The URL can be used to link to this page

Searchable Packet 02-19-13 Table of Contents Agenda3 Present solar feasibility study findings for the Civic Center an Service Center (Corporation Yard) and provide direction to staff Staff Report10 A - Optony Prepared Solar Feasibility Study16 B - Summary Informational Reports to Council54 C - Arborist Report62 D - Alameda County R-REP Background Memorandum108 E - Alameda County R-REP Memorandum of Understanding115 Environmental Education Center and Outdoor Gathering Shelter conceptual design presentation Staff Report142 A - Conceptual Aerial Perspective145 Approve the January 28 City Council minutes Draft minutes146 Approve the January 29 City Council minutes Draft minutes148 Approve the February 5 City Council minutes (Regular meeting) Draft minutes150 Approve the February 5 City Council minutes (Special meeting) Draft minutes160 Accept Accounts Payable for period ending January 25, 2013 A - Draft Resolution161 Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a long- term lease agreement with the Cupertino Rotary to use the Cupertino Room at the Quinlan Community Center for weekly meetings Staff Report170 Budget Adjustment #4 Staff Report172 Appoint the Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer Staff Report174 A - Draft Resolution175 1) Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 13-2104 that rezones 0.83-acre from P(R1C) to PR to allow a dog park on a Mary Avenue parcel (file no. Z-2012-02); and 2) Authorize the City Manager to apply potential savings in the project budget towards enhancements to the project design for a sound wall or additional landscaping Staff Report176 A - Ord No. 13-2104 (Z-2012-02)178 Consider an appeal of a Planning Commission approval of a proposed development at Saich Way Station Staff report182 1 A- DP-2012-05 draft City Council resolution188 B- ASA-2012-13 draft City Council resolution206 C -TR-2012-41 draft City Council resolution211 D - Planning Commission Resolution no. 6714 (file no. DP-2012-05)215 E - Planning Commission Resolution no. 6715 (file no. ASA-2012-13)233 F - Planning Commission Resolution no. 6716 (file no. TR-2012-41)237 G - Planning Commission staff report dated January 8, 2013241 H - Planning Commission draft meeting minutes from January 8, 2013253 I - Planning Commission-approved plan set263 J - Appeal documents from Darrel Lum and Dennis Whittaker290 K - Updated Site Plan302 L - Supplemental transportation memorandum303 Request to waive the timeline set forth in Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 14.04 for an appeal related to street improvement requirements at 10567 San Leandro Avenue Staff Report305 A - Appeal307 Update on the General Plan Amendment process, Council authorization for a budget amendment to add $150,507 to the budget for the General Plan Amendment process, and approval of contracts with MIG as the planning consultant and The Planning Center/DC&E as the environmental consultant Staff Report309 A - Proposed scopes of work for the General Plan Amendment, Vallco Specific Plan, and EIRs315 B - Draft Contract with MIG406 C - Draft Contract with Planning Center446 D - General Plan Amendment Outline459 E - August 21, 2012 City Council report462 F - Minutes of the August 21, 2012 City Council meeting472 G - Map of properties in original staff report475 H - Map of properties whose owners have requested to be included476 I - Fair Share Weighting and Allocation477 J - General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Cost478 K - General Plan Payment Schedule and Applicant Share479 Consider adopting an ordinance moving the date of the Citys general municipal election to consolidate it with the statewide general election commencing in November 2014 Staff Report482 A - Cupertino election statistics chart485 B - Draft Ordinance486 2 AGENDA CUPERTINOCITYCOUNCIL~SPECIALMEETING SUCCESSORTOTHEREDEVELOPMENTAGENCY~REGULARMEETING 10350TorreAvenue,CommunityHallCouncilChamber Tuesday,February19,2013 5:05PM CITYCOUNCILMEETING ROLLCALL K5:05PM STUDYSESSION 1.Subject:PresentsolarfeasibilitystudyfindingsfortheCivicCenterandService Center(CorporationYard)andprovidedirectiontostaff RecommendedAction:Receivereportandprovidedirectiononpursuinga municipalsolarinstallation.IftheCouncildesirestopursueasolarinstallation, providedirectiononwhichfacility(s)shouldbeincludedandwhethertousea capitalfinancingplanorapowerpurchaseagreementstrategy.Providefurther directiononwhethertoenterintoaMemorandumofUnderstanding(MOU) betweentheCityofCupertinoandtheCountyofAlamedafortheRegional RenewableEnergyProcurementProject(RREP) StaffReport AOptonyPreparedSolarFeasibilityStudy BSummaryInformationalReportstoCouncil CArboristReport DAlamedaCountyRREPBackgroundMemorandum EAlamedaCountyRREPMemorandumofUnderstanding Page:10 PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE K6:45PM ROLLCALL 3 Tuesday,February19,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency CEREMONIALMATTERSANDPRESENTATIONS 2.Subject:EnvironmentalEducationCenterandOutdoorGatheringShelter conceptualdesignpresentation RecommendedAction:Receivethepresentationoftheconceptualdesign StaffReport AConceptualAerialPerspective Page:142 POSTPONEMENTS ORALCOMMUNICATIONS Thisportionofthemeetingisreservedforpersonswishingtoaddressthecouncilon anymatternotontheagenda.Speakersarelimitedtothree(3)minutes.Inmostcases, Statelawwillprohibitthecouncilfrommakinganydecisionswithrespecttoamatter notlistedontheagenda. CONSENTCALENDAR Unlessthereareseparatediscussionsand/oractionsrequestedbycouncil,staffora memberofthepublic,itisrequestedthatitemsundertheConsentCalendarbeactedon simultaneously. :ApprovetheJanuary28CityCouncilminutes 3.Subject RecommendedAction:Approvetheminutes Draftminutes Page:146 4.Subject:ApprovetheJanuary29CityCouncilminutes RecommendedAction:Approvetheminutes Draftminutes Page:148 5.Subject:ApprovetheFebruary5CityCouncilminutes(Regularmeeting) RecommendedAction:Approvetheminutes Draftminutes Page:150 4 Tuesday,February19,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency 6.Subject:ApprovetheFebruary5CityCouncilminutes(Specialmeeting) RecommendedAction:Approvetheminutes Draftminutes Page:160 7.Subject:AcceptAccountsPayableforperiodendingJanuary25,2013 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13013acceptingAccountsPayable forperiodendingJanuary25,2013 ADraftResolution Page:161 8.Subject:AuthorizetheCityManagertonegotiateandexecutealongtermlease agreementwiththeCupertinoRotarytousetheCupertinoRoomattheQuinlan CommunityCenterforweeklymeetings RecommendedAction:1.)Authorizetonegotiateandexecutetheleaseagreement; and2.)Establisha10yearminimumforanytypeofmarkeronbuildings StaffReport Page:170 9.Subject:BudgetAdjustment#4 RecommendedAction:ApproveBudgetAdjustment#4 StaffReport Page:172 10.Subject:AppointtheTreasurerandDeputyTreasurer RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13014rescindingResolutionNo.12 020andmakingtheappointments StaffReport ADraftResolution Page:174 5 Tuesday,February19,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency SECONDREADINGOFORDINANCES 11.Subject:1)ConductthesecondreadingofOrdinanceNo.132104thatrezones0.83 acrefromP(R1C)toPRtoallowadogparkonaMaryAvenueparcel(fileno.Z 201202);and2)AuthorizetheCityManagertoapplypotentialsavingsintheproject budgettowardsenhancementstotheprojectdesignforasoundwalloradditional landscaping RecommendedAction:ConductthesecondreadingofOrdinanceNo.132104:An OrdinanceoftheCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinorezoninga0.51acrevacant parcelandthe0.32acreabuttinghalfstreetfromP(R1C)toPRforpropertylocated atthecornerofVillaRealandMary ¼«´»« !AlsoauthorizetheCityManagerto useanysavingsfromtheadditionalsoilremediationbudgettowardsproject enhancements Description:Application:Z201202,EA201207;Applicant:CityofCupertino; Location:CityownedlotonthecornerofVillaRealandMaryAve;APN#32627 030;SecondreadingandenactmentofOrdinanceNo.132104,rezoninga0.83gross acrevacantparcelfrom /1t"PlannedDevelopment,SingleFamilyResidential Cluster(´º«´º!to /1K/§¸±andRecreation9µ´«! StaffReport AOrdNo.132104(Z201202) Page:176 PUBLICHEARINGS 12.Subject:ConsideranappealofaPlanningCommissionapprovalofaproposed developmentatSaichWayStation RecommendedAction:DenytheappealandupholdthePlanningCommissions approvaloftheDevelopmentapplicationsandMitigatedNegativeDeclaration Description:ApplicationNo(s):DP201205,ASA201213,TR201241(EA201209); Appellant(s):DarrelLum,DennisWhittaker;Applicant(s):BorelliInvestments (SaichWayStation);Address:20803StevensCreekBlvdand1003310095SaichWay APN#32632041,042;AppealofanapprovalofaDevelopmentPermittoallowthe demolitionof11,610squarefeetofexistingcommercialspaceandtheconstructionof 15,377squarefeetofnewcommercialspaceconsistingoftwonewcommercial buildingpads,7,000squarefeetand8,377squarefeetrespectively;Architecturaland SiteApprovalPermittoallowthedemolitionof11,610squarefeetofexisting commercialspaceandtheconstructionof15,377squarefeetofnewcommercial spaceconsistingoftwonewcommercialbuildingpadsandassociatedsite improvements;TreeRemovalPermittoallowtheremovalandreplacementof13 treesinconjunctionwithaproposeddevelopmentproject;adoptionofaMitigated 6 Tuesday,February19,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency NegativeDeclaration;OnJanuary8,2013,thePlanningCommissionapproved applicationsDP201205,ASA201213andTR201241perResolutionnumbers6714, 6715and6716;andtheMitigatedNegativeDeclaration,EA201209 Staffreport ADP201205draftCityCouncilresolution BASA201213draftCityCouncilresolution CTR201241draftCityCouncilresolution DPlanningCommissionResolutionno.6714(fileno.DP201205) EPlanningCommissionResolutionno.6715(fileno.ASA201213) FPlanningCommissionResolutionno.6716(fileno.TR201241) GPlanningCommissionstaffreportdatedJanuary8,2013 HPlanningCommissiondraftmeetingminutesfromJanuary8,2013 IPlanningCommissionapprovedplanset JAppealdocumentsfromDarrelLumandDennisWhittaker KUpdatedSitePlan LSupplementaltransportationmemorandum Page:182 ORDINANCESANDACTIONITEMS 13.Subject:RequesttowaivethetimelinesetforthinCupertinoMunicipalCode(CMC) Chapter14.04foranappealrelatedtostreetimprovementrequirementsat10567San LeandroAvenue RecommendedAction:Decidewhethertograntarequesttowaivetheappeal timelineforstreetimprovementsrequiredaspartofadevelopmentprojectat10567 SanLeandroAvenueand,ifthewaiverisgranted,directstafftosettheappealfor hearing StaffReport AAppeal Page:305 7 Tuesday,February19,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency 14.Subject:UpdateontheGeneralPlanAmendmentprocess,Councilauthorizationfor abudgetamendmenttoadd$150,507tothebudgetfortheGeneralPlan Amendmentprocess,andapprovalofcontractswithMIGastheplanningconsultant andThePlanningCenter/DC&Eastheenvironmentalconsultant RecommendedAction:StaffrecommendsthattheCityCouncilapprovethe following:1.)ScopesofworkfortheGeneralPlanAmendment(GPA),Vallco ShoppingDistrictSpecificPlanandassociatedEnvironmentalImpactReports(EIR); and2.)Budgetamendmentforanadditionalamountof$150,507tofundcostsofthe GeneralPlanAmendmentprocessnotcurrentlybudgeted,foratotalbudgetamount of$1,036,545;and3.)AuthorizetheCityManagertoapprovetheattachedcontract withMIGastheplanningconsultantfortheGeneralPlanAmendmentinthe amountnottoexceed$476,096.ThescopeforthiscontractwouldbetheGPAwith anoptionfortheCitytoauthorizetheVallcoShoppingDistrictSpecificPlanata laterdate.IftheCitydecidestoproceedwiththeVallcoplaninthefuture,staff wouldreturntoCouncilwithacontractamendmenttoaddthenecessaryfundsfor theVallcoPlan;and4.)AuthorizetheCityManagertoapprovetheattachedcontract withThePlanningCenter/DC&EtopreparetheEnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR) fortheGeneralPlanAmendmentintheamountnottoexceed$393,490.Thiscontract wouldalsoincludetheoptionfortheCitytoauthorizeanEIRfortheVallcoSpecific Planatalaterdate;and5.)AuthorizetheCityManagertoapproveContractChange Orders(CCO)forcontractsforItems3and4abovetotheextentthattotal expendituresdonotexceedthetotalamountoftheprojectbudget StaffReport AProposedscopesofworkfortheGeneralPlanAmendment,VallcoSpecificPlan, andEIRs BDraftContractwithMIG CDraftContractwithPlanningCenter DGeneralPlanAmendmentOutline EAugust21,2012CityCouncilreport FMinutesoftheAugust21,2012CityCouncilmeeting GMapofpropertiesinoriginalstaffreport HMapofpropertieswhoseownershaverequestedtobeincluded IFairShareWeightingandAllocation JGeneralPlanAmendmentandSpecificPlanCost KGeneralPlanPaymentScheduleandApplicantShare Page:309 8 Tuesday,February19,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency 15.Subject:Consideradoptinganordinancemovingthedateofthe"¯º¿¹general municipalelectiontoconsolidateitwiththestatewidegeneralelectioncommencing inNovember2014 RecommendedAction:Decidewhethertomovethedateofthe"¯º¿¹general municipalelectiontoevennumberedyearsandconductthefirstreadingofthedraft ordinanceiftheCouncildesiresthechange.IftheCouncildecidesnottochangethe generalmunicipalelectiondate,noactionisrequired.OrdinanceNo.132106:An OrdinanceoftheCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinomovingthedateofits generalmunicipalelectiontothefirstTuesdayafterthefirstMondayinNovember ofevennumberedyearsbeginninginNovember2014 StaffReport ACupertinoelectionstatisticschart BDraftOrdinance Page:482 REPORTSBYCOUNCILANDSTAFF ADJOURNMENT 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 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:February19,2013 Subject PresentsolarfeasibilitystudyfindingsfortheCivicCenterandServiceCenter (CorporationYard)andprovidedirectiontostaff. RecommendedAction Receivereportandprovidedirectiononpursuingamunicipalsolarinstallation.Ifthe Councildesirestopursueasolarinstallation,providedirectiononwhichfacility(s) shouldbeincludedandwhethertouseacapitalfinancingplanorapowerpurchase agreementstrategy.ProvidefurtherdirectiononwhethertoenterintoaMemorandum ofUnderstanding(MOU)betweentheCityofCupertinoandtheCountyofAlameda fortheRegionalRenewableEnergyProcurementProject(RREP). Background DuringtheFY2012/13CityCouncilWorkPlanstudysessionheldinMarch2012,staff receiveddirectiontostudytheeconomicviabilityofinstallingsolarenergysystemsat Cityfacilities.StaffengagedtheservicesofOptony,afirmspecializinginrenewable energystrategiesforgovernmentagenciesandanadvisortotheSantaClara"µ»´º¿¹ recentRegionalRenewableEnergyProcurementProject,toprovidefeasibilitystudiesto sitesolarenergygenerationsystemsattheCivicCenterandattheServiceCenter.Other Cityfacilitiesandsiteswerepreviouslydeemednonviableduetotheirlowenergy demand.AttachmentAistheSolarFeasibilityStudypreparedbyOptonyfortheCityof Cupertino.Notethatadditionalbackgroundonthe"¯º¿¹previoussolarpursuitswas submittedtoCouncilviaasummaryreport,andisincludedasAttachmentB. Overthepastfiveyears,theCityofCupertinohasseenathirtyfivepercentincreasein electricalcosts.Facingsimilarsituations,companiesandorganizationsthroughout SiliconValleyhaveinstalledsolarphotovoltaic(PV)systemstoenhancetheirabilityto havegreatercontrolofenergycosts;allthewhileimplementingavisiblecommitment tolocallygeneratedrenewableenergyandassociatedgreenhousegasemissions reductions.ThoughtheCityhaspursuedadiversityofenergyefficiencyprojectsacross itsfacilityportfolio,fullcompliancewiththe"¯º¿¹Conservation/EfficiencyPrinciples 1 10 asoutlinedintheEnvironmentalResources/SustainabilityElementof"»¶«¸º¯´µ¹2000 GeneralPlanisnotachieveduntilrenewableenergyprojectsarefullyconsideredand implementediffeasibleandappropriate. SolarSiteFeasibilityStudy Optonyevaluatedtheopportunitiesandconstraintsofinstallingsolarelectricpower generationsystemstoreduceoroffsetthecostofelectricityatthefollowingsites: CupertinoCivicCenterCampusK Site:Threefacilities,eachwithasingleelectricalpowermeter,wereanalyzedaspartof theCivicCentersiteincludingCityHall,CommunityHall,andtheLibrary,alongwith anetworkofvehicleparkingareas.Thereportnotesthatadvancingsolarphotovoltaics (PV)onthesefacilitieswouldrequireretrofitstohostsolarelectricpowergeneration hardware. ConsultantRecommendation:Atthissite,theOptonyanalysisindicatesthatthe Libraryoffersthegreatestopportunitytooffsetthefacilitywiththehighestelectricity use,whichcouldbeachievedprimarilybysolarcarportsconstructedintheparkinglot. However,withoutanamendmenttotheexistingfinancialrelationshipbetweentheCity andtheLibraryDistrict,thisapplicationcouldprovechallengingduetothefactthatthe CityleasesthespacetotheLibrarywho,inturn,assumesresponsibilityforthe electricitycosts.Giventhisfinancialstructure,CommunityHallisrecommendedasa moreviablesitewithamixofroofmounted,walkwayandcarportstructurestooffset 86%oftotalonsiteenergyuse.ProceedingwitharoofmountedandwalkwaysolarPV systemwouldrequireadditionalanalysesbyastructuralengineertoensurethefacility andwalkwaycouldaccommodatetheadditionalload.Further,whilethereport recommendsprioritizingcertainparkinglotlocationsforsolarphotovoltaiccarports, shouldtheCityelecttoexpandsolarcarportstructurestooffsetadditionaldemandat alternativefacilities,significanttreeandbioswaleimpactsmayresult. :TheCivicCentercampussiteisthesubjectofamasterplanningprocess Constraints thatwilllikelyproposesignificantalterationstothesite.Itshouldbenotedthatthis processmayrecommendtheconstructionofnewand/orreplacementstructuresthat couldyieldsitingopportunitiesforrenewableenergygenerationsystemsandalso improvedfacilityenergyperformance.Assuch,itissuggestedtodeferanynearterm solarinfrastructuredecisionsfortheCivicCenteruntilthemasterplanningprocesshas concluded. 2 11 FinancialAnalysis:ThefinancialbenefitstotheCityofsitingsolarintheCivicCenter areminimal.Though.¶ºµ´¿¹projectcostsavingsestimatesareconservative,asthey donotincludeavailablerebatesandarebasedona4.5%PG&Eescalationratewhen comparedtothe18%+rateincreaserecentlysubmittedbytheutilitytothePublic UtilitiesCommission,thedirectpurchasesavingsareclosetonetzero,when consideringthecostofthesystem.Further,savingsfromparticipatinginaregional PPAwouldyieldonlyabout$270,000innetpresentvaluesavingstotheCityoverthe 25yearlifeofthesystem. EnvironmentalImpacts:Toensurerecommendedcarportphotovoltaicmodulesmay gainaccesstomaximumsunlightexposure,Optonyhasrecommendedseveraltreesin theCivicCenterberelocatedorremovedandalsoidentifiestreesthatwillrequire increasedpruningtoensurecurrentheightismaintained.Thearboristreport (AttachmentC)commissionedbytheCityduringitspreviousparticipationintheSanta ClaraCountyRenewableEnergyProcurementProject,benchmarksthesuitabilityfor preservationofallCivicCenterpropertytrees,includingthoserecommendedfor removal/replantingandincreasedpruning.Noneofthetreesareconsidered ¶¸µº«©º«ª º¸««¹!pursuanttoSection14.18.035oftheCityCode.Giventhisanalysis,treesand pruningrequirementsshouldbecarefullyconsideredwhendeterminingthe appropriatelocationofsolarcarportsintheCivicCenter. CupertinoServiceCenter(CorporationYard)K Site:TheServiceCenteriscomprisedofanetworkofstructurespoweredbytwo meteredelectricserviceconnections.Thereportnotesthatadvancingsolar photovoltaicsonthesefacilitieswouldrequireretrofitstohostsolarelectricpower generationhardware,thoughtheServiceCenterprovidesthebetteropportunityto placethishardwareduebothtositemakeupandorientation. ConsultantRecommendation:ThoughamplespaceexistsattheServiceCentertositea 278kwroofmountedand/orcarportsolarsystem,underthecurrentRenewableEnergy SelfGeneratingKBillCreditTransfer(RESBCT)Program,theCitywouldonlybeable tooffsetthegenerationcostofenergy,whichisonethirdtoonehalfthefullkilowatt hourrate.Additionaldetailsdescribingthisprogramcanbefoundonpage24/25ofthe report.Assuch,Optonysuggestsproceedingwiththeinstallationoftwooversized carportstructuresintheServiceCenterFleetParkingLottooffset75%oftotalenergy usebetweenthe¹¯º«¹twoelectricmeters.Carefulconsiderationsitingthesecarports willbemadetoensurethe¬²««º¹fullturningradiusismaintained.Beyondthefinancial 3 12 gainsproposedbysitingthesystemattheServiceCenter,thefleetservestobenefitby reducedvehiclerelatedweatherimpactsthenewoverheadcoverwillprovide. FinancialAnalysis:SitingsolarcarportsattheServiceCenteroffersgreaterfinancial benefitstotheCitythanlocatingsolarPVsattheCivicCenter.Again,though.