. Reusable bag H."" means either a bag made of cloth or other machine washable fabric that has handles, or a durable plastic bag with handles that is at least 2.25 mil thick and is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse.A garment bagthat meets the above criteriaregardless if it has handles or not. 243 Single-use carry-out bag I."" means a bag other than a reusable bag provided at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other point of departure,including departments within a store,for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment.“Single-use carry-out bags” do not include bags without handles provided to the customer: (1) to transport prepared food, produce, bulk food or meat from a department within a store to the point of sale; (2) to hold prescription medication dispensed from a pharmacy; or (3) to segregate food or merchandise that could damage or contaminate other food or merchandise when placed together in a reusable bag or recycled paper bag Single-use carry-out bag. . A.No retail establishment shall provide a single-use carry-out bag to a customer, at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other point of departure for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment except as provided in this section. On or before December 31, 2014 B.a retail establishment may make available for sale to a customer a recycled paper bag or a reusable bag for a minimum charge of ten cents. On or after January 1, 2015 C.a retail establishment may make available for sale to a customer a recycled paper bag or a reusable bag for a minimum charge of twenty-five cents. D.Notwithstanding this section, no retail establishment may make available for sale a recycled paper bag or a reusable bag unless the amount of the sale of suchbagis separately itemized on the sale receipt. E.A retail establishment may provideone or more recycled paper bags at no cost to any of the following individuals:a customer participating in the California Special Supplement Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 123275) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code; and a customer participating in the Supplemental Food Program pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 15500) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, with one or more recycled paper bags at no cost through December 31,2014; and a customer participating inCalfresh pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 18900) of Part 6 of Division 9 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code. Recordkeeping and Inspection. Every retail establishment shall keep complete and accurate record or documents of the purchase and sale of any recycled paper bagor reusable bagby the retail establishment, for a minimum period of three years from the date of purchase and sale, which record shall be available for inspection at no cost to the countyduring regular business hours by any county employee authorized to enforce this part.Unless an alternative location or method of review is mutually agreed upon, the records or documents shall be available at the retail establishment address.The provision of false information including incomplete records or documents to the countyshall be a violation of this section. 244 Administrative fine. (a)Grounds for Fine. A fine may be imposed upon findings made by the Director of the Environmental Health Division, or his or her designee, that any retail establishmenthas provided a single-use carry-out bag to a customer in violation of this Chapter. (b)Amount of Fine. Upon findings made under subsection (a), the retail establishmentshall be subject to an administrative fine as follows: (1)A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.00) for a first violation; (2)A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200.00) for a second violation; (3)A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) for the third and subsequent violations; (4)Each day that a retail establishmenthas provided single-use carry-out bags to a customer constitutesa separate violation. (c)Fine Procedures. Notice of the fine shall be served on the retail establishment. The notice shall contain an advisement of the right to request a hearing before the Director of the Environmental Health Division or his or her designee contesting the imposition of the fine. The grounds for the contest shall be thatthe retail establishmentdid not provide a single-use carry- out bag to any customer.Said hearing must be requested within ten days of the date appearing on the notice of the fine. The decision of the Director of the Environmental Health Division shall be based upon a finding that the above listed groundfor a contest hasbeen met and shall be a final administrative order, with no administrative right of appeal. (d)Failure to Pay Fine. If said fine is not paid within 30 days from the date appearing on the notice of the fine or of the notice of determination of the Director of the Environmental Health Division or his or her designee after the hearing, the fine shall be referred to a collection agency. Severability. If any provision of this chapter or the application of such provision to any person or in any circumstances shall be held invalid, the remainder of this chapter, or the application of such provision to person or in circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby. Enforcement of this chapter when adopted. 245 The Environmental Health Division is hereby directed to enforce Chapter 4.114of Title 4within an incorporated area of the County of San Mateo if the governing body of that incorporated area does each of the following: (a) Adopts, and makes part of its municipal code: (1)Chapter4.114of Title 4in its entirety by reference; or (2)An ordinance that contains each of the provisions of Chapter4Chapter4.114of Title 4 (b)Authorizes, by ordinance or resolution, the Environmental Health Division to enforce the municipal code adopted pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, such authorization to include, without limitation, the authority to hold hearings and issue administrative fines within the incorporated area of the public entity. 246 Attachment D Environmental Impact Classes: Class I Impacts are defined as significant, unavoidable adverse require a statement of overriding considerations to be issued pu CEQA Guidelines §15093 if the project is approved. Class II Impacts are significant adverse impacts that can be fea less than significant levels and which require findings to be ma 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. Class III Impacts are considered less than significant impacts. Class IV Impacts are beneficial impacts. Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts (Table ES-1 from FEIR) ImpactMitigation Significance MeasuresAfter Mitigation AIR QUALITY Impact AQ-1 Mitigation is not The impact would With a shift toward reusable bags, the Proposed required.be beneficial Ordinance is expected to substantially reduce the number without mitigation. of single-use carryout bags, thereby, reducing the total number of bags manufactured and the overall air pollutant emissions associated with bag manufacture and use. Therefore, air quality impacts related toalteration of processing activities would be Class IV, beneficial. Impact AQ-2 Mitigation is not Impacts would be With an expected increase in the use of paper bags,the required.less than Proposed Ordinance would generate air pollutant significant without emissions associated with an incremental increase in truck mitigation. trips to deliver recycled paper and reusable carryout bags to local retailers.However, emissions would not exceed BAAQMD operational significance thresholds. Therefore, operational air quality impacts would be Class III, less than significant. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact BIO-1 Mitigation is not The impact would Although the Proposed Ordinancewould incrementally required.be beneficial increase the number of recycled paper and reusable bags without mitigation. within the Study Area, the reduction in the amount of single-use plastic bags would be expected to reduce the overall amount of litter entering the coastal and bay habitat, thus, reducing litter-related impacts to sensitive wildlife species and sensitive habitats.This is a Class IV, 254 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts (Table ES-1 from FEIR) ImpactMitigation Significance MeasuresAfter Mitigation beneficial. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Impact GHG-1 Mitigation is not The impact would The Proposed Ordinance would increasethe number of required.be less than single-use paperbags used in the Study Area.significant without Implementation of the Proposed Ordinance would mitigation. incrementally increase GHG emissions compared to existingconditions.However, emissions would not exceed thresholds of significance.Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Impact GHG-2 Mitigation is not The impact would The Proposed Ordinance would not conflict with any required.be less than applicable plan, policyor regulation of an agency adopted significant without for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.mitigation. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY Impact HWQ-1 Mitigation is not The impact would The Proposed Ordinance would incrementally increase the required.be beneficial number of recycled paper and reusable bags used in the without mitigation. Study Area, but the reduction in theoverall number of single-use plastic bags used in the Study Area would reduce the amount of litter and waste entering storm drains.This would improve local surface water quality, a Class IV, beneficial. Impact HWQ-2 Mitigation is not Impactswould be A shift toward reusable bags and potential increasein the required.less than use of recyclable paper bags could potentially increase the significant without use of chemicals associated with their production, which mitigation. could degrade water quality in some instances and locations.However, bag manufacturers would be required to adhere to existing regulations, including NPDES Permit requirements, AB 258, and the California Health and Safety Code. Therefore, impacts to water qualityfrom altering bag processing activities would be Class III, less than significant. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Impact U-1 Mitigation is not Impacts would be The increase of reusable bags within the Study Area as a required.less than result of the Proposed Ordinance would incrementally significant without increase water demand by a negligible amount due to mitigation. washing ofreusable bags.However, sufficient water supplies are available to meet the demand created by 255 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts (Table ES-1 from FEIR) ImpactMitigation Significance MeasuresAfter Mitigation reusable bags.Therefore, water supply impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Impact U-2 Mitigation is not Impacts would be Water use associated with washing reusable bags would required.lessthan increase negligiblyresulting in an increase in wastewater significant without generation in theStudy Area. Projected wastewater flows mitigation. would remain within the capacity of the wastewater collection and treatment system of the Study Area, and would not exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Impact U-3 Mitigation is not Impacts would be The Proposed Ordinancewould alter the solid waste required.less than generation associated with increased paper bag use in the significant without Study Area.However, projected future solid wastemitigation. generation would remain within the capacity of regional landfills.Impacts would therefore be Class III, less than significant. 256 Attachment D 257 258 259 Attachment E ReusableBagOrdinanceFinalProgramEIR LeadAgency:CountyofSanMateo ParticipatingAgency: DateofOrdinanceAdoption: 260 261 RESOLUTIONNO.13 ARESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITY OFCUPERTINOCERTIFYINGTHEFINALPROGRAM ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT(EIR) ANDADOPTINGTHEFINDINGSOFFACTPURSUANT TOTHEEIR WHEREAS,singleusecarryoutbagsconstituteahighpercentageoflitter,which isunsightly,costlytocleanup,andcausesseriousnegativeenvironmentalimpacts;and WHEREAS,theCityhasasubstantialinterestinprotectingitsresidentsandthe environmentfromnegativeimpactsfromplasticcarryoutbags;and WHEREAS,onOctober23,2012theSanMateoCountyBoardofSupervisors rd certifiedaProgramEnvironmentalImpactReport /¸µ¸§³$(1!thatanalyzedthe impactsoftheCountyofSan,§º«µ¹ReusableBagordinanceifadoptedincities throughouttheCountyofSanMateo(hereinreferredtoastheCounty)aswellas neighboringjurisdictions.TheProgramEIRwasadoptedandcertifiedpursuanttothe CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct,PublicResourcesCodesection21000«º¹«·. "$0 !andtheCEQAGuidelines,CaliforniaCodeofRegulations,Title14,Section 15000«º¹«·.andisincorporatedbyreferenceherein;and WHEREAS,onNovember6,2012theCountyadoptedanordinancebanning th singleusecarryoutbagsfromstores,whilerequiringstoresthatprovidereusablebags tochargecustomersforsuchbags;and WHEREAS,the"µ»´º¿¹ordinanceencouragedcitieswithinandneighboring theCountytoadoptsimilarordinancesandthe"µ»´º¿¹EIRspecificallyanalyzedthe possibilityof24cities(18citieswithinSanMateoCountyandtheCityofCupertino and5othercitiesinSantaClaraCounty)adoptingSanMateo"µ»´º¿¹ordinance withintheirownjurisdictions;and WHEREAS,theCityofCupertinointendsits 1«»²§º¯µ´ofSingleUseCarryout !