¶ºµ´¿¹ projectcostsavingsestimatesareconservativegiven/& recentratecasesbeforethe PUC,thedirectpurchasesavingsareapproximately$150,000netpresentvalue,when consideringthecostofthesystem.PursuingaPowerPurchaseAgreement,through Alameda"µ»´º¿¹RegionalRenewableEnergyProcurementProject(RREP)or otherwise,wouldresultin~$335,000savingstotheCityoverthe25yearlifeofthe system. EnvironmentalImpacts:BecauseOptonysuggestsonlyproceedingwithsolarcarports locatedonanexistingpavedarea,freeofvegetation,additionalanalysesbyastructural engineeroranarboristisnotrequired. SustainabilityGains&LocalEnvironmentalLeadership ThoughtheCityhasmadesignificantadvancementsinenergyefficiencyamong municipalproperties,consistentwiththeCaliforniaenergyagencies ²µ§ª¯´µ¸ª«¸!of decreasingelectricitydemandbyincreasingenergyefficiencyanddemandresponse, facilityutilitycostsremainalargeoperatingexpenseandprimarysourceofmunicipal greenhousegasemissions.Iffinanciallyviable,renewableenergyrepresentsan opportunityfortheCitytojointheranksofitslocalschoolsindevelopingalocaland visiblecleanenergysystemoverwhichtheagencyhasoperationalandfinancial control.ThismaybeincreasinglyvaluableastheCitytransitionstoTimeofUsepricing foritslargerfacilities,whichisanticipatedfornextfiscalyear.Pursuingrenewable energyinstallationsamongmunicipalfacilitiesisconsistentwiththe"¯º¿¹ Conservation/EfficiencyPrinciplesasoutlinedintheEnvironmental Resources/SustainabilityElementof"»¶«¸º¯´µ¹2000GeneralPlan. WhatevertheCouncilrecommendedtimeline,installingsolarcarportscanhelpmitigate urbanheatislandsandeliminatefossilfueldemandsattheCivicCenterand CorporationYard.ThesolarcarportscanhelptheCityachieveenvironmental objectives,includingtheSolarActionAreaGoalsestablishedintheBayAreaClimate Compacttoincreaseby30%theuseofrenewablesourcesforelectricalenergybythe endof2013,froma2008baseline.ShouldCouncilchoosetoadvancetheworkoutlined inthefeasibilitystudy,solarphotovoltaicscouldreducethe"¯º¿¹largestsourceof operationalgreenhousegasemissionsandairpollutants(facilities),providingtheCity withaheadstarttoimplementactionsthatmitigatetheimpactsofclimatechangein 4 13 advanceofthecreationofitsproposedClimateActionPlan,asoutlinedintheCouncil WorkProgram. FiscalImpact The¶¸µ°«©º¹ultimatefinancialimpactwillvarydependingonthedirectionprovided byanddecisionmadebyCouncil.Optony,aspartofitsscopeofwork,evaluated alternativefinancingscenariosanditsfindingsareoutlinedinAttachmentA.Each financingstructurehasadvantagesanddisadvantages: DirectPurchase:TheCitywouldpurchasethesystemoutrightandwouldbe responsibleforallownershipconcerns,includingoperationsandmaintenance,regular systemcleaning,andmonitoringofsystemproduction.Inmanysituations,thismay yieldthegreatestlongtermreturns,butrequirescashupfrontandoperationalcosts. Advantagesincludeeligibilityforincentivefundsandownershipoftradableemission credits.Disadvantagesincludesignificantupfrontcapitalcosts,annualmaintenance expensesforapproximately20years,andthereplacementofinvertersbetweenyears10 and13.Ownedsystemsaregenerallyconsideredappropriateforsiteswheresecurity andaccessarerestricted. Insteadofpayingforpurchasecostsupfront,theCitywouldpayathird Loan/Lease: partyonamonthlybasisover10to20years.Insomearrangements,theCitywouldbe responsibleforallownershipconcerns,justaswithadirectpurchase.Solarvendors commonlyprovidetermsforlease/purchaseoftheirequipment.Cityissuedbondsor renewableenergybonds,suchasCleanRenewableEnergyBonds(CREBs)and QualifiedEnergyConservationBonds(QECBs)wouldalsoneedtobenegotiatedvia thetermsoftheagreement.Advantagesincludenoupfrontcapitalexpenses,andlong termleasesthatallowamortizationofcostswiththepotentialforownership.Thereisa growingmarketoflendersandbrokersinterestedinleasingsolarinstallations. :Thisoptioncreatesalongtermagreement SolarPowerPurchaseAgreement(SPPA) forthepurchaseofpowergeneratedfromthesolarinstallationthatisownedbyathird party,buthostedontheCityfacility.TypicallySolarPowerPurchaseAgreements 2// ¹have20yeartermswithpricesdeterminedthroughnegotiations.Inthepast severalyears,localgovernmentsthroughoutCaliforniahavefundedrenewableenergy projectsthroughleasetopurchase,and2// ¹ Thesetypesoffinancingstructures providetheopportunitytoobtainsolarpowerwithouttheupfrontcapitalinvestment asthepowergenerationsystemisdesignedandinstalledbyathirdpartyproviderand financedthroughathirdpartyfinancier.Thegovernmentalentitybenefitsfromcapped orslowedgrowthinelectricityrates,asthenormalutilitybillispaidtothefinancier throughtermsestablishedintheSPPA. 5 14 However,2// ¹aretypicallyagreementswithprivateinvestorsanddevelopersand thosepartiesusuallydemandinvestmentreturnswhichsubstantiallyexceedthe financingcoststypicallyavailabletopublicagencies.Assuch,lifecyclesavingsare typicallylessunderSPPAsthantheycanbewithdirectpublicagencyfinancing.This financinginefficiencycanbemitigatediftheentityprovidingfinancingisaJoint PowersAgencyorothergovernmentalentity. InCalifornia,atleasttenjurisdictionshaveissued2// ¹inthepasttwoyears.These issuancesincludetheCaliforniaDepartmentofGeneralServices,CityofFresno,San FranciscoPublicUtilitiesCommission,CountyofSolana,CountyofSanDiego,and CountyofVentura,amongothers.ProjectstaffreviewedalltenSPPAissuancesto comparetermsandconditions.ShouldtheCitywishtopursueaSPPAbasedon .¶ºµ´¿¹findings,CupertinoiscurrentlyinvitedtoparticipateinAlameda"µ»´º¿¹ RegionalRenewableEnergyProcurementProject(RREP).Detailsoftheirprocessto dateareprovidedinAttachmentD.TheMemorandumofUnderstanding(MOU)to joinAlameda"µ»´º¿¹processisalsoprovided(AttachmentE). _____________________________________ Preparedby:KatyJensen,CIPManager Reviewedby:TimmBorden,PublicWorksDirector ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: AOptonyPreparedSolarFeasibilityStudy BSummaryInformationalReportstoCouncil CArboristReport DAlamedaCountyRREPBackgroundMemorandum EAlamedaCountyRREPMemorandumofUnderstanding 6 15 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino Solar Feasibility for City of February12, 2013 Prepared by: Optony, Inc. Contact: Ammar Khan mohammad.khan@optony.com 408-567-9216 Contents I............................................................................................................................................... 2 ES...................................................................................................................................... 4 XECUTIVE SE.......................................................................................................................................... 5 ITE VALUATIONS DAPS:....................................................................................................21 ATA AND NALYSIS FROM REVIOUS TUDY DRES-G- BCT(VNM) ................ 24 ISCUSSION ON ENEWABLE NERGY ELFENERATING ILL REDIT RANSFER IRTUAL ET ETERING EEI......................................................................................................... 27 CONOMIC AND NVIRONMENTAL NS.................................................................................................................................................. 30 EXT M& A.................................................................................................................... 31 ETHODOLOGY SSUMPTIONS AOI. ..................................................................................................................................... 32 BOUT PTONY NC AA: CCSPV PO..................................................................... 33 TTACHMENT ITY OF UPERTINO OLAR ROJECT VERVIEW AB: VNM/ RES-G BCTA. 34 TTACHMENT IRTUAL ET ETERING ENEWABLE NERGY ELFENERATING ILL REDIT RANSFER NALYSIS AC: SSIPCC....................................... 37 TTACHMENT AVINGS UMMARY BY NVESTMENT ERIOD FOR THE ITY OF UPERTINO AD: PSCC........................................................................ 38 TTACHMENT ROJECT UMMARY FOR THE ITY OF UPERTINO Page 1 Confidential: Analysis prepared for the City of Cupertino by Optony Inc. www.optony.com 16 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino Solar Feasibility Study for the City of Cupertino February 12, 2013 This report, prepared for the City of Cupertino, analyzes the viability of installing solar photovoltaics at four potential municipal sites, with recommendations for future actions that best fit the needs and opportunities, while addressing the challenges, for siting renewable energy projects to offset electrical demand at Cupertinos facilities. What you will learn from this report: 1. How Optony conducted this analysis forthe City of Cupertino and the analytical approach used to develop this report. 2. The best City of Cupertino sites for photovoltaic solar installations, from both technical and economic perspectives. 3. Financing options and incentives available to public agencies in the state of California. 4. The recommended photovoltaic (PV) solar system sizes and detailed site characteristics. 5. Next steps for pursuing the recommended option with an approximate timeline. Introduction The City of Cupertino engaged Optony Inc. to conduct a solar feasibility analysis for multiple City-owned sites. Solar electric (also called photovoltaic, or PV) installations can reduce the Citys reliance on utility-generated energy while reducing operational costs. Further, investing in local renewable energy can curb financial uncertainties associated with the variability of utility rates, which continue to rise and lack predictability with the November 2012 transition to Time of Use rates for city facilities. By producing on-site power from a clean and renewable source (sunlight), the City can reduce emissions associated with its municipal operations and demonstrate environmental leadership, and fiscal responsibility, to both its community members and to neighboring jurisdictions. The City of Cupertino, like many California municipalities, is faced with the challenge of balancing environmental goals with diverse economic demands. Despite substantial efforts to cut energy use via infrastructure-focused efficiency measures, electricity for municipal facilities remains a major cost, paid to the utility companyin this case, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Cities throughout California, as members of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), have committed to reducing emissions as a means of actively participating in the States overall goal of reducing Statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (an approximate 15% reduction from todays levels), as outlined in the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Though municipal activities commonly represent a fraction of overall community-wide emissions (i.e. in Page 2 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 17 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino Cupertino it is <1%), agencies, in seeking to lead by example have invested time and resources in energy efficiency and on-site energy generation to drive down this emissions sector and associated costs. Though investing in a large solar project can seem a more visible environmental commitment for a public agency, those looking for the best return on investment have first prioritized energy efficiency projects and followed that with installation of a renewable energy system, to ensure a system is built to match the lowest onsite electricity usage. This is due to current restrictions on generation credits available to customers who are returning electricity to the grid in California. Cupertinos efforts in implementing energy effiicency across its portfolio of buildings makes many facilities excellent candidates for onsite generation to further reduce its reliance on a variably priced utility. Further analysis to that end is described in the sections below. Page 3 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 18 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino Executive Summary Optony performed a detailed technical and financial analysis of sites presented by the City. Out of the four sites, we recommend moving forward with two sites, the Community Hall and the Corporation Yard. The remaining two sites, City Hall and Library, have low solar viability due to structural limitations and low economic return. Site recommendations are shown in Table 8, on page 28 of this report. To evaluate the sites, Optony reviewed the Citys twelve month prior electricity usage data for each site, physical space available for PV installation, accessibility of the site for construction, existing conditions at the site including age of the building, structural and electrical limitations, planned energy or structural renovations, as well as surrounding vegetation and other shading concerns. From there, a thorough analysis was performed on all material aspects of a potential PV system using industry standard tools and a market leading approach. Based on the data analysis, solar PV viable sites were identified, both from a technical and economic perspective. In the following pages, areas considered viable candidates for solar PV have been mapped using a modular approach to provide system and project design flexibility. Along with usable areas, the report analyzes potential electricity output and details site-specific opportunities and constraints. The next steps for system procurement are recommended in Table 8 for when the City of Cupertino proceeds with these solar projects. It is very important to be aware of the time-sensitive availability of certain state and federal incentives. For example, the U.S. Treasury Department-sponsored Investment Tax Credit (ITC) program is slated to expire in 2016. This program, which allows for significant cash-flow benefits for tax-eligible PV system owners, can lead to lower pricing for third-party ownership installation models such as PPAs, and sometimes leases. The following is a summary of recommendations for the City: Pursue: Solar PV installation on Community Hall rooftop and adjacent parking lots o Solar PV carport installation in Corporation Yard to offset both the site meters o Postpone: Solar PV installation at City Hall until the Civic Center Master Plan due to structural concerns and low o financial returns Solar PV installation at Library until the Civic Center Master Plan due to low financial returns o The recommended next steps for the City are: A) The City joins Alameda Countys Regional Renewable Energy Procurement project with the recommended two sites (three meters), or B) The City individually pursues procurement on the two recommended sites Page 4 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 19 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino Site Evaluations For this report, the Optony team conducted visits to four sites presented by the City of Cupertino: City Hall Community Hall Cupertino Library Corporation Yard A site inspection involves reviewing the overall layout of the proposed facility and identifying potential location opportunities and challenges. The age, materials, and condition of the rooftop, if available for development, are assessed, as photovoltaic systems typically have a 25-year lifespan and are costly to remove for roof repair or replacement. For rooftop sites, additional space-limiting concerns are evaluated, including the presence of HVAC equipment, parapets, skylights, and conduits - all of which cannot be easily relocated. For parking lot or parkingstructure carport PV systems, the main site selection issues are the availability of space for construction, surrounding vegetation, and distance to the electrical interconnection point. For both installation types, potentially usable areas are mapped out and a detailed shading analysis is conducted. Shading analysis is performed on-site within the designated usable areas, with outer boundaries set by observing industry installation guidelines and best practices. A shading analysis involves surveying the surroundings of the usable areas to identify potentially shade-causing obstructions, such as rooftop HVAC equipment, lightning conductors, antennas, trees, lampposts, building overhangs, and neighboring buildings. Shading must be avoided, as PV systems operate most efficiently in direct sunlight, and even minor shading can sometimes have a profound negative impact on system performance. As the seasons change, the sun path changes as well. In the winter months, the altitude of the sun off the horizon is lower in comparison to its altitude during the summer months this leads to varying shading situations each month. In order to assess the amount of direct sunlight available at each usable area, the annual sun path is plotted at various points using hardware and software developed for use in the solar industry. Further analysis of the data yields the most optimal areas for solar installation at each site. Whenever possible, the electrical room at each site is inspected for main breaker and switchgear amperage and voltage ratings, as well as availability of space for additional electrical equipment. The location of the utility electrical meter i s determined, as well, since the distance between the solar modules and the interconnection point s hould be minimized to reduce voltage drop and increase system efficiency. Through Net Energy Metering (NEM) with the utility company, City electrical accounts with solar installations can save money on energy costs, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. NEM allows for solar generation exported to the grid to be credited at the same price as the City would pay for energy use at the same time-of-day and year. There are restrictions to how much credit NEM accounts can accrue, but generally, these net-metering arrangements give the highest value for solar production. An additional benefit of solar project construction is increased local economic activity, both for installation labor teams and for surrounding businesses. Page 5 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 20 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino This report includes financial modeling for three likely financing mechanisms: Direct Purchase, Power Purchase Agreement, and Lease. Optony recommends that the City of Cupertino consider several or all of these options during the procurement phase when deciding to pursue solar projects. 1. Direct Purchase The City would use existing cash reserves to purchase the system outright. In this situation, the City would be responsible for all ownership concerns, including Operations & Maintenance (O&M), regular system cleaning, and monitoring of system production. In many situations, this may yield the greatest long-term returns, but requires cash up-front and operational costs. 2. Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) The City would enter into a contract with a third party to purchase all energy produced by a PV system installed on property owned by the City. This third party would own the PV system and would be fully responsible for all ownership costs, including financing, maintenance, insurance, and system production. 3. Lease/Loan Instead of paying for purchase costs up-front, the City would pay a third party on a monthly basis over 10 to 20 years. In many such arrangements, the City would be responsible for all ownership concerns, just as with a Direct Purchase. Locally-issued bonds or renewable energy bonds, such as CREBs (Clean Renewable Energy Bonds) and QECBs (Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds), would fall into this category. This report uses Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) to compare the various financial drivers. LCOE is an assessment of the cost of the energy-generating system including all the costs over the lifetime of the system (initial investment, operations and maintenance, cost of fuel, etc), at net present value, and compares it with the lifetime energy production. This allows for a fair comparison between various generating sources and financial mechanisms. The LCOE comparison for this report can be found in Attachment D. Page 6 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 21 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino Site Evaluation: Civic Center The Cupertino Civic Center is composed of three buildings, City Hall, Community Hall and Library, and parking lots east and south of the buildings. The site evaluation is separated by building and carport sections, followed by overall site recommendation. Figure 1 Top view of the City of Cupertino Civic Center BuildingEvaluation: CityHall 1. Site Overview: Site Address: 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino CA 95014 Type of PV System: Rooftop Current PG&E Rate Schedule: A-10 S Annual Energy Usage: 464,640 kWh Maximum System Size: 50 kW-DC Maximum System Output: 65,389 kWh Energy Offset: 14% possible; Issues: Low energy offset; Roof currently overloaded; Roof age greater than 15 years; Clay tiles roofing material; Building renovation plans uncertain Opportunities: Carport usability; NEM eligible 2. Site Findings: Cupertinos City Hall building is a two-story structure originally built in 1966 and renovated in 1988. East of the structure is the main parking area for City employees as well as the general public. The usable areas at this site are shown in Figure 2 below. The current rooftop of the building is not considered usable due to existing clay tile roof material and building code Page 7 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 22 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino restrictions. As it sits, the City Hall rooftop is overloaded per the California Building Code; therefore, any additional weight of the solar photovoltaic panels and associated racking cannot be accommodated by the current roof design. However, if the building was reinforced and solar friendly roofing material was used for the top layer, then the rooftop has solar viability. The white box in Figure 2 indicates the location of the main electrical room at this site. 1 3 2 Figure 2 City Hall Usable Areas Based on the most recent electricity usage available, the total annual usage at this site is 464,640 kWh. From the three identified usable areas, a total of 50 kW-DC of PV can be installed at this site. A system of this size is capable of producing approximately 65,389 kWh in its first year of operation, which would offset 14% of the sites electrical needs. Table 1 below shows more details about each section. Table 1 City Hall PV System Summary Section AzimuthArea(Sq. Ft.) Size(kW DC) 1270°1,92213 2180°2,74819 390°2,52417 Total12,744 50 TotalSystem Production(kWh) 65,389 The City Hall rooftop can be divided into two sections. The top of the pyramidal structure is flat with a 4 wall. All of the HVAC and satellite equipment is stored in this section. The flat section is surrounded by a pitched roof section, which is composed of clay tiles. Figure 3 and Figure 4 give an example of the two sections. Page 8 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 23 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino Figure 4 An example of the pitched roof section, which is composed of Figure 3 Flat section on the top of the roof that is used for all the HVAC clay tiles and satellite equipment As the figures above show, neither of the two locations are solar usable. Additionally, the site, as it stands, is overloaded per the California Building Code requirements. No additional weight can be added without significant structural enhancements. 3. Environmental Information: The City Hall is a standalone building on the northern portion of the Civic Center, and there are no environmental shading concerns on its rooftop. 