§¹!ordinancetofallwithinthescopeofthe"µ»´º¿¹EIRandhasthereforemodeled the"¯º¿¹ordinanceonthe"µ»´º¿¹ordinance. 262 NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDTHAT: PursuanttoSection15096oftheCEQAGuidelines,theCityofCupertinoactsasa responsibleagencyforadoptionoftheRegulationofReusableBagsordinancewithin theCityofCupertino.UponindependentreviewoftheProgramEIRandallthe evidencebeforeit,theCityCouncilmakesthefollowingfindings: 1)TheFinalProgramEnvironmentalImpactReport %¯´§²Program$(1!is complete,correct,adequate,andpreparedinaccordancewithCEQA,14 CaliforniaCodeofRegulationssection15000etseq. "$0 &»¯ª«²¯´«¹! and thepubliccommentperiod;and 2)OnthebasisoftheInitialStudy,NoticeofPreparation,FinalProgramEIR,and publiccommentreceivedbyboththeCountyofSanMateoandtheCityof Cupertino,thereisnosubstantialevidencethattheprojectasproposedwillhave asignificanteffectontheenvironment;and 3)AdoptionoftheRegulationofReusableBagsordinanceandanalysisofthe ProgramEIRreflectstheindependentjudgmentoftheCityCounciloftheCityof Cupertino;and 4)NoneoftheconditionslistedinCEQAGuidelinessection15162(a)areapplicable toadoptionoftheRegulationofReusableBagsordinance,andadoptionofthe RegulationofReusableBagsordinanceisanactivitythatispartoftheprogram examinedbythe"µ»´º¿¹FinalProgramEIRandiswithinthescopeofthe projectdescribedinthe"µ»´º¿¹FinalProgramEIR. 5)ANoticeofDeterminationshallbefiledbytheCityofCupertinopursuantto CEQAGuidelinessections15094and15096. 263 PASSEDANDADOPTEDataspecialmeetingoftheCityCounciloftheCityof Cupertinothis15thdayofJanuary,2013,bythefollowingvote: VoteMembersoftheCityCouncil Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST:APPROVED: _________ ___ GraceSchmidt,CityClerkOrrinMahoney,Mayor 264 ORDINANCENO.13 ANORDINANCEOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITY OFCUPERTINOADDINGCHAPTER9.17TOTHE CUPERTINOMUNICIPALCODEREGARDING REGULATIONOFSINGLEUSECARRYOUTBAGS AttachmentC CUPERTINOMUNICIPALCODE CHAPTER 9.17 REGULATION OF SINGLE-USE CARRYOUT BAGS 9.17.100Findingsandpurpose TheCityCouncilfindsanddeterminesthat: (a)Theuseofsingleusecarryoutbagsbyconsumersatretailestablishmentsis detrimentaltotheenvironment,publichealthandwelfare. (b)Themanufactureanddistributionofsingleusecarryoutbagsrequiresutilization ofnaturalresourcesandresultsinthegenerationofgreenhousegasemissions. (c)Singleusecarryoutbagscontributetoenvironmentalproblems,includinglitterin stormdrains,creeks,thebayandtheocean. (d)Singleusecarryoutbagsprovidedbyretailestablishmentsimposeunseencostson consumers,localgovernments,thestateandtaxpayersandconstituteapublic nuisance. TheCityCouncilfindsanddeclaresthatitshouldrestrictthefreedistributionof singleusecarryoutbags. 9.17.110Definitions A.Customermeansanypersonobtaininggoodsfromaretailestablishment. B. &§¸³«´º¨§!meansatravelbagmadeofpliable,durablematerialwithor withoutahandle,designedtohangstraightorfolddoubleandusedtocarrysuits, 265 dresses,coats,orthelikewithoutcrushingorwrinklingthesame. C. &§¸³«´º©µ¼«¸!meansaprotectivetextilecoverwithorwithoutahandle, madeofplastic,paper,orothermaterialandusedasaprotectivecoveringforclothing, draperies,orsimilartextilesaftertheprofessionalcleaning,alteration,orrepairofsuch items. D.Nonprofitcharitablereusermeansacharitableorganization,asdefinedin Section501(c)(3)oftheInternalRevenueCodeof1986,oradistinctoperatingunitor divisionofthecharitableorganization,thatreusesandrecyclesdonatedgoodsor materialsandreceivesmorethanfiftypercentofitsrevenuesfromthehandlingand saleofthosedonatedgoodsormaterials. E.Personmeansanynaturalperson,firm,corporation,partnership,orother organizationorgrouphoweverorganized. F.Preparedfoodmeansfoodsorbeverageswhicharepreparedonthepremises bycooking,chopping,slicing,mixing,freezing,orsqueezing,andwhichrequireno furtherpreparationtobeconsumed. /¸«¶§¸«ª¬µµª!doesnotincludeanyraw, uncookedmeatproductorfruitsorvegetableswhicharechopped,squeezed,ormixed. G.Publiceatingestablishmentmeansarestaurant,takeoutfoodestablishment, oranyotherbusinessthatreceivesninetypercentormoreofitsrevenuefromthesale ofpreparedfoodtobeeatenonoroffitspremises. H.Recycledpaperbagmeansapaperbagprovidedatthecheckstand,cash register,pointofsale,orotherpointofdepartureforthepurposeoftransportingfood ormerchandiseoutoftheestablishmentthatcontainsnooldgrowthfiberanda minimumoffortypercentpostconsumerrecycledcontentandisonehundredpercent recyclable. I.Retailestablishmentmeansanycommercialestablishmentthatsellsperishable ornonperishablegoodsincluding,butnotlimitedto,clothing,food,andpersonalitems directlytothecustomer;andislocatedwithinordoingbusinesswithintheCityof Cupertino. 1«º§¯²«¹º§¨²¯¹®³«´º!doesnotincludepubliceatingestablishmentsor nonprofitcharitablereusers. J.Reusablebagmeanseitherabagmadeofclothorothermachinewashable fabricthathashandles,oradurableplasticbagwithhandlesthatisatleast2.25 millimetersthickandisspecificallydesignedandmanufacturedformultiplereuse. 266 K.Singleusecarryoutbagmeansabagotherthanareusablebagprovidedatthe checkstand,cashregister,pointofsaleorotherpointofdeparture,including departmentswithinastore,forthepurposeoftransportingfoodormerchandiseoutof theestablishment. 2¯´²«usecarryout¨§¹!donotincludebagswithouthandles providedtothecustomer:(1)totransportpreparedfood,produce,bulkfoodormeat fromadepartmentwithinastoretothepointofsale;(2)toholdprescriptionmedication dispensedfromapharmacy;or(3)tosegregatefoodormerchandisethatcoulddamage orcontaminateotherfoodormerchandisewhenplacedtogetherinareusablebagor recycledpaperbag. 9.17.120Implementationdate ThisChaptershallbeimplementedasofOctober1,2013. 