4. Electrical Information: The main building voltage at the site is 208/120V. The amperage rating for the switchgear and the main breaker is 1600A. The meter is located inside the boiler room as indicated in Figure 2. There is ample space within this room for an additional electrical meter. However, any additional electrical equipment, including disconnects and inverters will need to be installed outside the building and enclosed with a security fence. 5. Challenges: Currently the roof of the City Hall is overloaded and cannot accommodate a solar PV system. The parking lot east of the site is recommended for the Community Hall. Therefore, if the City would like to pursue solar then a roof structural upgrade is necessary. Page 9 Confidential: Analysis prepared for the City of Cupertino by Optony Inc. www.optony.com 24 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino Site Evaluation: Community Hall 1. Site Overview: Address: 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino CA 95014 Type of PV System: Walkway and Rooftop Current PG&E Rate Schedule: A-10 S Annual Energy Usage: 156,640 kWh Maximum System Size: 33 kW-DC Maximum System Output: 43,382 kWh Energy Offset: 28% possible Issues: Roof aesthetic concerns Opportunities: Walkway and carport usability; NEM eligible 2. Site Information: The Community Hall is a one-story structure situated middle of the Civic Center. The Community Hall was constructed in 2004 and since then has not been renovated. There are four usable areas at this site as shown below in Figure 5. The white box indicates the location of the electrical room. 1 2 4 3 Figure 5 Community Hall Usable Areas Section 1 is a covered walkway, which goes from the City Hall to the Library passing the Community Hall. Sections 2, 3, and 4 are on a metal standing seam roof material, pitched at approximately 12°. The west-facing portion of the rooftop, Section Page 10 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 25 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino 2 on Figure 5, is usable, but it is considered low priority due to aesthetic concerns. Figure 6 shows a view of the western side of the rooftop from the neighboring City Hall building. Figure 6 View of the Northern and Western side of the Community Hall rooftop Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the inside support beams for the rooftop. Due to the architectural design and minimal support, Optony highly recommends a structural design review of the roof before a solar PV installation. Figure 8 An alternative view of the wooden support roof support beams Figure 7 Example of a wooden beam roof support structures at the at the Community Hall Community Hall The walkway between the City Hall and Library is composed of the same roofing material, metal standing seam, as the Community Hall. The top for the walkway is completely flat, which allows for landscape panel orientation. Page 11 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 26 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino Within these four sections, a 33 kW-DC PV system can be installed. This system will yield approximately 43,382 kWh annually, which corresponds to 28% of the sites annual electricity usage of 156,640 kWh. Details about each section can be found in Table 2. Table 2 Community Hall Possible PV System Summary SectionAzimuthArea (Sq.Ft.)Size (kW DC) Walkway 1180°1,306 9 Rooftop 290°1,417 10 3180°5874 4270°1,417 10 Total 4,727 33 TotalSystem Production(kWh)43,382 3. Environmental Information: The Community Hall is a standalone building in the center of the Civic Center, and there are no environmental shading concerns on its rooftop. 4. Electrical Information: The meter is located in the electrical room indicated by the white box in Figure 5. Main building voltage is 208/120 V and the switchgear and main breaker are both rated at 1600 A. There is no space available within the electrical room for any additional electrical equipment related to a PV system. A possible location for the inverter is outside the electrical room, along the northern wall of the building. 5. Challenges: Aside from aesthetics, there are no major challenges for the site rooftop. Again, a structural review is required prior to a solar PV rooftop installation. Page 12 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 27 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino BuildingEvaluation: Cupertino Library 1. Site Overview Site Address: 10800 Torre Avenue, Cupertino CA 95014 Type of PV System: Rooftop Current PG&E Rate Schedule: A-10 S Annual Energy Usage: 1,060,744kWh Maximum System Size: 53 kW-DC Maximum System Output: 69,499 kWh Energy Offset: 7% possible; Issues: Low energy offset; shading concerns from surrounding trees; tenanted property Opportunities: NEM eligible 2. Site Findings: The Cupertino Library is a two-story building constructed in 2004. The building is situated at the southern part of the Cupertino Civic Center. There are three usable areas which are shown in Figure 9. There are a total of three usable areas on the rooftop. Section 1 of the rooftop, which is pitched towards the west, may have aesthetic concerns. 3 1 2 Figure 9 Cupertino Library Usable Areas Within the identified areas, a 53 kW-DC PV system can be installed. A system of this size will produce approximately 69,499 kWh per year, offsetting 7% of the sites annual electricity usage of 1,060,744 kWh. Table 3 shows more detail about each of the sections. Page 13 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 28 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino Table 3 Cupertino Library Possible PV System Summary SectionAzimuthArea (Sq.Ft.)Size (kW DC) 1270°4,671 32 2180°6545 3180°2,257 16 Total 29,72753 TotalSystem Production(kWh)69,499 Section 1 is on a standing seam metal roof angled west and pitched at about 12°. Sections 2 and 3 are on a flat tar portion of the roof. While the roof appears to be in excellent condition, a structural design review is recommended to ensure that the roof structure will be able to handle the additional load from the PV system. Figure 10 and Figure 11 give examples of Section 1 metal roof and Sections 2 and 3 tar asphalt roof respectively. Figure 10 Example of Section 1 metal standing seam roof at the Figure 11 Example of the tar and asphalt flat roof area in Section 3 of the Cupertino Library Cupertino Library 3. Environmental Information: Figure 12 below gives a Solmetric SunEye shade reading from the southeast corner of Section 2. As the figure shows, the section corner has 99% solar access during the summer months and 83% solar access during the winter months. This gives an annual solar access of about 93%. If the trees south of the building are trimmed then the solar access would improve for summer and winter months. Page 14 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 29 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino Figure 12 Expected solar access from the southeast corner of Section 2 at the Cupertino Library 4. Electrical Considerations: The meter is located on the first floor, along the eastern wall as indicated by a white box in Figure 9. Main building voltage is 208/120V. The main breaker and switchgear are rated at 2500 A. There is ample space in the electrical room for an additional meter, but any additional electrical equipment, including disconnect switches and inverters will need to be installed outside the building. 5. Challenges: The Library facility is owned by the City and leased to the Santa Clara County Library District, who pays the utility bills. Installing a photovoltaic system at the Library would lower the tenants bills, bu t not directly benefit the City. Unless the City directly purchases the system and negotiates selling power to the Library at a discounted rate lower than the current PG&E rate. Santa Clara County may have an appetite for this, given their leadership in the previous round Renewable 1 Energy Procurement (REP)project and costly utility bills $159,110/year at the library, but the rate and terms would need to be negotiated. 1 For information on REP available at www.jointventure.org/renewableenergyprocurement Page 15 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 30 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino CarportEvaluation: CivicCenterParkingLots 1. Site Overview Type of PV System: Carport Maximum System Size: 192 kW Maximum System Production: 261,496 kWh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Figure 13 Civic Center PV carport usable areas The parking lot within the Civic Center is also usable for solar PV. Parking spots east and south, which are Sections 1-4, 6, 8 and 9, of the buildings are recommended. However, to maximize system size, and minimize shading concerns, trees within the parking lot will need to be trimmed or relocated. In Section 6, nine trees are recommended to be removed or relocated. Page 16 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 31 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino For Sections 8 and 9, 14 trees will need to be trimmed or relocated. Lastly, for Sections 5 and 7, a total of 15 trees will need to be trimmed or relocated. Figure 14, Figure 15, and Figure 16 show a view of Sections 4, 6, and 7, respectively. Figure 15 A view of section 6 of the usable area Figure 14 A view of Section 4 of the usable area at the Cupertino Library Figure 16 A view of Section 7 of the usable area In total there are nine possible PV carport locations. Table 4 gives a summary of each section with a breakdown for available area and estimated system size. Page 17 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 32 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino Table 4 Civic Center PV carport summary SectionAzimuthArea (Sq.Ft.)Size (kW DC) Carport 1180°6324 2180°1,731 12 3180°1,701 12 4180°1,487 10 5180°3,507 24 6180°4,696 33 7180°8,899 62 8180°3,913 27 9180°1,130 8 Total 27,696192 TotalSystem Production(kWh)261,496 Sections 5 and 7 are on existing swales, and are not high priority installation locations. Sections 8 and 9 require extensive tree trimming and/or removal. Therefore, given the environmental constraints, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are recommended for a solar PV carport installation due to their proximity to the buildings and minimal environmental concerns. Site Recommendation:Civic Center Given the limited solar viable space, even the maximum solar PV system, which includes rooftop and carport, at the Civic Center will not be able to offset all the buildings. Therefore, we recommend focusing a rooftop and carport solar installation for only one of the buildings. The best site for the Civic Center should be able to achieve high energy offset for best economic return, and have the least structural concerns. Table 5 gives a summary of the three buildings and their current standing: Table 5 Civic Center Building Recommendation Recommended Available PV System Size SiteIndex and Size(kW CUP-Ci ty CUP-Communi ty Medi CUP-Cuperti no Therefore,giventhelimitedavailablePVspaceandstructuralconcernstherecommendedbuildingisCommunityHall.The recommended sections for the Community Hall are shown below in Figure 17. Page 18 Confidential: Analysis prepared for the City of Cupertino by Optony Inc. www.optony.com 33 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 6 Figure 17 Community Hall recommended PV installation sections The recommended system uses all of the Community Hall rooftop space, including the walkway, and the adjacent parking sections. These parking lot sections are closest to the tie-in location, and they have the lowest environmental concern. Table 6 gives a breakdown of the recommended system sections. Page 19 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 34 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino Table 6 Community Hall Possible PV System Summary Section AzimuthArea (Sq. Ft.)Size (kW DC) Walkway 1 180°1,306 9 Rooftop 290°1,41710 3 180°5874 4 270°1,417 10 Carport 1 180°6324 2 180°1,731 12 3 180°1,701 12 4 180°1,487 10 6 180°3,700 26 Recommended SystemSize (kW)97 RecommendedSystem Output (kWh)134,740 Due to the energy profile of this site, with a solar preferred rate schedule, schedule A-6 TOU, the site has the potential to eliminate the entire electricity bill. Although the Civic Center can accommodate more, the recommeded PV system size, taking into account site usage and highest economic return, is a smaller, 97 kW-DC PV system size. This smaller system will produce 134,740 kWh yearly, offset 86% of the Community Halls usage, and virtually eliminate its entire electricity bill with Net Energy Metering at the A-6 TOU rate schedule. In Net Energy Metering, during daylight hours, excess power generated by the PV system flows back into the utility grid. Excess power is defined as the net power between the production and usage at the site. This excess energy generates credits for the site, at the rate the city would be buying electricity from the utility. These credits can then be used up during the night, when solar electricity is not being generated. In an A-6 TOU rate schedule the daytime electricity rate is almost twice as high as the night time rate. That means for every kWh of energy credited during the day time, the site can use twice as much at night. However, at the end of each calendar year, PG&E zeroes out the excess credits on all net-metered accounts. Essentially, with a large system the site will be producing power for the utility for free. Therefore, the recommended system for the Community Hall is 97 kW-DC, which would offset 86% of the sites electricity usage and maximize the financial benefits. Additionally, the remaining parking lot spaces are available for future solar development, if the City decides to pursue an installation at the City Hall or the Library. Page 20 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 35 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino Data and Analysis from Previous Study: Site Evaluation: Corporation Yard 1. Site Overview Site address: 10555 Mary Avenue, Cupertino CA 95014 Type of PV System: Carport and Rooftop Annual Energy Usage: 172,317 kWh (2 meters) Maximum System Size: 278 kW Recommended System Size: 96.5 kW (Corp Yard Only) 2 278 kW (Renewable Energy Self-Generating BillCredit Transfer) Recommended System Output: 131,429 kWh (Corp Yard Only) 378,624 kWh (RES-BCT) Energy Offset: 75% (2 meters at Corp Yard) Over 219% (RES-BCT) Issues: Limited rooftop space; Shade from mature red wood trees; Structural integrity Opportunities: Carport PV arrays; High energy offset; Virtual Net Energy Metering option 2. Site Findings: The City of Cupertinos Corporation Yard is located in the northwest quadrant of the city, just sout h of Interstate Highway 280 and east of State Route 85. The facility consists of 10 separate rooftops. The visitor and employee parking is to the east of the main administration building, and City utility vehicle parking is to the west, which is inside the facility gates in the south-central section of the grounds. Office buildings are in the southeast, with most other buildings used for storage of equipment and materials. Two of the buildings are pre-fabricated steel structures (Sections 1 and 5), and structural upgrades would likely be necessary to allow for rooftop solar installations. The nine usable areas for solar PV installation at the Corp Yard are shown in Figure 18 below. These areas have been selected to maximize use of sun exposure. Rooftop areas that will experience shading from nearby redwood trees are not considered usable. The sections are an aggregation of usable sections provided by the City to Optony. The orange boxes in the figure below show the locations of the two site meters. 2 Renewable Energy Self-Generating Bill Credit Transfer program is described in detail on Page 24. Page 21 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 36 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino 9 5 4 8 7 3 6 1 2 Figure 18 Corp Yard Usable Areas Sections 1, 5 and 6 are buildings with solar rooftop possibilities. Sections 2, 3 and 4, which are parking spots used by City utility vehicles, are locations recommend for oversized PV carport due to large vehicles traffic. Lastly, sections 7, 8 and 9 , which are employee and guest parking spots, are ideal for regular sized PV carports. Table 7 shows details about each of the usable sections identified in Table 7. Table 7 CorpYardPossibleSystemPVSummary Section Azimuth Area (Sq. Ft.) Size (kW Rooftop 1 180° 1,175 12 5 180° 3,549 37 6 180° 1,306 14 Carport 2 180° 7,445 78 3 180° 4,763 50 4 180° 2,904 30 7 180° 2,512 26 8 180° 1,128 12 9 180° 1,794 19 Total 26,576 278 Total System Production (kWh) 378,624 Recommended (Corp Yard meters) Recommended System Production (kWh) There is a total of approximately 26,576 sq. ft of usable area at this site, which is an area large enough to host a 278 kW-DC PV system. A system of this size oriented directly facing the south is capable of producing approximately 378,624 kWh. Currently, the site is on an A-6 TOU rate schedule. This rate schedule structure allows a PV system that is sized to offset 75% of the sites usage to nearly offset the entire electrical bill. During the warm summer months, excess electricity is returned Page 22 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 37 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino to the utility and the sites account is credited at the peak rate. During the night or during cloudy winter months, when the cost of electricity is cheaper, the site is able to withdraw these credits. In effect, the site is selling electricity to the utility when electricity is expensive and buying back this electricity when the price has gone down. The Corporation Yard, as it stands, has two electricity meters with a 130,560 kWh of electricity usage on one and 41,757 kWh of electricity usage on the other. Meter locations are shown by an orange box in Figure 1. A structural review is required for Sections 1, 5, and 6 to ensure the usable area is capable of supporting the additional load of PV panels as well as its associated racking. 3. Environmental Information: The site has redwood trees that limit the solar capacity and potential. However, a high energy offset for both the meters is possible with a well designed, shade-free system. 4. Electrical Information: There are two meters for this site, as indicated by the orange box in Figure 18. The current breaker panel and main breaker panel ratings, for both the electrical rooms, at this site are 400A. The site voltage rating is 120/208V. Both the locations have limited available space, therefore, an alternative inverter location is recommended. 5. Challenges: Aside from the redwood trees, which can be avoided, the parking lots may pose as a challenge for a solar PV carport. The corporation yard is very tight to maneuver around and bollards for solar carports will need to be designed and located strategically to avoid damage and provide structural support to the PV carport. 6. Recommendation: In order to fully offset the electricity for an aggregated usage of 172,317 kWh, a 126.5 kW system is needed. However, as described earlier, for an A-6 TOU rate schedule only 75% of electricity offset is needed to eliminate the entire electricity bill. Therefore, a smaller 96.5 kW-DC system, using Sections 2 and 3, is recommended for the site. Page 23 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 38 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino Discussion on Renewable Energy Self -Generating - Bill Credit Transfer (Virtual Net Metering) Renewable Energy Self-Generating Bill Credit Transfer (RES-BCT) (also known as virtual net metering or remote generation) is the program that enables solar energy generated at one location (the Host Facility) to be sent to the electric grid and the utility credits the Host customers bill for the energy delivered at the Time-Of-Use (TOU) rate which the facility would normally pay. This may result in an excess credit in dollars which can then be applied to up to 50 other designated accounts (Benefitting Accounts) that are related to the same customer. By utilizing virtual net metering, sites with existing electrical usage, but no significant physical space for a solar installation, are enabled to take advantage of solar energy produced at alternate sites with enough space to produce energy in excess of their electrical usage. A slight variation on this idea is aggregated net metering, which essentially accomplishes the same goal by monitoring multiple accounts under one customer, and then applying solar-generated energy, or credit for it, to all managed accounts according to time of production. On September 28, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill known as AB 2466, which called for the allowance of energy generation at large sites to be passed through as credits to benefitting accounts under the same host customer. This bill was intended to allow local agencies such as Cities, Counties, and School Districts, to reduce overall energy use and resulting carbon dioxide emissions across entire portfolios of sites. Recognizing that not all sites are good candidates for solar installations, virtual net metering allows excess energy created (or more specifically, a dollar credit for energy produced) to offset energy usage at sites where solar installation is unfeasible. On January 8, 2009, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) held a public workshop to discuss the administration of the program, which was to affect the largest electrical utility companies in the state: Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). As a group, these companies are known as Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs). After the workshop, both the IOUs and many interested parties in local government and the renewable energy industry issued requests for clarification and suggestions on interpretation. On April 26, 2010, the CPUC issued its final ruling on the administration of the program, summarized by the points below: The official name of the program for all IOUs is the Renewable Energy Self-Generation Bill Credit Transfer Program, or RES-BCT. Under RES-BCT, program participants are limited to public agencies who would be able to name a generating, or host, facility at which excess energy generation would be exported to the utility grid, with monetary credit accumulating at the generation component of the applicable bundled utility rate at time of production. The customer would name a benefitting account or several benefitting accounts to receive monetary credit from production at the generating facility, which could be applied towards the generation component of the applicable bundled utility rate at time of use. Both generating facility and benefitting accounts are required to take utility service under a Time-Of-Use rate schedule. However, as of Q2 of 2012, no entity has applied for participation in the program. The primary reason for the lack of interest is that the program does not allow for net metering. Net metering enables excess energy generated to be credited at the same monetary level as the utility price at time of production. For example, summer energy usage during peak times (noon-6pm) costs $0.44703/kWh for facilities using an A-6 TOU rate schedule. Under net metering, if a solar system on a government facility were to generate 1,000 kWh more than needed during peak summer hours the facility would have earned a credit of $447.03 ($0.44703/kWh x 1,000 kWh). This credit would then be used to pay down electricity usage at times when solar is not producing enough energy to cover facility needs, such as at night. Savings are generated because Page 24 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 39 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino energy usage on the same the A-6 TOU rate schedule is $0.12183/kWh for off-peak (9:30pm-8:30am) summer energy usage. This price difference creates the situation where every excess kWh produced and exported to the grid during peak summer hours, can purchase almost 4 kWh of energy usage during off-peak summer hours. Energy credits and debits are tracked hourly and monthly, with an annual true-up at which the customer pays for any energy that has not been offset by solar production. If there is an excess credit, the recent application of Assembly Bill 920 may allow some, though likely not all, of the monetary credit to be returned to the Host facility, as discussed below. Ideally, the amount of solar energy generation and its value for the Host is optimized to provide the greatest overall net return. Many factors are involved, including the long-term cost of the system, the value of system output relative to TOU costs, available energy rate schedules, changes to rate schedules in the future, net metering programs, and valuation of excess energy credits. However, under the RES-BCT program, not all energy production is net metered. The energy consumed by the facility with the solar system is net metered: if it offsets the energy usage at the moment its produced, that energy is not billed, meaning full price value is given to that energy production. However, if the energy is not needed by the host facility, the energy gets exported to the grid (like net metering), but a credit is issued only for the Generation component of the bundled TOU rate, which is typically only 1/3 to 1/2 the value of the full price of energy to the facility. The result is that excess summer peak production is only worth $0.2355/kWh, while partial-peak summer energy produced before noon is only credited at $0.08923/kWh. Compare these numbers with the prices charged by the utility for energy usage at the same times: $0.44703 and $0.20182, respectively. Winter solar production exports between 8:30am and 9:30pm are only valued at $0.06796/kWh, less than half the price charged by the utility of $0.16794/kWh for usage during the same hours. Because all excess generation is exported, with credit also exported to other sites, the remaining electricity bill at the host facility can never be completely offset by solar generation under the RES-BCT program. For the City of Cupertino, Optony was requested to perform analysis of the viability of participating in PG&Es RES-BCT program. The City Corporation Yard has enough available space to build large solar arrays that could produce excess energy for export to the utility grid. Optony researched sources such as the CPUC, PG&E, CEC, DSIRE, and various legal and legislative web-sites to investigate the latest rulings, eligibility, processes and opportunities. Interviews and discussions were conducted with PG&E, and solar industry contacts to refine and develop this report, analysis, and recommendations. In addition to RES-BCT, other existing programs were reviewed for applicability to meeting the goals of the City of Cupertino: Feed-In Tariff (FIT) PG&E is required to pay for generation at transmission voltage for approved projects less than 1.5 MW. These types of projects cannot be net metered, nor are they eligible for utility incentive programs. PG&E is required to pay the energy generator at a Market Price Referent (MPR), which is specified according to year of installation and term of contract. Currently, for 2012 FIT projects, PG&E will pay a base-rate of up to $0.10507/kWh for 20-year contracts, and $0.09208/kWh for 10-year contracts. The MPR features planned rate increases, with pricing set at $0.14064/kWh for 20-year contracts starting in the year 2021. PG&E does apply a multiplier to pricing for all exported energy to give higher value to on-peak generation and lower value to night generation. Currently, these types of projects are unlikely to provide the same type of financial benefit as net o metering a solar project sized to meet on-site usage. However, as solar prices continue to fall, and the MPR continues to rise, development of an FIT project on a large City-owned property may be worthy of consideration. FIT projects would not directly offset energy consumption for traffic lights, but could potentially be a source of operating income on otherwise un-used or un-usable land. Page 25 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 40 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino Excess Generation Assembly Bill 920 was signed into law on October 11, 2009, and it mandates that the IOUs pay customers for production over the level of usage at net-metered sites. On June 9, 2011, the CPUC approved the rate (the Net Surplus Compensation, or NSC, rate) that the utilities are required to pay. This rate is based on a rolling 12-month average of spot market generation prices. Currently, the rate is approximately $0.04/kWh. It is important to note that this over-production valuation is for excess electricity, not excess net metering credits. Typically, net metered sites on the A-6 TOU tariff only need to offset 75-80% of facility energy usage to fully eliminate the bill. This is due to the valuation of solar energy at the time of production, as discussed above. If a PV system were sized to offset 95% of facility energy usage, this would usually create a bill credit that the facility would not be able to use. Because the energy production of the PV is still under the energy usage level, this excess production would still not be eligible for payment under the rules of AB 920. Additionally, to qualify for a Net Energy Metering (NEM) agreement with PG&E, a PV system cannot be intentionally sized to produce more energy than can be used on-site. This stipulation, along with the inability to capture bill credits unless energy usage is surpassed, makes AB 920 unlikely to be used often. Page 26 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 41 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino . Economic and Environmental Impact If the City of Cupertinos Community Hall and Corporation Yard, with both its meters, moves forward with the proposed solar projects, there will be a significant environmental and economic impact to the City of Cupertino and its neighboring communities. From an economic perspective, a large-scale multiple-site solar project would create approximately $668K in new, local 32 economic activityand about three (3) additional jobs, in addition to generating substantial energy cost savings for the City of Cupertino. If the City were to pursue a direct purchase of the systems, there would be substantial long-term benefits and a positive return on investment from the effort when competitively bid. A summary of the economic benefits is shown in Figure 19. Figure 19 Snapshot of Economic Benefits over system lifetime Optony performed a detailed financial analysis of the recommended sites and PV system sizes. Detailed below are site specific recommendations with City preferred financing option. 3 Determined using National Renewable Energy Laboratorys Job and Economic Development Impact model Page 27 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 42 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino Table 8 Site Recommendations Recommended Financial Site Name System Size Action Financing Savings/Cost* (kW-DC) Re commend pos tponi ng s ol a r PV i ns ta l l a ti on unti l CUP-CityHallPostpone-- CivicCenterMasterPlan CUP-CommunityHall397Joi nR-REP Procureme nt DP/PPA$ 271,736 Re commend pos tponi ng s ol a r PV i ns ta l l a ti on unti l CUP-Cupe rti no Li bra ry Pos tpone - - CivicCenterMa s te rPl an CUP-Corporta ion Yard-Me ter:74203 72Joi nR-REP Procureme nt DP/PPA$ 256,204 Corporta i onYard-Mete r:74253 23Joi nR-REP Procureme nt DP/PPA$ 78,623 Totalfor AllSites $ 606,563 * Sa vi ngs /Cos t shown for Powe r Purcha s e Agre e me nt Fi na nci ng A financial analysis summary of all the individual sites is provided in Attachment D. Table 9, below, shows that the Compound Annual Growth Rate over the past 12 years has increased by 4.9% for commercial and 6.0% for industrial. But, the assumed PG&E rate annual escalation factor is 4.5% due to the following reasons: Reduces risk as a higher rate of escalation would make project economics unrealistic Approved by majority of jurisdictions as the realistic escalation factor Table 9 Historicaldata of10 yearaverage% costincreaseforPG&EinCA 12-Year Rate Total Rate Sm/Med Commercial - 68.9% Lg Commercial/Ind - 90.7% * Ba s e d on CPUC Ra te Hi s tory for PG&E Ave ra ge bundl e d ra te s by cus tome r cl a s s ** Compound Annua l Growth Ra te from 2000 to 2012 In general, the financial analysis model, on page 38, shows that a Direct Purchase option provides the greatest savings over the long-term, but it does require initial project investment and ongoing Operations & Maintenance for the system. The PPA option, on the other hand, shows the lowest savings over the life of the systems, but, yearly payments with a rate schedule change would be lower than current or projected PG&E bills starting in Year One. With a PPA, no capital investment or balloon payments are necessary, and O&M is handled by the third-party system owner. Based upon projected values, Solar Leases for the recommended systems may be a valid option to consider for inclusion in an RFP issuance. Savings under a Lease or Loan option are typically lower than for a PPA for the life of the Lease or Loan, but after the buy-out (modeled at zero cost at Year 15), savings are significant. Based on this analysis, we recommend further investigation with private project developers through a competitive bid process to get the best results in terms of pricing and performance. From an environmental perspective, the combined solar production will prevent the equivalent of nearly 189 metric tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the environment from current power sources annually. This amount of carbon sequestration can be visualized as planting approximately 40 acres of new forest. The carbon emissions reduction is Page 28 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 43 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino equivalent to eliminating approximately 51 thousand Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) annually. The total yearly energy production would be sufficient to power nearly 21 homes in the City of Cupertino. These emissions savings become more relevant as the City pursues to develop a Climate Action Plan and as the cap-and-trade market is realized in California. Page 29 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 44 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino Next Steps If the City of Cupertino decides to pursue the recommended options, the following next steps have been identified to move this project along quickly and achieve the desired impact on cost reduction and green energy production before available solar incentives decrease. Also included is an estimate for duration of each step and when the work can be started. 1) Build Consensus: Use the reports findings to prioritize sites, build internal support, determine financing options, and appropriate procurement process. Start: immediately, Duration: approximately 4-6 weeks 2) Prepare Standard RFQ/RFP and Issue RFQ/RFP: After receiving approval to proceed, publish a procurement package and encourage vendor participation. Start: upon approval of RFQ/RFP, Duration: approximately 14 weeks 3) Evaluate Vendors, Proposals, Benefits and Costs in terms of design, price, performance, and capabilities, ensuring industry best practices are offered and contracted. Start: upon receipt of proposals, Duration: approximately 4 weeks 4) Select Vendor and Negotiate Contracts: Select vendor and review contract language to ensure maximum benefit for each agency. Start: upon selection of shortlisted vendors, Duration: approximately 6 weeks 5) Plan for Construction in 2013: Finalize financial arrangements, system design, and required building documents to begin installation and construction phase. Start: upon project approval, Duration: approximately 6-8 weeks Page 30 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 45 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino Methodology & Assumptions Optony uses a rigorous methodology and client-focused approach to evaluate potential solar sites that goes well beyond the effort that is provided by system installers, finance companies, or even the utility companies. We combine our decades of experience in the solar field to balance the tradeoffs between technology, system design, rebates and incentive opportunities, electric demand and rate schedules, solar macro- and micro-economics, and available funding sources to develop an independent assessment of the realistic options at each site to meet the clients specific needs and goals. Methodology and assumptions for this Feasibility Assessment: Optony uses a proprietary approach to performing a solar site analysis that uses dynamic scenario creation and evaluation processes along with publicly and privately developed software and tools to determine all the relevant variables and tradeoffs between options. For calculating available space at each site, the Optony team visited the site, took physical measurements, compared site available area with aerial views from Google Earth and performed shading analysis using Solmetric SunEye. Mapping software by Bing was also used for satellite imagery. Solar access is defined as the availability of direct sunlight which reaches the photovoltaic panels. A higher solar access percentage reflects fewer shading obstructions. Shading obstructions may include surrounding buildings, mechanical equipment on rooftops including antennas and power lines, architectural features of the building, tall trees, and other surrounding vegetation. Optony uses industry standard as well as proprietary financial modeling software with local utility rate schedules and typical meteorological year 3 data, and neutral to conservative inflation, SREC and Investment Tax Credit assumptions in all financial modeling. This approach allows Optony to present the client with realistic forecasting that reduces risks and estimates realistic project returns. Optony uses National Renewable Energy Laboratorys Job and Economic Development Impact model to determine project local economic impact and number of jobs created. Project timing is very important in the overall economics of a solar system installation due to the time-sensitive nature of the various federal, state, utility, and local incentives. Optony assumed that this project will not be comp leted in 2012, but has evaluated the impact for construction completion in 2013. Optony has a unique insight into the latest solar technology due to its cooperative agreement and ongoing research with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO. This has led to the achievement of world-record performance in thin film solar cells and major advancements in other emerging photovoltaic technologies. Optony does not sell equipment or installation services, and this report is not intended to provide a quote for future service; rather, it is a report on the ability of the pre-selected sites to produce power from the sun. Disclaimer: This report is provided as an illustration of the potential benefits of a renewable energy system. The information presented in this report should not be construed as legal, tax or accounting advice. You should consult with professional advisors familiar with your particular factual situation for advice concerning specific matters before making any decision. Furthermore, this report may contain references to certain laws, regulations, tax incentives, rebates, programs and third party provided information. These will change over time and should be interpreted only in light of this particular engagement as of the date of this report. Page 31 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 46 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino About Optony Inc. Optony Inc. is a global research and consulting services firm focused on enabling government and commercial organizations to bridge the gap between solar energy goals and real-world results. Optonys core services offer a systematic approach to planning, implementing, and managing commercial and utility-grade solar power systems, while simultaneously navigating the dramatic and rapid changes in the solar industry; from emerging technologies and system designs to government incentives and private/public financing options. Leveraging our independence, domain expertise and unique market position, our clients are empowered to make informed decisions that reduce risk, optimize operations, and deliver the greatest long-term return on their solar investments. Based in Silicon Valley, Optony has offices in Washington DC, Denver, Beijing and Hangzhou. Optony has participated in over 20 patent filings and continues to explore next-generation solar technologies and policies in collaboration with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and other leading researchinstitutions. For more information, visit www.optony.com Page 32 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 47 FINAL Solar Feasibility Study for the City of Cupertino Attachment A: City of Cupertino Solar PV Project Overview Direct Purchase Cost 2 Recommended PV Annual PV Annual Building Energy NPVDirect Purchase 1 2 SiteIndex and Name System Size (kW DC) Output (kWh) Usage (kWh) Offset RangeSavings NPVPPA Savings Pos tpone unti l Ci vi c Center Ma s ter Pl a n CUP-Ci ty Ha l l - 464,640 - - - - 3 CUP-Communi ty Ha l l 97 134,740 156,640 86% $321,328 - $355,152 $ 337,785 $ 271,736 Pos tpone unti l Ci vi c CUP-Cuperti no Li bra ry Center Ma s ter Pl a n - 1,060,744 - - - - 3 CUP-Corporta i on Ya rd-Meter:7420 72 97,789 130,560 75% $238,735 - $263,865 $ 364,588 $ 256,204 3 Corporta i on Ya rd-Meter:7425 23 31,325 41,757 75% $76,475 - $84,525 $ 103,241 $ 78,623 Total for All Sites 192 263,854 328,957 80% $636,538 - $703,542 $ 805,614 $ 606,563 Table Notes: 1 Cost before any incentives and/or rebates; cost range uses assumption of $3.5/Watt-DC as average installed cost, with 10% variance 2 Net present value (NPV) uses a 25 year financial analysis period; 4% annual discount rate; PG&E 4.5% annual escalation; 0.5% annual PV system degradation; Step 10 CSI (California Solar Initiative) rebates at $0.088/kWh for first 5 years; O&M cost of $15/kW with a 3% annual escalation; PPA rate $0.160/kWh with a 3% escalation rate 3 PG&E A-6 Time-Of-Use (TOU) utility rate schedule * Recommendation to postpone solar at the site due to structural (City Hall see page 8), electrical, and/or financial (City Hall see page 8; Library see page 17) concerns. Recommended system sizes are determined by using a variety of factors which include: electricity usage amounts and patterns, maximum possible energy offset, projected cash flows, and Net Present Value (NPV) of energy savings. All numbers are estimated and intended for planning purposes only. A kilowatt (kW) is a common unit for measuring power, typically for either maximum spontaneous capacity of solar generation or maximum power l oad of a facility. In this report, kilowatt-DC (kW- DC) refers explicitly to Direct Current capacity of solar installations, before inversion of power to alternating current, or AC. Kilowatt-hours (kWh) is a unit of energy