9.17.130Singleusecarryoutbag A.Nopersonorretailestablishmentshallprovideasingleusecarryoutbagtoa customer,atthecheckstand,cashregister,pointofsaleorotherpointofdeparturefor thepurposeoftransportingfoodormerchandiseoutoftheestablishmentexceptas providedinthissectionorinsection9.17.140. B.EffectiveOctober1,2013aretailestablishmentmayonlymakerecycledpaper bagsorreusablebagsavailabletocustomersiftheretailerchargesaminimumoften cents. C.EffectiveJanuary1,2015aretailestablishmentmayonlymakerecycledpaper bagsorreusablebagsavailabletocustomersiftheretailerchargesaminimumof twentyfivecents. D.Notwithstandingthissection,noretailestablishmentmaymakeavailablefor salearecycledpaperbagorareusablebagunlesstheamountofthesaleofsuchbagis separatelyitemizedonthesalereceipt. E.Aretailestablishmentmayprovideoneormorerecycledpaperbagsatnocost toanyofthefollowingindividuals:acustomerparticipatingintheCaliforniaSpecial SupplementFoodProgramforWomen,Infants,andChildrenpursuanttoArticle2 (commencingwithSection123275)ofChapter1ofPart2ofDivision106oftheHealth andSafetyCode;acustomerparticipatingintheSupplementalFoodProgrampursuant toChapter10(commencingwithSection15500)ofPart3ofDivision9oftheCalifornia WelfareandInstitutionsCode;andacustomerparticipatinginCalfreshpursuantto Chapter10(commencingwithSection18900)ofPart6ofDivision9oftheCalifornia 267 WelfareandInstitutionsCode 9.17.140Exemptions TheprovisionsofthisChaptershallnotapplyinthefollowingcircumstanceswhere: 1.Aplasticorpapercarryoutbagwithorwithouthandlesisprovidedbyapublic eatingestablishmenttotransportpreparedfood; 2.Aplasticorpaperbagwithorwithouthandlesisprovidedbyanonprofit charitablereuser; 3.Aplasticorpaperbagwithouthandlesisprovidedtotransportpreparedfood, produce,bulkfood,ormeatfromadepartmentwithinastoretothepointofsale; 4.Aplasticorpaperbagwithouthandlesisprovidedtoholdprescription medicationdispensedfromapharmacy; 5.Aplasticorpaperbagwithouthandlesisusedtosegregatefoodormerchandise thatcoulddamageorcontaminateotherfoodormerchandisewhenplaced togetherinareusablebagorrecycledbag; 6.Agarmentbagorgarmentcoverusedtoprotectandtransportclothingorother textiles. 9.17.150Enforcement recordkeepingandinspection Everyretailestablishmentshallkeepcompleteandaccuraterecordordocumentsofthe purchaseandsaleofanyrecycledpaperbagorreusablebagbytheretailestablishment, foraminimumperiodofthreeyearsfromthedateofpurchaseandsale,whichrecord shallbeavailableforinspectionatnocosttotheCityduringregularbusinesshoursby anyCityemployeeauthorizedtoenforcethisChapter.Unlessanalternativelocationor methodofreviewismutuallyagreedupon,therecordsordocumentsshallbeavailable attheretailestablishmentaddress.Theprovisionoffalseinformationincluding incompleterecordsordocumentstotheCityshallbeaviolationofthisChapter. 9.17.160Administrative©¯º§º¯µ´§´ªfine (a)Groundsforanadministrativecitation.Anadministrativecitationmaybeissued uponfindingsmadebytheCityManager,orhisorherdesignee,whenanypersonor retailestablishmenthasprovidedasingleusecarryoutbagtoacustomerorviolated anyotherprovisionofthisChapter. (b)Administrativecitationfineamounts. Uponfindingsmadeundersubsection(a),the retailestablishmentshallbesubjecttoanadministrativecitationpursuanttoChapter 268 1.10ofthisCode.Finesfortheadministrativecitationareasfollows: (1)Firstcitation:Onehundreddollars($100.00) (2)Secondcitationforthesameviolationwithinthesametwelvemonthperiod: Twohundreddollars($200.00) (3)Thirdoranysubsequentcitationforthesameviolationwithinthesame twelvemonthperiod:Fivehundreddollars($500.00) (4)Eachdaythatanypersonorretailestablishmentviolatestheprovisionsofthis Chapteranewandseparateviolationoccurs. (c)Administrativecitationappealsanddispositionaddressedinaccordancewith Chapter1.10ofthisCode. 9.17.170Severability Ifanysection,subsection,subdivision,sentence,clause,orphraseofthisChapterisfor anyreasonheldtobeunconstitutionalorotherwisevoidorinvalid,byanycourtof competentjurisdictionthevalidityoftheremainingportionofthisChaptershallnotbe affectedthereby. TheCityClerkshallcertifytheadoptionofthisOrdinanceandshallgivenoticeofits adoptionasrequiredbylaw.PursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection36933,asummary ofthisOrdinancemaybepublishedandpostedinlieuofpublicationandpostingofthe entiretext. EFFECTIVEDATE.ThisOrdinanceshallbeeffectiveonOctober1,2013 ******** INTRODUCEDataregularmeetingoftheCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinothe 15thdayofJanuary2013andENACTEDataregularmeetingoftheCityCouncilofthe CityofCupertinothe___dayof_________2013,bythefollowingvote: 269 PASSED: Vote:MembersoftheCityCouncil Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST:APPROVED: ____________________________________________ GraceSchmidt,CityClerkOrrinMahoney,Mayor 270 ORDINANCE NO. 13- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 9.18 (STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION AND WATERSHED PROTECTION) OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADDRESS LITTER MANAGEMENT AND ANTI-LITTER ENFORCEMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY’S STORMWATER PERMIT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1SECTION 9.18.020 AMENDED .. SECTION 9.18.020 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection 45. to read as follows: 9.18.020 Definitions. 45. “Litter.” As used in this chapter, litter may be, but is not limited to, plastic, paper, cigarette butts, floor sweepings, trash, rubbish, food, cloth, metal, recyclable material, or waste matter of whatever character. Section 2.SECTION 9.18.210 AMENDED . SECTION 9.18.210 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of subsection 4.P. to read as follows: 9.18.210 Stormwater Pollutant Source Controls and BMPs. [1. through 3. unchanged] 4. All dischargers must implement and maintain minimum best management practices. The Director of Public Works may require submission of information to evaluate the implementation and/or require the implementation of BMPs to prevent pollutant sources from entering the City's storm drain collection system associated with outdoor process and manufacturing areas, outdoor material storage areas, outdoor waste storage and disposal areas, outdoor vehicle and equipment storage and maintenance areas, outdoor parking and access roads, outdoor wash areas, outdoor drainage from indoor areas, rooftop equipment, contaminated and erodible surfaces, or other sources determined by the director to have a reasonable potential to contribute to pollution of stormwater runoff. Minimum BMPs and source control measures for all dischargersinclude, but are not limited to the following: 271 [A. through O. unchanged] P. Outdoor Recycling, Composting and Trash Receptacle Sets Required for Public Use at New and Redeveloped Commercial and Retail Sites. 