measurement to track power production or consumption over time. As shown above, with direct purchase of the recommended systems, including the Corporation Yard, at mid-range prices, the City can potentially net over $805,000 in discounted electricity bill savings over the 25-year expected operating life of the proposed systems at the most financially beneficial, A-6 TOU, electricity rate schedule. Page 33 Confidential: Analysis prepared for the City of Cupertino by Optony Inc. www.optony.com 48 FINAL Solar Feasibility Study for the City of Cupertino Attachment B: Virtual Net Metering / Renewable Energy Self-Generating Bill Credit Transfer Analysis For the purpose of modeling the economic benefit of solar installation possibilities utilizing RES-BCT, a sample host site that has enough space to build a large solar array, with not enough electrical consumption to use all the energy produced, is needed. The Corporation Yard uses about 172,317 kWh annually, with yearly bills around $30,000 on the current A-6 TOU electricity rate schedule. Without RES-BCT, the site should install a 95 kW-DC solar PV system, nearly eliminating the electricity bill of approximately $26,600 per year, which equates to savings of $277/kW-DC. These savings are based on net metering of the solar system, with that system appropriately sized to zero out the electricity bill without generating excess bill credits that could be lost at the annual true-up. However, the Corporation Yard is large enough to host a solar system of nearly 278 kW-DC. A system of this size could produce about 378,624 kWh annually, but such over-sized systems are currently not allowed under PG&Es NEM agreement restrictions. If it were eligible, under a net metering plan, much of the energy produced would be export ed to the grid and substantial credits would be generated. However, at the annual true-up, any energy credits not used by the Corporation Yard would be lost, meaning the utility would receive theenergy for free, and the City of Cupertino would receive no additional return on the solar investment. If net metering were allowed for an intentionally over -sized system, AB 920 would require PG&E to pay for excess generation, but only at a rate of approximately $0.04/kWh, so over-sizing would continue to be inadvisable for financial reasons. With the excess capacity for solar development at the site, the Corporation Yard could be a good candidate for a host facility under an aggregated net metering program. Until such a program is successfully instituted, the closest alternative is the RES-BCT program currently available. Based upon site electricity usage patterns, sample daily cash flows under the RES- BCT program are shown on the following page: Page 34 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 49 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino Table 10 Sample RES-BCT and NEM daily cash flows DataforSampleSummerDay -REC-BCTDataforSampleSummer Day-NEM SoarGeneraon-Soar Estimated Esmaed Production - Only Energy Hourly CredngProduction - Hourly Credng Energy Hour of day Billing Rates ($/kWh) Energy Usage Billing Rates ($/kWh) $95kW Sysem$ 278 kW Export Cred Usage kWhkWh SystemkWh Rates$/kWh kWh 124.96 0 $0.13840 $0.0422 ($3.45) 24.96 0 $0.13840 ($3.45) 224.96 0 $0.13840 $0.0422 ($3.45) 24.96 0 $0.13840 ($3.45) 324.96 0 $0.13840 $0.0422 ($3.45) 24.96 0 $0.13840 ($3.45) 424.96 0 $0.13840 $0.0422 ($3.45) 24.96 0 $0.13840 ($3.45) 524.96 0 $0.13840 $0.0422 ($3.45) 24.96 0 $0.13840 ($3.45) 624.96 0 $0.13840 $0.0422 ($3.45) 24.96 0 $0.13840 ($3.45) 724.96 30.84 $0.13840 $0.0422 $0.25 24.96 10.71 $0.13840 ($1.97) 815.98 69.74 $0.13840 $0.0422 $2.27 15.98 24.21 $0.13840 $0.35 91.63 101.06 $0.22498 $0.0892 $8.87 1.63 35.08 $0.22498 $2.98 10 1.63 140.23 $0.22498 $0.0892 $12.37 1.63 48.68 $0.22498 $4.20 11 1.63 179.86 $0.22498 $0.0892 $15.90 1.63 62.43 $0.22498 $5.43 121.63 207.21 $0.22498$0.0892$18.341.6371.93 $0.22498 $6.27 133.50 204.81 $0.43995$0.2355$47.413.5071.10 $0.43995 $15.92 143.50 191.64 $0.43995$0.2355$44.313.5066.52 $0.43995 $14.84 153.50 165.47 $0.43995$0.2355$38.143.5057.44 $0.43995 $12.70 163.50132.33$0.43995$0.2355$30.343.5045.94$0.43995$9.99 173.50 81.49$0.43995$0.2355$18.373.5028.29 $0.43995 $5.84 1870.0236.85$0.43995$0.2355($14.59)70.0212.79 $0.43995 ($25.18) 1940.800.01$0.22498$0.0892($9.18)40.800.00$0.22498($9.18) 2040.800 $0.22498$0.0892($9.18)40.800$0.22498 ($9.18) 2140.800 $0.22498$0.0892($9.18)40.800$0.22498 ($9.18) 2240.800 $0.22498$0.0892($9.18)40.800$0.22498 ($9.18) 2324.960 $0.13840$0.0422($3.45)24.960$0.13840 ($3.45) 24 24.96 0 $0.13840 $0.0422 ($3.45) 24.96 0 $0.13840 ($3.45) Total DailyBilling ($78.94) Total DailyBilling ($91.50) Total 497.88 1,541.55 497.88 535.11 Total DailyEnergy Total Daily Energy Export Credit $236.57 $78.52 ExportCredit ($25,048)($26,607) Total AnnualBilling - 278 kWTotal Annual Billing - 96.1kW $36,728$26,681 Total AnnualEnergy ExportCredit -278kWTotal Annual EnergyExportCredit- 96.1kW $132 $277 Ratio($/W)of1styearcredittoinstalled systemsize Ratio ($/W)of 1st yearcreditto installed systemsize Under the RES-BCT program, billing would take place monthly, but for the example day above, the City would be billed for $78.94, with a generation credit applied to Benefitting Accounts of $236.57. Over the course of a year, this facility would be expected to accrue a bill of approximately $25,048, with about $36,728 of export credits generated. The net cash flow would equal $11,680, which, when spread over the 378,624 kWh of production, gives a value of $0.03085 per kWh generated. Broken down by kW of system size, $11,680 of savings for a 278 kW system gives a value of slightly over $42/kW of annual savings. With a system cost of approximately $5/Watt, simple payback (ignoring PG&E rate increases and discount rate) comes out to about 119 years, compared to the 15-year simple payback under the net metering option at $277/kW of savings, as discussed above. Taking the same sample day, under Net Energy Metering and Optony recommended smaller 96.5 kW system size, which is 35% of the maximum system size, the City would be billed for $91.50, with a generation credit of $78.52. Over the course of a year, this facility would beexpected to accrue a bill of approximately $26,607, with about $26,681 of export credits generated. The net cash flow would equal $74, which results in a simple payback of 12.5 year. Therefore, a smaller system that offsets just the two meters at the Corp Yard is recommended at this time. If the City of Cupertino were to enter into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for solar at this site, the financial case is unappealing because the PPA price would need to be below $0.10/kWh, which is below the currently available market rates. With the recent requirement of Prevailing Wage payment on energy-services projectsa change from past interpretationspricing under $0.10/kWh is unlikely to be achieved under current market conditions. However, recent drops in pricing of solar components, particularly modules, have caused PPA pricing to drop to as lowas $0.11/kWh. As Page 35 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 50 FINAL SolarFeasibilityStudyforthe Cityof Cupertino prices are expectedto continue to drop in 2013, the solar market should be watched, and the potential for PPAs on large, export-capable projects may need to be re-visited. Without the ability to net meter, the costs of installing PV systems larger than needed to offset on-site loads cannot be effectively recovered. Payback periods for direct investment are unacceptably long, and negative cash flow for financed options would not turn around for the life of the financing agreement. Optony recommends that the City of Cupertino does not pursue utilization of the RES-BCT program in its current iteration, and at current solar industry pricing. Net metering solar installations to meet on-site consumption can be quite beneficial to the City, and should be considered in the near term, but over-production to export excess energy credits is not financially viable at this time. TheCityshouldremainhopefulandsupportiveforfutureprogramsthatdofairlyandeffectivelyallocatebillcreditsfor over-production. State Senate Bill 383 (SB 383 Wolk) was under review in the State Legislature in 2010. This bill was not approved, but was partially intended to correct many of the oversights of AB 2466, and to enable public agencies to fully and realistically take advantage of the ability to over-build solar arrays at some sites in order to offset energy usage at other, smaller or more sensitive, facilities. No current versions of the Bill are under consideration in the California Legislature. Another Wolk-sponsored bill, SB 843, currently seeks to enable utility customers, including municipalities, to purchase solar energy produced at a third-party-owned site, and allocate the value of the energy to benefitting accounts. The potential interpretations of this bill could enable virtual net metering, but future re-writings in the Legislature and rulings by the CPUC will need to be analyzed to determine effectiveness and eligibility for the City of Cupertino. Page 36 Confidential:Analysispreparedforthe CityofCupertinoby OptonyInc. www.optony.com 51 FINAL Solar Feasibility Study for the City of Cupertino Attachment C: Savings Summary by Investment Period for the City of Cupertino CUP-City Hall CUP-Corp Yard 7420 CUP-Corp Yard 7425 System Overview System Size (kWp) 50 97 53 7223 Year1Output(kWh)65,389134,74069,49997,78931,325 Energy Offset % 14% 86% 7% 75% 75% Utility Direct Purchase Utility Direct Purchase UtilityDirect Purchase Utility Direct Purchase Utility Direct Purchase NPV LCOE Analysis $174,440 @ $338,240 @ A-10 S TOU $183,890 @ $251,300 @ $80,500 @ A-10 S @ 4.5% A-10 S @ 4.5% A-6 TOU @ 4.5% A-6 TOU @ 4.5% $3.50/Watt $3.50/Watt $3.50/Watt $3.50/Watt $3.50/Watt 5 0.1631 0.2086 0.1677 0.2270 0.3694 0.1473 0.1640 0.1851 0.1658 0.1979 0.3262 0.1290 0.1847 0.3352 0.1261 10 0.1832 0.1953 0.1873 0.2549 0.1955 0.1605 0.1841 0.1899 0.1857 0.2223 0.1700 0.1406 0.2074 0.1765 0.1344 15 0.2066 0.2060 0.2100 0.2875 0.1417 0.1756 0.2076 0.2075 0.2088 0.2507 0.1214 0.1539 0.2338 0.1247 0.1434 20 0.2339 0.2255 0.2364 0.3254 0.1191 0.1930 0.2350 0.2314 0.2358 0.2838 0.1007 0.1692 0.2647 0.1009 0.1549 25 0.2658 0.2514 0.2672 0.3698 0.1103 0.2131 0.2671 0.2606 0.2673 0.3225 0.0923 0.1869 0.3009 0.0899 0.1690 Utility Direct Purchase Utility Direct Purchase UtilityDirect Purchase Utility Direct Purchase Utility Direct Purchase $174,440 @ $338,240 @ A-10 S TOU $183,890 @ $251,300 @ $251,300 @ NPV of Energy Cost A-10 S @ 4.5% A-10 S @ 4.5% A-6 TOU @ 4.5% A-6 TOU @ 4.5% $3.50/Watt$3.50/Watt$3.50/Watt$3.50/Watt$3.50/Watt 5 $349,754$460,489 $359,579 $164,064 $292,830 $106,550 $802,413 $919,773 $811,488 $119,233 $215,723 $77,755 $35,577 $70,757 $24,340 10 $707,997$781,286 $724,096 $332,111 $305,558 $209,793 $1,624,300 $1,702,917 $1,638,676 $241,360 $222,528 $153,156 $72,018 $73,575 $46,959 15 $1,074,935$1,110,657 $1,094,013 $504,236 $322,161 $310,349 $2,466,136 $2,505,763 $2,482,305 $366,450 $232,329 $226,652 $109,342 $76,307 $68,008 20 $1,450,778$1,448,820 $1,469,775 $680,538 $342,753 $408,803 $3,328,403 $3,328,809 $3,343,112 $494,577 $245,202 $298,670 $147,573 $79,472 $88,265 25 $1,835,744$1,796,001 $1,798,185 $861,120 $367,448 $505,705 $4,211,599 $4,172,565 $4,221,824 $625,814 $261,225 $369,610 $186,732 $83,491 $108,109 Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct Return On Investment 25 Year IRR 5.53% 6.13% 5.41% 13.15% 12.10% 1 Lower LCOE price within analysis year results in better project returns 2 PPA LCOE price is lower the PPA price due to proper system sizing. LCOE is calculated using total cost of energy produced (for 75% energy offset)/total energy used. A properly sized system with NEM and preferred rate schedule essentially accumulates 25% of 'free' energy Page 37 Confidential: Analysis prepared for the City of Cupertino by Optony Inc. www.optony.com 52 FINAL Solar Feasibility Study for the City of Cupertino Attachment D: Project Summary for the City of Cupertino CUP-Corp CUP-Corp CUP-City System System Size Yield 1 Totalonsiteenergyusage (kWh) Year 1 Output Annual Energy Offset Current Utility Utility UtilityRate A-10A-10A-10SA-6 A-6 AverageUtilityCost UtilityInflator Direct Purchase 2 Eng,Proc, Constr $ Solar Rebate SolarRebate 5 5 5 5 5 Yr1 O&M Discount Loan Loan LoanInterestRate- End ofTerm PPA 2 Initial PPA rate($/kWh) PPA S-RECValue (keep/sell) S-REC S-REC Contrac 5 5 5 BuyersellsS-REC(Direct AnnualCO2Reduction AnnualVMTReduction TreeAcre NPVof Energy UtilityEnergyPurchase (25 GettingPPA (25 Direct Purchase (inclO&M,solar Loan ( year % Energy DirectPurchase (25 Loan(25 PPA (25 LCOE Utility DirectPurchase Loan PPA 1 Basedon most recent 12 months of Utility data 2 Indicativepricing,pendingfurtheranalysis by vendor after system size and siteassumptionsare finalized Page 38 Confidential: Analysis prepared for the City of Cupertino by Optony Inc. www.optony.com 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 AR RBORESOURCES professional consulting arborists and tree care ATREEINVENTORYANDREVIEW OFTHEPROPOSEDCUPERTINO SOLARCARPORTPROJECT SITES CUPERTINOCIVICCENTER QUINLANCOMMUNITYCENTER Submitted to: Erin M. Cooke Environmental Affairs Coordinator City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Prepared by: David L. Babby Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Board-Certified Master Arborist #WE-4001B _________ November 1, 2010 p.o. box 25295, san mateo, california 94402 email: arborresources@comcast.net phone: 650.654.3351 fax: 650.240.0777 licensed contractor #796763 62 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010 TABLEOFCONTENTS SECTIONTITLEPAGE 1.0INTRODUCTIONvvuuuvvvvvvvvvuvvvvuvvvvuvvvvv1 2.0TREECOUNTANDCOMPOSITIONuuvvvvvuuuuvvvvuuvvvv2 2.1CupertinoCivicCentervvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvuuvvu2 2.2QuinlanCommunityCentervvvvvvvvvvvvvvvuvuuuvuuv3 3.0SUITABILITYFORTREEPRESERVATIONuvuuuvvvvvvvuuvvuu4 4.0POTENTIALTREERELATEDIMPACTSvvuvvvuvvvvvvvuuv5 5.0TREEREPLACEMENTSuvvvvvvuvvvvuvvvvvvvvuvuvuuu6 6.0TREEPROTECTIONMEASURESuvvvvvuvvvvvvvvuvuvuuu7 EXHIBITS EXHIBITTITLE ATREEINVENTORYTABLECupertinoCivicCenter BTREEINVENTORYTABLEQuinlanCommunityCenter CAERIALMAPS(two)CupertinoCivicCenter DAERIALMAPQuinlanCommunityCenter EPHOTOGRAPHSCupertinoCivicCenter FPHOTOGRAPHSQuinlanCommunityCenter i 63 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristNovember 1, 2010 1.0INTRODUCTION solar I have been retained by the City of Cupertino to evaluate trees in connection with a carport project being proposed at the following two sites in Cupertino: Cupertino Civic Center , 10300 Torre Avenue. Quinlan Community Center , 10185 N. Stelling Road. Specific tasks performed for my review are as follows: Identify each tree anticipated to potentially be impacted by the project. Estimate each tree’s trunk diameter at 54 inches above grade or where appropriate to best represent trunk size; diameters are rounded to the nearest inch. Estimate each tree’s height and canopy spread. Ascertain each tree’s health and structural integrity, and assign an overall condition rating (e.g. good, fair or poor). Rate each tree’s suitability for preservation (e.g. high, moderate or low). Specify whether any of the trees are regarded as “protected trees” pursuant to the Cupertino Municipal Code. Assign tree numbers in a sequential pattern for each site, and show those numbers on the aerial photographs derived from Google Earth; see Exhibits C and D. Affix metal tags (round aluminum) with corresponding numbers to each trunk. Obtain photographs; see can be viewed in Exhibits E and F. Review Sheet PV 0.1 (PV Site Plan), dated 10/13/10, and address potential tree- related impacts for the Cupertino Civic Center. Provide measures to mitigate the removal of trees, as well as help avoid or mitigate impacts to retained trees. Prepare a written report containing the aforementioned information; this report has been submitted as a PDF document via email. Cupertino Solar Carport Project Page 1 of 10 City of Cupertino, California 64 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristNovember 1, 2010 2.0TREECOUNTANDCOMPOSITION 2.1CupertinoCivicCenter Ninety-four (94) trees of five various species were inventoried at this site. They are sequentially numbered as 1 thru 94, and the following table identifies their names, numbers, counts and percentages: % OF NAMETREE NUMBER(S) COUNT TOTAL blackwood acacia 24-39, 55, 78-94 3537% Brazilian pepper tree 1, 3-5, 8-11, 15, 16 1011% Chinese pistache 63-771516% flowering pear 2, 6, 7, 12-14, 17-22, 56-62 1920% river birch 40-541516% Total94100% Exhibit A Specific data recorded for each tree can be viewed in . A map showing their Exhibit CExhibit E locations are presented in , and photographs are provided in . blackwood acacias The site is populated predominantly by that form a row along the eastern (rear) property boundary, and serve as a screening element between the site and neighboring single-family residential properties along Farallone Drive. Two groups of trees #23 thru 39 these trees were inventoried for this report; one is comprised of , which would potentially affect solar access to the photovoltaic (PV) panels proposed for the City trees#78 thru 94 Hall parking lot, while the other is comprised of , which would potentially be affect solar access to the PV panels proposed for the library’s rear parking lot. The row of trees #23 thru 39 is relatively dense, whereas #78 thru 94 are scattered Cupertino Solar Carport Project Page 2 of 10 City of Cupertino, California 65 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristNovember 1, 2010 with fairly wide spacing between trees. There is also one very small acacia, tree #55, in a finger-island adjacent to the sports field. river birchtrees #40 thru 54 The are comprised of , and form a row within, to my understanding, a bioswale behind the library. Chinese pistache The align the northern and western (street) sections of the sports field. flowering pears The are located along the entrance to City Hall, the adjacent parking, and along the west, northern section of the sports field. Brazilian peppers The are situated within islands in the parking lot for City Hall. Noneprotectedtrees of the inventoried trees are considered “” pursuant to Section 14.18.035 of the City Code. north of #78removed Note that two trees , there is a dead tree that should be immediately . 2.2QuinlanCommunityCenter Thirty-six (36) trees of three various species were inventoried at this site. They are sequentially numbered as 1 thru 36, and the following table identifies their names, numbers, counts and percentages: % OF NAMETREE NUMBER(S) COUNT TOTAL 5, 9, 10, 12-14, 17, 18, 22- coast redwood 1644% 27, 29, 30 1-4, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, 19-21, flowering pear 1953% 28, 31-36 Japanese flowering 613% cherry Total36100% Cupertino Solar Carport Project Page 3 of 10 City of Cupertino, California 66 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristNovember 1, 2010 Exhibit B Specific data recorded for each tree can be viewed in . A map showing their Exhibit DExhibit F locations are presented in , and photographs are provided in . Noneprotectedtrees of the trees are considered “” pursuant to Section 14.18.035 of the City Code. 3.0SUITABILITYFORTREEPRESERVATION Each tree has been assigned a “high,” “moderate” or “low” suitability for preservation rating as a method for cumulatively measuring and considering their physiological health, structural integrity, location, size and species. A description of these ratings followed by the assigned tree numbers, per site, is as follows: High : They have a high potential of providing long-term contribution the site, appear in good health, and contain seemingly stable structures. Cupertino Civic Center (12 trees): trees #63, 65-70, 72 and 74-77. Quinlan Community Center (15 trees): trees #5, 9, 10, 12-14, 17, 22-27, 29 and 30. Moderate : They contribute to the site but not at seemingly significant levels. Their longevity and contribution is less than those of high suitability, and more frequent care is needed during their remaining life span. Cupertino Civic Center (62 trees): trees #1, 3, 6-14, 16-18, 20-28, 30, 32-54, 56-62, 64, 71, 73, 83, 85, 88, 90 and 91. Quinlan Community Center (19 trees): trees #1-4, 6, 7, 15, 16, 18-21, 28 and 31-36. Cupertino Solar Carport Project Page 4 of 10 City of Cupertino, California 67 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristNovember 1, 2010 Low : These trees are predisposed to irreparable health problems and/or structural defects that are expected to worsen regardless of measures employed. Cupertino Civic Center (20 trees): trees #2, 4, 5, 15, 19, 29 (dead), 31, 55, 78-82, 84, 86, 87, 89 and 92-94. Quinlan Community Center (two trees): trees #8 and 11. 4.0POTENTIALTREERELATEDIMPACTS Per Sheet PV 0.1, the following tree disposition at the Civic Center would result by implementing the proposed design: 55 trees The following would be removed to accommodate the proposed carports #1 thru 17 and 40 thru 77 and solar panels: . Trees #23 thru 39 (blackwood acacias) would require height reduction or removal of the tallest trees, as well as maintaining the height of remaining trees. Trees #78 thru 94#18 thru 22 (blackwood acacias) and (flowering pears) are required to remain at their current height. The plan does not identify specific trees that require height reduction or removal, and this information is necessary to more fully identify potential impacts. Also, the height tolerance of trees should be provided as there are cost impacts associated with frequent pruning. Note that substantial height reduction, particularly of the acacias and pears, would drastically increase growth rates and further increase maintenance (e.g. every six months or year). Cupertino Solar Carport Project Page 5 of 10 City of Cupertino, California 68 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristNovember 1, 2010 5.0TREEREPLACEMENTS Civic Centermitigation58 trees For the ,for removing the 55 trees involves installing of 24-inch box size (pursuant to Table A, Section 14.18.185 of the City Code). This amount will increase should trees bordering the proposed carport locations require removal. Appropriate species can be provided once locations for the new trees are identified. Quinlan Community Center For, the amount and size of replacements can be identified once the project plans become developed, and trees to be removed are identified. All new trees should be installed, including necessary irrigation, by an experienced state- licensed landscape contractor or a professional tree company, and performed to professional industry standards. They shall be planted prior to final inspection, double- staked with rubber tree ties with no cross-brace, and all forms of irrigation be of a bubbler- system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve (this should be shown on the appropriate detail in the landscape plan). Cupertino Solar Carport Project Page 6 of 10 City of Cupertino, California 69 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristNovember 1, 2010 6.0TREEPROTECTIONMEASURES Recommendations presented within this section are intended to serve as guidelines for mitigating or avoiding impacts to trees being retained (including those not inventoried for this report), and should be carefully followed and incorporated into the project plans. Note that they are subject to revision upon review of any additional or revised plans, including development of plans for the Quinlan Community Center, and I should be consulted in the event any cannot be feasibly implemented. note 1.A instructing the contractor(s) to refer to this report for tree protection measures should be added to the project plans. Tree Protection Zone (hereinafter “TPZ”) 2.The of a particular tree should be regarded as the unpaved area beneath its canopy (essentially, the planter area beneath its canopy). The TPZ is where all demolition, trenching, soil scraping and grading (soil cuts, overcut, fill, and finish-grading) shall be avoided except where approved. In areas where this is not feasible, I should be consulted to review whether an alternative TPZ would be acceptable. conducted beyond 3.Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be TPZs , to include, but not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, stripping of topsoil, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling/dumping of materials, and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. Tree trunks shall also not be used as winch supports for moving or lifting heavy loads. digging or trenchingTPZmanually performed 4.Any within a shall be without the use of heavy equipment or tractors operating on unpaved ground. Cupertino Solar Carport Project Page 7 of 10 City of Cupertino, California 70 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristNovember 1, 2010 staging area(s) and routes of access 5.The shall be established beyond TPZs. disposal 6.The of harmful products (such as cement, paint, chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath or near Herbicides TPZs. should not be used with a TPZ; where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. Tree protective fencing , to remain intact throughout construction, should be installed 7. prior to demolition for the purpose of restricting access into a TPZ. It shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter steel posts that are driven into the ground 24 inches and spaced apart by no more than approximately ten feet. The location of fencing will vary for each tree, and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. I recommend the contractor reviews the fencing location and placement with me two weeks prior to commencing work and installing fencing. Any modification to or access within fencing should not occur without City’s consent. 8.To protect trees otherwise planned for retention, great care must be taken during avoid excavation into existing planters demolition to of TPZs where roots are expected to be found growing along the inside of existing curbs and gutters. Trees with low-growing branchespruned 9. encroaching into the parking lot should be prior to mobilizing equipment. The work shall be performed in accordance with the most recent ANSI standards, and by a California state-licensed tree service that has an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist in a supervisory role. The company selected should also carry General Liability and Worker’s Compensation insurance, and shall abide by ANSI Z133.1-2006 (Safety Operations). Cupertino Solar Carport Project Page 8 of 10 City of Cupertino, California 71 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristNovember 1, 2010 removal of treesstump grinding 10.The, including (versus being pulled up with heavy equipment, and inadvertently damaging roots of retained trees), situated beneath or immediately adjacent to retained trees should be performed by a company described above for pruning. A small tractor or other heavy equipment shall not be authorized to operate or travel on unpaved areas within a TPZ. Removalshrubs and plants 11.of existing within a TPZ must be manually removed versus being excavated. 12.Great care should be taken by construction personnel and any heavy equipment avoid damaging tree trunks, limbs and branches operator to . roots 13.During any approved trenching or excavation within a TPZ, encountered with diameters less than two inches can be removed, but must be cleanly severed at right angles to the direction of root growth. In doing so, sharp cutting tools (e.g. loppers or handsaw) should be used, and the cuts must occur against the tree side of the trench. The severed root end should be covered with backfill soil the same day. rootsdiameters 14.Also during any approved trenching or excavation, encountered with greater than two inches must not be cut or damaged, and covered with soil or wrapped in moistened burlap within one-hour of being exposed.If burlap is used, it should remain continually moist until the trench is backfilled. Supplemental water 15. during construction may benefit a trees’ health, and can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. For designated trees, watering should be performed within the months of May thru October at two-week intervals, and at an approximate rate of five gallons per each inch of trunk diameter. Cupertino Solar Carport Project Page 9 of 10 City of Cupertino, California 72 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristNovember 1, 2010 16.The disposal of harmful products (such as cement, paint, chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. Herbicides should not be used beneath the trees’ canopies; where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. Prepared By: ______________________ Date: November 1, 2010 David L. Babby Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Board-Certified Master Arborist #WE-4001B Cupertino Solar Carport Project Page 10 of 10 City of Cupertino, California 73 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010 EXHIBITA: TREEINVENTORYTABLE CupertinoCivicCenter Cupertino Solar Carport Project City of Cupertino, California 74 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO.TREE NAME Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius)1120GoodModerateX 1 25100%50% Comments:Buckling surrounding curb. Nearly fills in entire "finger" planter. flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)28PoorLowX 2 650%25% Comments:Has dieback and significant decay at base. Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius)615GoodModerateX 3 20100%50% Comments: Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius)1625PoorLowX 4 3050%25% Comments:Canopy is sparse. Nearly outgrown finger planter. Past limb failure. Has a large girdling root. Leaders form a weak attachment. Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius)510PoorLowX 5 15100%25% Comments:Has been previously shaped. Root decayed near base. flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)515FairModerateX 6 2075%50% Comments:Has dieback. flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)610FairModerateX 7 675%50% Comments: Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius)510GoodModerateX 8 10100%50% Comments:Has been shaped. Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius)712FairModerateX 9 2075%50% Comments:Somewhat sparse. Site: Cupertino Civic Center Prepared for: City of Cupertino 1 of 11November 1, 2010 Prepared by: David L. Babby 75 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO.TREE NAME Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius)915GoodModerateX 10 20100%50% Comments:Surrounding curb has buckled. Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius)510FairModerateX 11 1575%25% Comments:Has a wound where two leaders join; it is mostly closed, but may contain decay. flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)28FairModerateX 12 675%50% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)415FairModerateX 13 1075%50% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)520FairModerateX 14 1575%50% Comments: Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius)715FairLowX 15 2075%25% Comments:Has a large wound along lower trunk. Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius)810GoodModerateX 16 20100%50% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)1625FairModerateX 17 3575%50% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)1430FairModerate 18 3050%50% Comments:Overthinned. Site: Cupertino Civic Center Prepared for: City of Cupertino 2 of 11November 1, 2010 Prepared by: David L. Babby 76 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO.TREE NAME flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)1425FairLow 19 2575%25% Comments:Has a very large wound along trunk. flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)1325FairModerate 20 2575%25% Comments:Has been overthinned. flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)1325FairModerate 21 2575%50% Comments:Surrounding hardscape is significantly raised. flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)1330FairModerate 22 2075%50% Comments:Has been overthinned. blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)1740FairModerate 23 6050%50% Comments:Sparse canopy. blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)1745FairModerate 24 3550%50% Comments:Sparse canopy. blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)1935FairModerate 25 4575%50% Comments: blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)1435FairModerate 26 2575%50% Comments: blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)12, 8, 820FairModerate 27 3075%25% Comments: Site: Cupertino Civic Center Prepared for: City of Cupertino 3 of 11November 1, 2010 Prepared by: David L. Babby 77 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO.TREE NAME blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)1825FairModerate 28 4075%50% Comments: blackwood acacia Dead (Acacia melanoxylon)1125Low 29 -0%0% Comments:Tree is DEAD. blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)1230FairModerate 30 3050%50% Comments: blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)1435PoorLow 31 4025%25% Comments:Dying. blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)1130FairModerate 32 2575%25% Comments:Crowded growing conditions. blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)1135GoodModerate 33 30100%50% Comments: blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)1230FairModerate 34 3075%50% Comments: blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)1430FairModerate 35 30100%25% Comments: blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)1625FairModerate 36 3075%25% Comments: Site: Cupertino Civic Center Prepared for: City of Cupertino 4 of 11November 1, 2010 Prepared by: David L. Babby 78 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO.TREE NAME blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)1630GoodModerate 37 30100%50% Comments: blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)1230FairModerate 38 2575%25% Comments:Two leaders form a weak attachment. blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)1225FairModerate 39 2575%50% Comments: river birch (Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX 40 20100%50% Comments: river birch (Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX 41 20100%50% Comments: river birch (Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX 42 20100%50% Comments: river birch (Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX 43 20100%50% Comments: river birch (Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX 44 20100%50% Comments: river birch (Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX 45 20100%50% Comments: Site: Cupertino Civic Center Prepared for: City of Cupertino 5 of 11November 1, 2010 Prepared by: David L. Babby 79 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO.TREE NAME river birch (Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX 46 20100%50% Comments: river birch (Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX 47 20100%50% Comments: river birch (Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX 48 20100%50% Comments: river birch (Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX 49 20100%50% Comments: river birch (Betula nigra)720GoodModerateX 50 20100%50% Comments: river birch (Betula nigra)720GoodModerateX 51 20100%50% Comments: river birch (Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX 52 20100%50% Comments: river birch (Betula nigra)520GoodModerateX 53 20100%50% Comments: river birch (Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX 54 20100%50% Comments: Site: Cupertino Civic Center Prepared for: City of Cupertino 6 of 11November 1, 2010 Prepared by: David L. Babby 80 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO.TREE NAME blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)215GoodLowX 55 8100%50% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)525GoodModerateX 56 15100%50% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)620FairModerateX 57 1575%50% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)310FairModerateX 58 675%50% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)515FairModerateX 59 1575%50% Comments:Wound at trunk's base. flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)415FairModerateX 60 1075%50% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)525FairModerateX 61 1550%50% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)1530FairModerateX 62 3575%50% Comments:Has been overthinned. Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis)820FairHighX 63 2075%50% Comments: Site: Cupertino Civic Center Prepared for: City of Cupertino 7 of 11November 1, 2010 Prepared by: David L. Babby 81 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO.TREE NAME Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis)615FairModerateX 64 2575%50% Comments:Possibly has a girdling root. Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis)615GoodHighX 65 20100%50% Comments: Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis)512GoodHighX 66 20100%50% Comments: Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis)720GoodHighX 67 25100%50% Comments: Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis)925FairHighX 68 3075%50% Comments: Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis)816FairHighX 69 2575%50% Comments: Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis)515FairHighX 70 2075%50% Comments: Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis)1022FairModerateX 71 2575%50% Comments:Sparse canopy. Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis)922FairHighX 72 30100%50% Comments: Site: Cupertino Civic Center Prepared for: City of Cupertino 8 of 11November 1, 2010 Prepared by: David L. Babby 82 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO.TREE NAME Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis)825FairModerateX 73 3075%25% Comments: Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis)930FairHighX 74 3075%50% Comments: Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis)925GoodHighX 75 30100%50% Comments: Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis)825GoodHighX 76 30100%50% Comments: Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis)730GoodHighX 77 25100%50% Comments: blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)1325PoorLow 78 2550%25% Comments:Declining. blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)820PoorLow 79 2050%25% Comments:Declining. blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)520FairLow 80 2075%25% Comments:Significant decay at base. blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)1430FairLow 81 3075%25% Comments:Significant decay at base. Site: Cupertino Civic Center Prepared for: City of Cupertino 9 of 11November 1, 2010 Prepared by: David L. Babby 83 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO.TREE NAME blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)525FairLow 82 1550%50% Comments: blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)315FairModerate 83 875%50% Comments: blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)1025PoorLow 84 2050%25% Comments:Has significant decay. blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)820FairModerate 85 2075%50% Comments: blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)615FairLow 86 1575%25% Comments:Decay at base. blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)515FairLow 87 10100%25% Comments:Decay at base. blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)820FairModerate 88 2575%50% Comments: blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)1125FairLow 89 3075%25% Comments:Has very large wounds along trunk. blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)1530FairModerate 90 3575%25% Comments:Adjacent to power pole. Site: Cupertino Civic Center Prepared for: City of Cupertino 10 of 11November 1, 2010 Prepared by: David L. Babby 84 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO.TREE NAME blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)822FairModerate 91 2075%50% Comments:Possibly has a girdling root. blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)310PoorLow 92 650%0% Comments:Trunk is cracked. blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)1025FairLow 93 2075%25% Comments:Decay at base. blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)820PoorLow 94 2025%50% Comments:Decay at base. Canopy is very sparse. Site: Cupertino Civic Center Prepared for: City of Cupertino 11 of 11November 1, 2010 Prepared by: David L. Babby 85 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010 EXHIBITB: TREEINVENTORYTABLE QuinlanCommunityCenter Cupertino Solar Carport Project City of Cupertino, California 86 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO.TREE NAME flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)820FairModerate 1 2575%50% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)920FairModerate 2 3075%50% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)1330FairModerate 3 35100%25% Comments:Large wounds at trunk's base and along surfaced, major anchor roots. flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)1030FairModerate 4 3075%25% Comments:Crowded growing conditions. coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)1855GoodHigh 5 25100%75% Comments: Japanese flowering cherry (Prunus serrulata)515FairModerate 6 1575%50% Comments:Crowded growing conditions. flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)1430FairModerate 7 4075%25% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)1330FairLow 8 4075%25% Comments:Large wound where two of three leaders originate. Has a girdling root. coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)1950GoodHigh 9 25100%75% Comments: Site: Quinlan Community Center Prepared for: City of Cupertino 1 of 4November 1, 2010 Prepared by: David L. Babby 87 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO.TREE NAME coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)1850GoodHigh 10 25100%75% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)1025FairLow 11 2075%25% Comments:Has a large wound at base and poor structure. coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)1445GoodHigh 12 25100%75% Comments: coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)1745GoodHigh 13 25100%75% Comments: coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)1845GoodHigh 14 25100%75% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)720FairModerate 15 2550%50% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)820FairModerate 16 2575%50% Comments: coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)1635GoodHigh 17 25100%75% Comments: coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)1230FairModerate 18 20100%25% Comments:Possibly has a girdling root. Site: Quinlan Community Center Prepared for: City of Cupertino 2 of 4November 1, 2010 Prepared by: David L. Babby 88 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO.TREE NAME flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)1325FairModerate 19 30100%25% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)1222FairModerate 20 30100%25% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)1320FairModerate 