1.To help prevent littering, a set of outdoor receptacles consisting of three separate containers one each for recyclable, compostable and garbage materials must be provided by the property owner and placed together in collection areas for public use at all new and redeveloped commercial and retail sites. The receptacles shall be maintained by the property owner or the property owner’s designee. One set of these receptacles may satisfy the requirement for up to four adjacent u businesses at one shopping center. The number of receptacle sets that are required will be determined by the Director of Public Works and are intended to be sufficient to contain the amount of litter and debris that is reasonably expected to be generated from the type and size of the businesses at each commercial or retail site. The requirement for outdoor litter receptacles shall be a condition of approval that u will be reviewed within the permit application process. The condition may be amended if an alternative set of bins will provide equal containment of public litter, or waived by the Director of Public Works if the potential impact from litter in the vicinity of the business is negligible. Section 3.SECTION 9.18.215 ADDED. A new Section, Section 9.18.215, is hereby added to the Cupertino Municipal Code to read as follows: 9.18.215 Litter Prevention and Enforcement. A. Violations 1.It is unlawful for any person to sweep, throw, deposit, place, or drop without picking up, any litter into or upon any public street, way, sidewalk, parking lot or other public place, or in or upon private property in the City into or upon which the public is admitted by easement or license. 2.It is unlawful for any person to throw or deposit litter in any fountain, pond, creek, stream or other body of water in a park or elsewhere within the City. 3.It is unlawful for any person to collect any garbage, mixed recyclables, or other materials from public or privately authorized outdoor receptacles, kept or accumulated within the City, unless such person is an agent or employee of the 272 City acting within the course and scope of his or her employment, or is acting pursuant to a franchise awarded by the City to act as garbage collector. 4.It is unlawful for any person to throw or deposit litter on any occupied private property within the City, whether owned by such person or not. 5.It is unlawful for any person to throw or deposit litter on any open or vacant private property within the City whether or not the property is owned by such person. 6.It is unlawful for any person to drive or move any open vehicle or trailer within the City unless there is a tarp over the contents or the material is constructed and loaded so as to ensure that all litter is prevented from being blown or deposited upon any street, alley or other public or private place B. Collection and Maintenance 1. Persons placing material intended for disposal or recycling in public receptacles or in authorized private receptacles shall do so in such a manner as to prevent it from being scattered, carried or deposited by the elements or animal scavengers upon any street, sidewalk, parking lot, creek, park or other public or private place. 2.Persons placing material intended for disposal or recycling in any public or privately authorized outdoor receptacle shall ensure that the lid is left completely closed. The over-filling of any outdoor receptacle intended for, but not limited to, trash, compostable organics and recyclables, in a manner that does not allow the lid to be completely closed is prohibited. The lid of a residential yard waste bin may be left partially open so long as the greater part of the yard and tree trimmings are contained if it is necessary to leave the lid partially open due to the branches or limbs not fitting completely into the bin with the lid closed. Yard waste bins containing food waste must be left with lids completely closed when not being serviced. 3.Uncontained large items originating from single-family homes that will not fit into a receptacle may be placed at the curb for scheduled collection within 24 hours of such collection by an agent or employee of the City or by the awardee of a franchise by the City to act as garbage and recycling collector. 4.Persons owning or occupying property shall maintain the premises, including the perimeter and the sidewalk in front of their premises, free of loose litter. 5.Persons sharing receptacles placed outside of retail areas for public use, as required in section 9.18.210.4.P., must also share equally in the responsibility of 273 emptying the receptacles so that they do not overflow and maintaining the area around the receptacles so that it is free of loose litter. C. Exceptions The provisions of this section shall not apply to the distribution of mail by the United States, nor to newspapers of general circulation as defined by general law, nor any periodical or current magazine regularly published; provided, however, that no newspaper shall be thrown, deposited or distributed upon any premises where the owner or inhabitant thereof shall have previously advised, in writing, the publisher or distributor of such newspaper not to do so; and no newspaper shall be thrown, deposited or distributed upon any premises where two (2) or more editions of the same newspaper remain unclaimed by the owner or occupant thereof. 9.18.260 Administrative Penalties–Payment of Funds to Account. Whenever the City Manager or his/her designee finds that any person has violated any provision of this chapter or has violated any notice requiring compliance with any provision of this chapter, the City Manager or designee may issue an administrative citation pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.10 of this code and assess an administrative penalty in a sum not to exceed the amounts provided in Government Code § 54740.5. The remedy provided in this section is cumulative and not exclusive, and shall be in addition to all other remedies available to the City under state and federal law and local ordinances. Funds collected pursuant to this section shall be paid to City's Environmental Storm Management Account. Section 4. Statement of Purpose. This Ordinance is intended to support the City’s enforcement of the State of California’s anti-littering laws - California Penal Code Section 374.4 and to require waste receptacles at all new and redeveloped commercial and retail sites within the City of Cupertino. In the absence of this amendment, it would be difficult for the City to engage the assistance of the public in implementing new State requirements to reduce litter that is generated within the City and which could reasonably be expected to make its way to the City’s storm drainage system, local creeks and waters of the State. Section 5. CEQA Exemption. The Class 8 exemption, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment, applies to this ordinance, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15308. Section 6. Severability. Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any 274 other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable. Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937. Section 8. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and posting of the entire text. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the 15th day of January and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the ___day of ______ 2013 by the following vote: VoteMembersoftheCityCouncil Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST:APPROVED: ____________ GraceSchmidt,CityClerkOrrinMahoney,Mayor 275 ORDINANCENO.13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 9.18 (STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION AND WATERSHED PROTECTION) OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADDRESS LITTER MANAGEMENT AND ANTI-LITTER ENFORCEMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY’S STORMWATER PERMIT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1SECTION 9.18.020 AMENDED .. SECTION 9.18.020 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection 45. to read as follows: 9.18.020 Definitions. 45. “Litter.” As used in this chapter, litter may be, but is not limited to, plastic, paper, cigarette butts, floor sweepings, trash, rubbish, food, cloth, metal, recyclable material, or waste matter of whatever character. Section 2.SECTION 9.18.210 AMENDED . SECTION 9.18.210 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of subsection 4.P. to read as follows: 9.18.210 Stormwater Pollutant Source Controls and BMPs. [1. through 3. unchanged] 4. All dischargers must implement and maintain minimum best management practices. The Director of Public Works may require submission of information to evaluate the implementation and/or require the implementation of BMPs to prevent pollutant sources from entering the City's storm drain collection system associated with outdoor process and manufacturing areas, outdoor material storage areas, outdoor waste storage and disposal areas, outdoor vehicle and equipment storage and maintenance areas, outdoor parking and access roads, outdoor wash areas, outdoor drainage from indoor areas, rooftop equipment, contaminated and erodible surfaces, or other sources determined by the director to have a reasonable potential to contribute to pollution of stormwater runoff. Minimum BMPs and source control measures for all dischargersinclude, but are 276 not limited to the following: [A. through O. unchanged] P.OutdoorRecycling, Composting and Trash Receptacle Sets Required for Public Use at New and Redeveloped Commercial and Retail Sites. 1.To help prevent littering, a set of outdoor receptacles consisting of three separate containers one each for recyclable, compostable and garbage materials must be provided by the property owner and placed together in collection areas for public use at all new and redeveloped commercial and retail sites. The receptacles shall be maintained by the property owner or the property owner’s designee. One set of these receptacles may satisfy the requirement for up to four adjacent u businesses at one shopping center. The number of receptacle sets that are required will be determined by the Director of Public Works and are intended to be sufficient to contain the amount of litter and debris that is reasonably expected to be generated from the type and size of the businesses at each commercial or retail site. The requirement for outdoor litter receptacles shall be a condition of approval that u will be reviewed within the permit application process. The condition may be amended if an alternative set of bins will provide equal containment of public litter, or waived by the Director of Public Works if the potential impact from litter in the vicinity of the business is negligible. Section 3.SECTION 9.18.215 ADDED. A new Section, Section 9.18.215, is hereby added to the Cupertino Municipal Code to read as follows: 9.18.215 Litter Prevention and Enforcement. A. Violations 1.It is unlawful for any person to sweep, throw, deposit, place, or drop without picking up, any litter into or upon any public street, way, sidewalk, parking lot or other public place, or in or upon private property in the City into or upon which the public is admitted by easement or license. 2.It is unlawful for any person to throw or deposit litter in any fountain, pond, creek, stream or other body of water in a park or elsewhere within the City. 277 3.It is unlawful for any person to collect any garbage, mixed recyclables, or other materials from public or privately authorized outdoor receptacles, kept or accumulated within the City, unless such person is an agent or employee of the City acting within the course and scope of his or her employment, or is acting pursuant to a franchise awarded by the City to act as garbage collector. 4.It is unlawful for any person to throw or deposit litter on any occupied private property within the City, whether owned by such person or not. 5.It is unlawful for any person to throw or deposit litter on any open or vacant private property within the City whether or not the property is owned by such person. 6.It is unlawful for any person to drive or move any open vehicle or trailer within the City unless there is a tarp over the contents or the material is constructed and loaded so as to ensure that all litter is prevented from being blown or deposited upon any street, alley or other public or private place B. Collection and Maintenance 1.Persons placing material intended for disposal or recycling in public receptacles or in authorized private receptacles shall do so in such a manner as to prevent it from being scattered, carried or deposited by the elements or animal scavengers upon any street, sidewalk, parking lot, creek, park or other public or private place. 2.Persons placing material intended for disposal or recycling in any public or privately authorized outdoor receptacle shall ensure that the lid is left completely closed. The over-filling of any outdoor receptacle intended for, but not limited to, trash, compostable organics and recyclables, in a manner that does not allow the lid to be completely closed is prohibited. The lid of a residential yard waste bin may be left partially open so long as the greater part of the yard and tree trimmings are contained if it is necessary to leave the lid partially open due to the branches or limbs not fitting completely into the bin with the lid closed. Yard waste bins containing food waste must be left with lids completely closed when not being serviced. 3.Uncontained large items originating from single-family homes that will not fit into a receptacle may be placed at the curb for scheduled collection within 24 hours of such collection by an agent or employee of the City or by the awardee of a franchise by the City to act as garbage and recycling collector. 4.Persons owning or occupying property shall maintain the premises, including the perimeter and the sidewalk in front of their premises, free of loose litter. 278 5.Persons sharing receptacles placed outside of retail areas for public use, as required in section 9.18.210.4.P., must also share equally in the responsibility of emptying the receptacles so that they do not overflow and maintaining the area around the receptacles so that it is free of loose litter. C. Exceptions The provisions of this section shall not apply to the distribution of mail by the United States, nor to newspapers of general circulation as defined by general law, nor any periodical or current magazine regularly published; provided, however, that no newspaper shall be thrown, deposited or distributed upon any premises where the owner or inhabitant thereof shall have previously advised, in writing, the publisher or distributor of such newspaper not to do so; and no newspaper shall be thrown, deposited or distributed upon any premises where two (2) or more editions of the same newspaper remain unclaimed by the owner or occupant thereof. 9.18.260 Administrative Penalties–Payment of Funds to Account. Whenever the City Manager or his/her designee finds that any person has violated any provision of this chapter or has violated any notice requiring compliance with any provision of this chapter, the City Manager or designee may issue an administrative citation pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.10 of this code and assess an administrative penalty in a sum not to exceed the amounts provided in Government Code § 54740.5. The remedy provided in this section is cumulative and not exclusive, and shall be in addition to all other remedies available to the City under state and federal law and local ordinances. Funds collected pursuant to this section shall be paid to City's Environmental Storm Management Account. Section 4. This Ordinance is intended to support the City’s Statement of Purpose. enforcement of the State of California’s anti-littering laws - California Penal Code Section 374.4 and to require waste receptacles at all new and redeveloped commercial and retail sites within the City of Cupertino. In the absence of this amendment, it would be difficult for the City to engage the assistance of the public in implementing new State requirements to reduce litter that is generated within the City and which could reasonably be expected to make its way to the City’s storm drainage system, local creeks and waters of the State. Section 5. CEQA Exemption. The Class 8 exemption, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment, applies to this ordinance, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15308. Section 6. Severability . Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be 279 unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable. Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937. Section 8. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and posting of the entire text. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the 15th day of January 2013 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the ___day of ______2013 by the following vote: VoteMembersoftheCityCouncil Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST :APPROVED: _________ ___ GraceSchmidt,CityClerkOrrinMahoney,Mayor 280 PROPOSED REUSABLE BAG ORDINANCE SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Two informational meetings will be held in January 2013 regarding the Reusable Bag Ordinance. Input from October 18, 2012 to January 4, 2013 Letters and Email from General Public The proposed ordinance should be voted on by Cupertino residents. Claims against bag litter is exaggerated, audits show bags account for 0.5% of litter. Responsible people reuse bags to compress garbage. It would be more effective and less intrusive to pay residents a few cents to bring bags to the store for composting, recycling or proper disposal, similar to the state bottle and can bills in place. Consider using biodegradable bags as an alternative. In favor of reusable shopping bags but oppose bag ordinance legi Single-use bags are not used just once but are reused multiple times fo Do not understand reasoning behind the need for bag charges. If enacted, there would be no way to determine if the ordinance actually accomplishes the stated goal. mary interest is to regulate behavior not to help the environment. A reward program, such as stores providing a five cent reward is a better solution community. The practice of bringing a reusable bag is unsanitary and will sead fungi, bacteria and other life forms. There are no washable reusable bags that are sturdy enough to ca Disabled, sick and injured people will have a harder time bringing their own bags into the An ordinance passes costs on to those that can least afford it, such as those with fixed incomes and the homeless. People who walk out of a store without a bag often spill or brea hazards for other shoppers and ruin consumption products purchased. Ban plastic grocery bags in Cupertino (8 people commented). 12 billion plastic grocery bags are used by Californians each ye Plastic bags harm marine life, degrade the coastline, threaten h economy. Nothing we use for a few minutes should pollute the ocean for hundreds of years. Make Cupertino the next place to protect the Pacific by banning s-use plastic bags. I use plastic bags to line my waste baskets. If plastic bags are banned, it will force residents to purchase plastic bags from Costco to line waste baskets; w Cupertino should educate rather than follow surrounding cities that charge for pa I have never observed it is clean and healthy. 281 The City Council should educate Cupertino residents on how to re Support of Cupertino prohibiting retail stores in Cupertino from -use plastic bags. Support a Reusable Bag Ordinance. Phone call from Cupertino resident, Jennifer Griffin My Sunnyvale friends now patronize Cupertino stores that offer all bagging options. Concerned might go up as a result of a bag ordinance. Concerned about an increase in shoplifting. Concerned restaurants will be affected by the ordinance. The elderly will have a harder time adapting. There are plenty of more important issues occurring in Cupertino; a bag ordinance is not that important. Will not shop anywhere where there is a bag fee. Will not vote for any Councilmember that votes to adopt an ordinance. Stakeholder Input Save the Bay Looking forward to working with the City of Cupertino on impleme o StoptheBagBan.com Arguments in favor of a Reusable Bag Ordinance are very one-sided. o An ordinance infuriates a large percentage of the population. o o The claim that one million bags enter the San Francisco Bay ever o statement. One of the worst nanny-state type of rulings o California Grocers Association It is critical that carryout bag regulations meet their intended o respect customers and minimize impact on retailers. Strongly encourage all jurisdictions participating in the Final o ordinance in order to maximize the environmental gain and avoid c disadvantages. 60 jurisdictions (as of October 2012) have passed this type of ordinance and have o minimized operational and financial impacts to retailers. Industry experience has shown that by banning single use plastic bags and placing a o charge on paper, 90% of customers bring their own reusable bag t no bag at all Industry experiences has shown that inconsistent regulation conf o and creates competitive disadvantages for retailers operating in neighboring 282 jurisdictions as well as retailers with multiple store locations in different jurisdictions. Consider California Grocers Association as a partner to encourage reusable bag use. o Retailer Input Customers remark they appreciate Cuper of a free plastic bag. Do not change a good thing. People should bring their own bags or paper bags 283 284 From: Tien and Stoeckenius Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 12:29 PM To: City Council Subject: Re: reusable bag ordinance Dear City Council Members: While we fully support the environment-friendly concept of reusable shopping bags, we firmly OPPOSE any legislation such as the bag ordinance imposed by communities in California (e.g., San Jose, Sunnyvale, County), and in other states. The website overview for the ordinance being considered by Cuper the ordinance is intended "to heighten customer use of reusable stop unnecessary waste, and to reduce litter that is harmful to On a practical level, we believe that the so-called "single use" bags are seldom used just once. This is certainly the case in our household, where many "single use" paper and plastic bags have been re-used multiple times. If a plastic bag ends up in our garbage, it is because it is being used to hold t been worn out to the extent that it is unusable. (Some of our p achieve quite long lives; we still have examples with logos for - Albertson's era of Lucky supermarkets!). While these practices may not be universal (or followed to such believe they are fairly widespread. Should the common plastic "T-shirt" bags become unavailable, their post-purchase uses will be taken over by other single- use trash bags, yielding little benefit other than to the manufa plastic products. We further do not understand the reasoning behind the fee clause ordinances for merchants providing paper bags or "durable carryo may be plastic). Since a "purchased" bag is not more environmen-friendly than one that is free, the concept behind this must be that charht cause people to re-use the bag. Given the number of refundable plastic bottles and cans that end up as trash or litter in public areas, we are will wholly be the case. On a philosophical level, we are troubled by the justification f this nature. A stated goal is to reduce litter in waterways, bu way to quantify that level. The proposed ordinance and the regu encourage such ordinances do not provide any such mechanism (e.g "creek clean-up" surveys). If enacted, there would thus be no way to determine if the ordin accomplishes the stated goal. The guiding principle seems to be reduce litter in waterways, but we can't measure that, so we'll if you do something else we want to promote that might reduce tr (or might not). This is the sort of regulatory overreach characteristic of group they might be interested in helping the environment, seem much m regulating behavior. We would characterize that as unnecessary go 285 wasteful bureaucratic interference that is harmful to the commun council to reject this measure as proposed. A "carrot" vs. "stick" approach may be a more effective means to waste, so a community-wide measure that rewards customers using re-usable bags, such as Whole Foods' 5 cent bag refund (which can be taken off t diverted to a food bank or other charitable need, e.g. library, organization, etc.) may be a better solution while also benefiti Thank you for listening. Julia Tien and (Mr.) Jan Stoeckenius ------------------ Cupertino Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 286 287 288 289 Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:33 PM To: City of Cupertino Environmental Division Cc: Barry Chang; Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Rod Sin Subject: Reusable Bag Ordinance Should Exclude References to Paper Bags According to the Cupertino website, our city may propose a Reusa that passed in San Mateo. Before the final draft is written, I ordinance as follows. In particular, it should exclude all refer 1) Section 4.114.010, "Findings and purpose" is seriously flawe manufacture and distribution of single use carryout bags require results in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions". This is in the ordinance. The same thing can be said of any product: eg Such a vacuous statement makes the ordinance seem foolish. 2) Paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) refer to the environmental and pu Indeed some evidence was presented to the city relating to San M there is no doubt that in some places plastic bag pollution is a public health problem). However, I have seen no evidence presen public health issues, particularly in Cupertino. Therefore, thes use plastic bags", not to the more general, "single use carryout reason to discourage use of paper bags through minimum price reg stated so that the citizens can understand the true purpose. Wit paper bags, the ordinance should only regulate plastic bags! 3) Section 4.114.050 refers to "Recordkeeping and Inspection". corporation may have no trouble absorbing the costs of maintaini But for small retailers, it could be a significant burden to coln. And to what purpose? Does anyone on the City Council imagine that violation back records? Cupertino should prepare a serious and carefully drafted ordinan residents to review. I hope my comments are taken into consideration. Sincerely Randy Hylkema Cupertino 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:January15,2013 Subject:Councilassignmentsforlocalandregionalorganizationsandagencies NOWRITTENMATERIALSINPACKET 312