21 3575%25% Comments:Has a partial girdling root. coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)1750GoodHigh 22 25100%75% Comments: coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)1445GoodHigh 23 25100%75% Comments: coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)1645GoodHigh 24 25100%75% Comments: coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)1845GoodHigh 25 25100%75% Comments: coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)2045GoodHigh 26 25100%75% Comments: coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)1545GoodHigh 27 25100%75% Comments: Site: Quinlan Community Center Prepared for: City of Cupertino 3 of 4November 1, 2010 Prepared by: David L. Babby 89 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO.TREE NAME flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)1025FairModerate 28 3075%25% Comments:Large wound at base. coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)1950GoodHigh 29 25100%75% Comments: coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)2150GoodHigh 30 25100%75% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)1325GoodModerate 31 35100%50% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)1020FairModerate 32 3075%50% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)715FairModerate 33 2075%50% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)618FairModerate 34 2075%50% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)620FairModerate 35 2050%50% Comments: flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana)615FairModerate 36 1575%50% Comments: Site: Quinlan Community Center Prepared for: City of Cupertino 4 of 4November 1, 2010 Prepared by: David L. Babby 90 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010 EXHIBITC: AERIALMAPS (two) CupertinoCivicCenter Cupertino Solar Carport Project City of Cupertino, California 91 CUPERTINOCIVICCENTER 10300TorreAvenue (Trees#1thru39) 23 24 12 3 22 4 8 21 76 2095 1910 15 13 12 14 11 1816 17 39 92 CUPERTINOCIVICCENTER 10300TorreAvenue (Trees#40thru94) 40 78 54 94 62 7271 5955 73 6160 56 7063 74 75 5857 76 77 93 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010 EXHIBITD: AERIALMAP QuinlanCommunityCenter Cupertino Solar Carport Project City of Cupertino, California 94 QUINLANCOMMUNITYCENTER 10185NStellingRoad 6 5 47 38 2 1 9 151110 12 1613 14 17 2018 19 21 22 23 24 34 33 36 35 31 32 95 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010 EXHIBITE: PHOTOGRAPHS CupertinoCivicCenter PhotoIndex PageE1:Trees#1thru6 PageE2:Trees#7thru16 PageE3:Trees#17thru39 PageE4:Trees#27thru54 PageE5:Trees#55thru75 PageE6:Trees#72thru94 Cupertino Solar Carport Project City of Cupertino, California 96 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010 #2#3 #1 #5 #4 #6 Cupertino Civic Center Page E-1 City of Cupertino, California 97 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010 #10 #12#11 #9 #7 #8 #15 #16 #13 #14 Cupertino Civic Center Page E-2 City of Cupertino, California 98 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010 #17#18#19 #20 #21 #22 Photoshowsthenorthsectionoftherowofblackacacia, trees#23thru39,alongtheeasternboundary. Cupertino Civic Center Page E-3 City of Cupertino, California 99 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010 #31 #30 #28 #27 #29 Photoshowstheeastsectionoftherowofblackacacia, trees#23thru39,alongtheeasternboundary. PhotoshowsthenorthsectionoftherowofriverPhotoshowsthesouthsectionandmuchoftherowof birch,trees#40thru54,nearthelibrary.riverbirch,trees#40thru54,nearthelibrary. Cupertino Civic Center Page E-4 City of Cupertino, California 100 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010 #61 #56 #62 #63 #59 #55 #60#61 #58 #57 #63 #64#74#71 #73 #65 #75 #66#68 #67 #69 #72 #70 Cupertino Civic Center Page E-5 City of Cupertino, California 101 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010 #73#73 #75 #72 #77 #76 #74 #71 #93 #91#92 #94 #90 Photoshowstherowofblackacacia#78thru92. Cupertino Civic Center Page E-6 City of Cupertino, California 102 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010 EXHIBITF: PHOTOGRAPHS QuinlanCommunityCenter PhotoIndex PageF1:Trees#1thru7 PageF2:Trees#8thru20 PageF3:Trees#21thru31 PageF4:Trees#32thru36 Cupertino Solar Carport Project City of Cupertino, California 103 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010 #4 #2 #3 #1 #5 #6#7 #4 Quinlan Community Center Page F-1 City of Cupertino, California 104 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010 #9#12#16 #13 #8 #14#15 #11 #10 #18#20#19 #17 Quinlan Community Center Page F-2 City of Cupertino, California 105 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010 #21 #23 #22 #24 #29#30 #29 #23#27 #31 #25#28#28 #26 Quinlan Community Center Page F-3 City of Cupertino, California 106 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010 #32#33 #34 #35 #36 Quinlan Community Center Page F-4 City of Cupertino, California 107 ATTACHMENTD-1 I.R-REP Background The City of Cupertino is invited to participate in the Alameda County Regional Renewable Energy Procurement Process (R-REP), an initiative that will utilize collaborative procurement to purchase renewable energy systems for public agencies throughout Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Currently, 20+ public agencies, including cities, counties and special districts are actively participating in the project. A list of current participants appears in Attachment D. This project is led by the County of Alameda, as Lead Agency, in partnership with two local nonprofit organizations, Joint Venture Silicon Valley and the Contra Costa Economic Partnership. Engaging in a collaborative procurement process for renewable energy leads to a significant reduction in renewable energy generation systems costs, transaction costs and administrative time, and enhanced leverage for public agencies in the negotiations of renewable energy systems. The City of Cupertino will also benefit from the installation of renewable energy through sustained reductions in utilities operating costs. In addition, the projects will enable The City of Cupertino to achieve its 2000 General Plan Sustainability Element goals targets for reduced greenhouse gas emissions from government operations. The R-REP is based upon the successful Silicon Valley Collaborative Renewable Energy Procurement (SV-REP) Project, which was the largest multi-agency procurement of renewable energy in the country at the time of completion. The R-REP expects to break this record with up to 40 MW of power generation potential combined across approximately 170 sites. The City of Cupertino recently completed feasibility studies for those sites being considered for inclusion in the project (see Attachment A, Optony Feasibility Study, for a list of City sites). Upon completion of the feasibility studies by Participating Agencies, a technical/financial consultant retained by the County of Alameda will assist in the design of the procurement process and provide support during the solicitation process, proposal evaluation and contract negotiations. Vendors will be selected through a fair, open and competitive bid process and the Public Contracting Code will be followed. Once vendors are selected, the discretion to proceed with the development of a project at each of the sites considered under the R-REP is retained by Participating Agency Boards and City Councils. II.Participation Requirements Each agency participating in the R-REP is required to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by and among the County of Alameda and the other agencies participating in the R-REP (see MOU in Attachment C). The MOU defines the roles and responsibilities of Participating Agencies and is intended to provide stability to the project during the solicitation process. Once vendors are selected, the MOU retains the considered under the R-REP. Participating Agencies and the County of Alameda are not to withdraw sites listed from the project from the period thirty days prior to the solicitation issuance until vendors have been selected. No penalty or liability shall accrue as a result of any withdrawal. The withdrawal provision is included in the MOU to reduce the risk of changes that could impact bid pricing and vendor cost models, and the risk of price increases to the other agencies participating in the project. inclusive of sites across agencies. The intention of bundling sites is to achieve economies of scale and receive the best pricing possible. If agencies are able to withdraw from the project from thirty days prior to the issuance of the RFP, or at any time during the solicitation, this will impact the bundling strategy, which may then negatively impact pricing for the other agencies included in that bundle. 108 Participating Agencies have participated in the drafting, review and finalization of the MOU language. The first draft of the MOU was circulated to agencies in the mid-June, 2012. On July 23, 2012, the County of Alameda hosted a conference call for Participating Agency attorneys to discuss the MOU with County of Alameda County Counsel. Agencies were then invited to submit comments and revisions to the draft MOU. The County of Alameda reviewed these comments, and revisions were incorporated into a second draft of the MOU, which was distributed to agencies on September 7, 2012. Agencies were again invited to submit comments and revisions. A final draft of the MOU was distributed on October 18, 2012, along with a memo containing to all comments submitted on the second draft of the MOU (see Attachment C - MOU). III.Financing There are no financial implications associated with approval of the recommended actions nor are there penalties, financial or otherwise, associated with termination of the MOU by the City of Cupertino. Any party may terminate the MOU at any time up to thirty (30) days prior to the issuance of the Solicitation pursuant to the schedule developed by County of Alameda in collaboration with the parties for such solicitation, or at any time after a Vendor is selected. 109 ATTACHMENTD-2 Cz©·;©DID{© ·rw;-;7;7CÒ;/; t©·z-z¦·t{z·;;zz©;7Ò-·zw;© {ä·;{z·; ·/h{z·; CastroValleySanitaryDistrict121700 CentralContraCostaSanitaryDistrict32177500 CityofBerkeley1050218100 CityofEmeryville3814400 CityofFremont4171663000 CityofMenloPark549717300 CityofMountainView245716300 CityofWalnutCreek564121700 CountyofAlameda168698455910 CountyofSanMateo12136252801 DeltaDiabloSanitationDistrict1108287100 HaywardAreaRecreationandParkDistrict543314700 RedwoodCity123510800 CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation ÞÞ CaliforniaHighwayPatrol Þ CityofOakland Þ CityofRichmond Þ CountyofContraCosta Þ FosterCity Þ UniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeleyÞÞ ·11715942770313 9·z·;7· a ·DID 110 ATTACHMENTD-3 February 11, 2013 ht R-REP PARTICIPANTS {.W9/t RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE REGIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY PROCUREMENT PROJECT (R-REP) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) DRAFT 2. The County of Alameda recently completed its review of the comments and revisi second draft of the R-REP MOU. We have incorporated into the final draft of the MOU many of the changes submitted. Thank you for your input on this document. In addition to the revisions that Agencies submitted, there were also several questions/comments regarding the MOU. These question and comments are organized below under headings containing the . I.Contra Costa County, Dated 9/18/12 /;· With regard to the third WHEREAS, large volume purchases of renewable energy or renewable energy generation equipment will be made through Contra Costa County commented: id not understand that purchasing equipment would be part of these projects. w;¦; : While some Agencies participating in the R-REP are interested in a power purchase agreement or third-party lease agreement (i.e. buying the energy produced by a renewable energy system that is located at an Agency-owned facility but is owned by a third-party), other Agencies may choose to directly purchase the renewable energy generation equipment (i.e. purchase, install and maintain the renewable energy equipment at an Agency-owned facility). The MOU includes language to account for the fact that some agencies will use third-party financing (PPA or lease) and others will use direct purchase through cash or bond financing. /;· t With regard to the second Recital, ia regional, multi-jurisdiction purchasing arrangement whereby project sites are aggregated into groups on the basis of the type of technology and geographic location, various risk andated factorsDoes this anticipate multiple jurisdictions being party to one PPA or other agreement? w;¦; t No, each jurisdiction will execute its own agreements using template documents created by the County of Alameda. Each jurisdiction retains the right to accept or reject the pric vendors upon completion of the Solicitation. /;· t ague. Needs to be defined more. 111 w;¦; t e entire procurement process from RFP development through to recommendations for award. Since there is more involv are trying to use a more expansive term. /;· t How will Vendors be selected? The Public Contracting Code will be followed, correct? w;¦; t Yes, the Public Contracting Code will be followed. Vendors will fair, open and competitive bid process. All proposals will be evaluated by a County Selection Committee (CSC). The CSC may be composed of County staff, staff from R-REP Participating Agencies and other parties that may have expertise or experience in renewable energy procurement. The CSC will select a vendor in accordance with the evaluation criteria that will be set forth in the R-REP RFP. The CSC will purposes of the Solicitation). Each bundle can be awarded to the same or separate vendor, but all sites within each bundle will be awarded to the same vendor. Each jurisdictions awarding authority will then have the opportunity to accept or reject the recommended award. /;· t This is a problem as it only covers persona contract defense and damages, etc. w;¦; t This citation was removed from the MOU. II.Redwood City, Dated 9/17/12 /;· (What is the) timing on the templates referenced in the MOU? w;¦; t which may include, without limitation, a direct acquisition agre Bond documentation, a form of power purchase agreement and a form of lease. These documents will be drafted as the County moves closer to issuance of the Solicitation. Jurisdictions participating in the R- REP will be able to review these Template Documents prior to the release of the RFP. /;· t Under the section addressing litigation and where suits can be filed, venue (where has to be filed) is Alameda Superior Court for state actions and The cities are all over and this venue is not convenient for many of like to see this section be restated such that venue would be the superior county of the cou agency is located. w;¦; t This clause is in reference to potential litigation, however unlikely, related to the MOU. It does not refer to litigation about the projects included in the R-REP. Although it may not be ideal for some Agencies to file a suit within Alameda County, it is also not ideal, procedurally speaking, to have four forums within which to defend suits. City of Mountain View, Dated 9/19/12 112 III.City of Berkeley, Dated 9/17/12 /;· Berkeley has contracting policies, such as Nuclear Free, Living Wage and Equal Benefits Ordinances, that apply to contracts. We typically include such ur RFPs/IF sure if other Participating Jurisdictions have ordinances applicable to their contracts. difficult to incorporate these into the Solicitation but I wanted to flag this as an issue. w;¦; The R-REP RFP will include template contract documents without reference to the specific contracting terms of each Participating Agency. The RFP will include, however, a statement that indicates that each Participating Agency has its own contracting terms and that these terms must be accounted for by vendors during contract negotiations with each agency. Please note that contract requirements may be considered in the bundling strategy used in the requirements may impact pricing. Participating agencies will be queried on their specific contract requirements prior to writing the R-REP RFP. /;· t Does [the Termination Section] provide that this MOU cannot be t period between thirty days prior to the Solicitation issuance until Vendor has been selected? If so, what is the significance during that period such that parties cannot would want to terminate during that timeframe.) w;¦; t agencies cannot withdraw from the project from the period thirtySolicitation issuance until the vendor(s) have been selected. The Withdrawal provision was included in the MOU in order to prevent flight from the listed projects and to reduce risk not only to vendors, but also to the other agencies participating in the project. The objective of this project is to bundle sites across agencies so as to receive the best pricing possible from vendors. If agencies are able to withdraw from the project during the time that bundles are being created/finalized and then incorporated into the RFP, or at any time durSolicitation process, this could impact pricing, thus increasing the price to other agencies included in that bundle. From 30 days prior to the Solicitation issuance through to when vendors are s changes to the bundles. This provision protects all Participants. IV.California Department of Transportation, Dated 9/24/12 /;· Under what authority is the County of Alameda proceeding- is this project being treated as a Public Private Partnership under Streets and Highways Code sec We would need to know this before we could move further, as this would have an impact on Caltrans rights and limitations relating to various issues, including pro w;¦; No, the project is not being treated as a Public Private Partner or a Joint Powers Authority. The County will be following Public Contracting Code and vendors will be sel 113 competitive bid process. The solicitation methodology that will be used under the R-REP is similar to that used by local governments to collaboratively procure commodts such as tires, gasoline, natural gas, etc. The type of methodology will include a hybrid Purchasing Manual allows cooperative purchasing upon Board approval. There are no statutes commonly used practice both by the County and other public entitis process, it allows for this process. /;· t If the Solicitation does not result in a viable option for Caltrans- what would be our options? We are in the process of working with outside consultants for purpos feasibility, but if the selected vendor is unable to deliver a f is it anticipated there would be an "escape clause"? w;¦; t Czmw· E© ·w; ¦©;-· Þz z;ä z¦-· ¦©z-zm · ¦©·z- ,z7 ,Ò7;u LE äÒ© m;-ä z Ò-;©·z ©;m©7zm ¦©·z-z¦·z äÒ ·Ò© z äÒ© z·; Ò©Ý;äu The Withdrawal Provision states that participating agencies cannot withdraw from the project from the period thirty days prior to tSolicitation issuance until the vendor(s) have been selected. Once the County Selection Committe each bid bundle included in the RFP, participating agencies are able to accept orhe discretion to proceed with the development of a project at each considered under the R-REP. If multiple parties within a bid bundle decide not to accept the award recommendation, then it is unlikely that the vendors will be abl /;· t Although the MOU does not clearly define the responsibilities of feasibility study, site survey and contract management. It would be helpful t responsibilities of the parties and the selected vendor were exp would be anticipated to provide right of way and environmental cearance? w;¦; t The MOU defines the terms for the R-REP Solicitation, not the terms for the projects that will be included in the R-REP. Once the R-REP RFP is drafted, the County of Alameda will allow ample opportunity for participating agencies to review and comment on the document. 114 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR REGIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY PROCUREMENT This Memorandum of Understanding MOUentered into as of ____________ __, 2012 (the by and among the following California jurisdictions: County of Alameda ____________________, ____________________, ____________________, ____________________, ____________________, ____________________, ____________________, ____________________, ____________________, ____________________, ____________________, ____________________, ____________________, ____________________, ____________________, ____________________, and ____________________. Signatories to this MOU are referred P and ind. Recitals WHEREAS, the Parties desire to purchase renewable energy for their operations; WHEREAS, the Parties wish to take advantage of potential efficiencies when such purchases are made in large volumes; WHEREAS, large volume purchases of renewable energy or renewable energy generation equipment will be made through a regional, multi-jurisdiction purchasing arrangement whereby project sites are aggregated into groups on the basis of the type of technology and geographic location, various risk and other financing related factors; WHEREAS, large volume purchases likely result in more efficient procurement than would otherwise be available if individual jurisdictions independently purchased renewable energy; 115 WHEREAS, the Parties desire that Alameda County, by and through its General Services Agency, shall be the lead Party for issuing a solicitation to purchase renewable energy (the WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that the transaction costs associated with purchasing renewable energy can be reduced when the Parties agree to the same terms and conditions incorporated within standardized template documents; and WHEREAS, at the completion of the Solicitation process, subject to the approval of their respective Board, Council or applicable governing body, the Parties may enter into power substantially in the forms of the Template Documents to be prepared pursuant to Sections 1.A and 1.B of this MOU. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises and agreements, and subject to the terms, conditions and provisions hereinafter set forth, the Parties agree as follows: SECTION 1. ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF ALAMEDA COUNTY A. Alameda County shall (i) prepare and issue the Solicitation, and be the lead jurisdiction and point of contact for the bidders, (ii) create templates of transaction documents, which may include, without limitation, a direct acquisition agreement, Qualified Energy Conservation Bond documentation, a form of power purchase agreement and a form of Parties, as necessary throughout the procurement process through recommendation for award and negotiations with the bidders. B. Alameda County will consult with the Parties with respect to the content of the Solicitation and the terms and conditions contained within Template Documents, provided, however, that any comments or concerns must be communicated to Alameda County within the allotted timeframe as provided by Alameda County, with such timeframe to afford a reasonable opportunity to respond. 116 C. The Parties agree that Alameda County shall be the single point of contact for Vendors and necessary third parties throughout the Solicitation process, in order to avoid the potential for confusion. Alameda County agrees to provide the Parties with all relevant information in a timely manner. D. In addition to participating as the lead jurisdiction under this MOU, Alameda County is also a participant in the R-REP and has identified locations for renewable energy in Alameda County. As such, Alameda County is conducting site surveys and will list potential sites within the R-REP solicitation document. E. Any Party may separately pursue its own solicitation of renewable energy and/or related facilities. SECTION 2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS A. Each Party has undertaken its own due diligence prior to entering into this MOU to determine the feasibility of solar, fuel cell or other feasible technology to be located at project sites. B. Each Party is responsible for meeting its individual legal, procedural and other requirements for the procurement of renewable energy. C. Parties are responsible for promptly providing site surveys, if available, of their proposed real property sites that may accommodate renewable energy installations, and each such site survey shall be prepared by a licensed engineer in a uniform, industry standard format. Each Party acknowledges that to the extent it does not undertake a site survey for a particular site, such site (i) may not be considered for inclusion in the R-REP solicitation, or (ii) may be aggregated by Alameda County with other such sites into a higher risk group, and that pricing for such a group may be less favorable. D. Upon conclusion of the Solicitation process, the Parties may, subject to the approval of their respective Board, Council or applicable governing entity, enter into binding 117 agreements, substantially in the form of the Template Documents, with the selected Vendors, provided that each Party determines, to its satisfaction, that the Vendors are s and requirements. The Parties may also negotiate with Vendors in order to conform the Template Documents with requirements of law, regulation and policy. Alameda County shall not be responsible for reference checks, performance, or for compliance with any agreement, regulations, laws or policies, except as to this MOU and any contracts between Alameda County and Vendor(s). Parties are not required to contract with any Vendor. E. Parties agree to participate in the Solicitation under the lead role of Alameda County and agree to work cooperatively and promptly with Alameda County throughout the Solicitation process. The Parties agree that time is of the essence; and failure of a Party to provide the required information in the requested format and within the reasonable deadlines established by Alameda County may result in termination of that P participation in the Solicitation. SECTION 3. TERM OF MOU. The term of this MOU shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire on June 30, 2015. SECTION 4. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE. The law governing this MOU shall be that of the State of California. In the event that suit shall be brought by any Party to this MOU, the Parties agree that venue shall be exclusively vested in the courts of the County of Alameda or if federal jurisdiction is appropriate, exclusively in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland, California. SECTION 5. WARRANTY DISCLAIMER; LIABILITY; WAIVER. A. No warranty, express or implied, is provided by any Party as to results or success of the Solicitation, this MOU, or any agreements ultimately entered into by the Parties. Each Party acknowledges that the others have not made, and are not making, any assurances, guaranties or promises with respect to the subject matter of this MOU and that each Party 118 is ultimately responsible for conducting its own due diligence with respect to feasibility, pricing, technology, third parties and all other matters in any way related to the subject matter of this MOU. B. In no event shall any Party, nor its officers, agents, employers, or representatives be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or consequential damages (including, but not limited to, procurement of substitute goods or services, loss of use, data, or profits, or business interruption) however caused and on any theory of liability, whether in contract, strict liability, or tort (including negligence or otherwise) arising in any way, directly or indirectly, from this MOU, participation in the Solicitation, or any agreement(s) between a Party and any third party, even if advised of the possibility of such damage. C. Each Party is responsible for negotiation, execution, administration and enforcement of any contract with a Vendor or third party related to the subject matter of this MOU, and the agreements ultimately entered into by each Party shall not be cross-defaulted or cross- collateralized in any respect with the agreements entered into by any other Party to this MOU. D. No waiver by any Party to this MOU of any breach or violation of any term or condition of this MOU shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other term or condition contained herein or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or any other term or condition. 119 SECTION 6. NOTICES. Notices shall be deemed effective on the date delivered if delivered by personal service or nationally recognized overnight delivery service, or, if mailed, three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. Postal Service mail. All notices and other communications required or permitted to be given under this MOU shall be in writing and shall be personally served, delivered by overnight service, or by mail, first class, certified or registered postage prepaid and return receipt requested, addressed to the respective Parties as follows: To: County of Alameda, GSA To: Castro Valley Sanitary District th 1401 Lakeside Drive, 10 Floor 21040 Marshall Street Oakland, CA 94612 Castro Valley, CA 94546-6021 Attn: Caroline Judy Attn: William Parker To: California Department of Transportation To: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 1120 N St. MS-57 5019 Imhoff Place Sacramento, CA 95814 Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Jeanne Scherer Attn: Melody LaBella To: California Highway Patrol To: City of Berkeley nd 601 North 7th Street 2180 Milvia Street, 2 Floor P.O. Box 942898 Berkeley, CA 94704 Sacramento, CA 95811 Attn: Billi Romain Attn: Alyson Cooney To: City of Emeryville To: City of Fremont 1333 Park Avenue 39550 Liberty St. Emeryville, CA 94608 P.O. Box 5006 Attn: Peter Schultze-Allen Fremont, CA 94538 Attn: Amy Rakley To: City of Martinez To: City of Menlo Park 525 Henrietta Street 701 Laurel Street Martinez, CA 94553 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Attn: Mike Chandler Attn: Rebecca Fotu To: City of Mountain View To: City of Oakland 500 Castro Street 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 5301 P.O. Box 7540 Oakland, CA 94612 Mountain View, CA 94039-7540 Attn: Scott Wentworth Attn: Steve Attinger To: City of Redwood City To: City of Richmond 1017 Middlefield Road 450 Civic Center Plaza Redwood City, CA 94063 Richmond, CA 94804 Attn: Vicki Sherman Attn: Adam Lenz 120 To: City of Walnut Creek To: Contra Costa County 1666 North Main Street Public Works Department Walnut Creek, CA 94596 2467 Waterbird Way Attn: Gwen Ho-Sing-Loy Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Andy Green To: County of San Mateo To: County of Santa Clara 555 County Center, 5th Floor 2310 N. First Street, 2nd Floor, Suite 200 Redwood City, CA 94063 San Jose, CA 9513 Attn: Andy Jain Attn: Lin Ortega To: Delta Diablo Sanitation Dist. To: Hayward Area Recreation and Park District 2500 Pittsburg-Antioch Highway 1099 E Street Antioch, CA 94509 Hayward, CA 94541 Attn: Dean Eckerson Attn: Larry Lepore SECTION 7. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS . A. If any term, condition or covenant of this MOU is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this MOU shall be valid and binding on the Parties. B. This MOU may be executed in counterparts and will be binding as executed. C. All changes or extensions to this MOU shall be in writing in the form of an amendment executed by all Parties. D. This MOU is entered into only for the benefit of the Parties executing this MOU and not for the benefit of any other individual, entity, or person. SECTION 8. WITHDRAWAL. A. No Party may withdraw from this MOU during the period from 30 days before the issuance of the Solicitation and the date that Vendor(s) have been selected. The date of the Solicitation will be pursuant to the schedule developed by Alameda County in collaboration with the Parties for such Solicitation. 121 B. Withdrawal by any Party from this MOU shall not preclude the remaining Parties from continuing the Solicitation contemplated under this MOU and from using the Template Documents created by any Party to this MOU, unless otherwise prohibited by law. C. Notice of withdrawal must be provided in writing to Alameda County GSA. SECTION 9. INDEMNIFICATION In lieu of and notwithstanding the pro rata risk allocation that might otherwise be imposed on the Parties pursuant to Government Code Section 895.6, the Parties agree that all losses or liabilities incurred by a Party that are in any way related to this MOU shall not be shared pro rata but, instead, the Parties agree that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, each of the Parties hereto shall fully indemnify and hold each of the other Parties, their officers, board members, employees, and agents, harmless from any claim, expense or cost, damage or liability occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the indemnifying Party, its officers, employees, or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to such Party under this MOU. No Party, nor any officer, board member, or agent thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of another Party hereto, its officers, board members, employees, or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to such other Party under this MOU. SECTION 10. NON-DISCRIMINATION The Parties shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations and policies concerning nondiscrimination and equal opportunity in contracting. Such laws include but are not limited to the following: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Sections 503 and 504); California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code sections 12900 et seq.); and California Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102. Parties shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee, or applicant for employment because of age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, political beliefs, organizational affiliations, or marital status in the recruitment, selection for training including apprenticeship, hiring, employment, utilization, 122 promotion, layoff, rates of pay or other forms of compensation. Nor shall Parties discriminate in performing its obligations under this MOU because of age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, political beliefs, organizational affiliations, or marital status. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this MOU as of the Effective Date County of Alameda AYES: NOES: EXCUSED : _____________________________________ PRESIDENT, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ___________________________ By __________________________________ 123 CASTRO VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT By: _____________________________________ ATTEST: By ___________________________ ________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ___________________________ ________ 124 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: _____________________________________ ATTEST: By ___________________________ ________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ___________________________ ________ 125 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT By: _____________________________________ ATTEST: By ___________________________ ________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ___________________________ ________ 126 CITY OF BERKELEY By: _____________________________________ ATTEST: By ___________________________ ________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ___________________________ ________ 127 CITY OF EMERYVILLE By: _____________________________________ ATTEST: By ___________________________ ________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ___________________________ ________ 128 CITY OF FREMONT By: _____________________________________ ATTEST: By ___________________________ ________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ___________________________ ________ 129 CITY OF MARTINEZ By: _____________________________________ ATTEST: By ___________________________ ________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ___________________________ ________ 130 CITY OF MENLO PARK By: _____________________________________ ATTEST: By ___________________________ ________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ___________________________ ________ 131 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW By: _____________________________________ ATTEST: By ___________________________ ________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ___________________________ ________ 132 CITY OF OAKLAND By: _____________________________________ ATTEST: By ___________________________ ________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ___________________________ ________ 133 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY By: _____________________________________ ATTEST: By ___________________________ ________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ___________________________ ________ 134 CITY OF RICHMOND By: _____________________________________ ATTEST: By ___________________________ ________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ___________________________ ________ 135 CITY OF WALNUT CREEK By: _____________________________________ ATTEST: By ___________________________ ________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ___________________________ ________ 136 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY By: _____________________________________ ATTEST: By ___________________________ ________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ___________________________ ________ 137 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO By: _____________________________________ ATTEST: By ___________________________ ________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ___________________________ ________ 138 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA By: _____________________________________ ATTEST: By ___________________________ ________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ___________________________ ________ 139 DELTA DIABLO SANITATION DISTRICT By: _____________________________________ ATTEST: By ___________________________ ________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ___________________________ ________ 140 HAYWARD AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT By: _____________________________________ ATTEST: By ___________________________ ________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ___________________________ ________ 141 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:February19,2013 Subject EnvironmentalEducationCenterandOutdoorGatheringShelterConceptualDesign Presentation. RecommendedAction Receivethepresentationoftheconceptualdesign. ProjectBackground OnJune20,2006,CounciladoptedtheStevensCreekCorridorMasterPlanand RestorationPlan,alongwiththeMitigatedNegativeDeclarationfortheplan.The masterplanincludestheareaofMcClellanRanchParkandidentifiesthegeneral locationandsizeforafutureenvironmentaleducationcenteratMcClellanRanch. InJune2006,aRoberti9¨«¸HarrisUrbanizedAreaNeedBasisGrant(Proposition 40)agreementwasexecutedfortheamountof$251,000forconstructionofan EnvironmentalEducationCenter(EEC)atMcClellanRanch.Theprojectdescriptionfor thegrantwasspecificastowhatthefacilitywouldprovide,withanoverallestimated costof$1.4million.Thegrantfundsamountto18%oftheestimatedcostforthe proposedEECandcanbereceivedbytheCityuponcompletionoftheproject.A conditionoftheagreementrequiresthatconstructionofthefacilitybecompletedbythe endof2014. OnMay1,2012,CounciladoptedtheMcClellanRanchMasterPlan2012Update,which prioritizedproposedimprovementsattheparkandalsorenamedittheMcClellan RanchPreserve(MRP).Amongtheprojectsproposedforfundingarethe EnvironmentalEducationCenterandtheOutdoorGatheringShelter. WiththeapprovaloftheFY201213CIPBudgetinJune2012,Councilfundedthe OutdoorGatheringShelterprojectintheamountof$125,000.OnOctober2,2012, Councilappropriatedfundingintheamountof$1,149,000fortheEECandauthorized stafftocontractwithanarchitectforthedesignofthefacility.InOctober,the architecturalfirmSiegel&Strainwasselectedtodesignthecombinedprojectforthe EECandtheOutdoorGatheringShelter,asasinglefacility.Thecumulativebudgetfor thecombinedfacility,includingthegrantfunding,is$1,525,000. 142 ThearchitectsofSiegel&Strainandstaffhavesincebeenworkingtodevelopthe conceptualdesignforthefacility.Theprocesshasincludedtheinputofthenaturalist andfacilityoperationsstaff,alongwithinputfromtheTeenCommission,areascience teachers,andaMRPuserfocusgroup.Theprojectisprogressingquicklytobestensure completionbyDecember2014inordertotakefulladvantageofthegrantfunding. ProjectDescription Thebuildingasplannedwillincludeapproximately2,000squarefeetofinteriorspace and700squarefeetofcoveredoutdoorgatheringarea,whichwillaccommodatecurrent andfutureanticipatededucationprograms.Consistentwiththespecificlocationand areareferencedintheadoptedmasterplan,itwillbephysicallylocatedinclose proximitywiththeotherbuildingsatthePreserve,betweenthecurrentNatureCenter andtheBarn.SeeAttachmentAforagraphicillustrationoftheproposeddesign. Asrequiredforthefunctionofthenatureeducationprogram,andconsistentwiththe commitmentstothegrantor,thebuildingwillincludetwoclassrooms,aresourceroom, anofficeforstaff,andothermiscellaneoussupportspaces.Theshelteredoutdoor gatheringareawillbecontiguouswiththeclassrooms,whichwillpermitflexibleuseof theindoorandoutdoorspacesKincludingforseparateconcurrentprogramsorjointly forasingleevent. ThearchitecturalcharacterofthebuildingwillreferencetheranchstyleofMcClellan Ranch,butwillalsointroducesomenewelementsthatwilllendthedesigntoprovide educationalopportunities.Thedesignwillemploy ¹»¹º§¯´§¨¯²¯º¿!asamajorstrategy, whichwillalsoprovidelearningopportunities.Thebuildingwillmeetorexceed sustainabledesignandconstructionstandardsconsistentwiththeLEEDsystemSilver rating. Whencomplete,thebuildingwillbeabletobeoccupiedtoprovidetheintended educationalprogramsandwillincludeapavedaccessiblepathbetweenthemilkbarn andparkinglot.Thecurrentbudgetwillnotprovideforthefollowingintheproject: LEEDcertificationwithorwithoutaplaque; Furniture,Fixtures&Equipment(FFE)Ktables/chairs,communicationandIT equipment,flatscreenTV/monitor; Solarenergysystem; ConnectivewalkswiththeexistingNatureCenterandtheRanchHouse (Audubon),theBlacksmithShop,andthenaturetrail. Thesecomponentsmaybedesirabletoenhancetheuseofthebuildingandcouldbe addedtotheprojectatalatertime;eitherthroughthe201314or201415budget processes,orpossiblythroughdonationorsponsorshipprograms. 143 NextSteps Theprojectisonscheduletomeetthefollowingmilestones: BidtheconstructioncontractAugust2013 CouncilawardoftheconstructioncontractSeptember2013 StartofconstructionOctober2013 CompletionofconstructionDecember2014 _____________________________________ Preparedby:CarmenLynaugh,PublicWorksProjectManager Reviewedby:TimmBorden,DirectorofPublicWorks ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: AConceptualAerialPerspective 144 145 DRAFTMINUTES CUPERTINOCITYCOUNCIL RegularAdjournedMeeting Monday,January28,2013 ROLLCALL At5:05p.m.MayorOrrinMahoneycalledtheregularadjournedmeetingtoorderin ConferenceRoomA,10300TorreAvenue,Cupertino,California. Present:MayorOrrinMahoney,ViceMayorGilbertWongandCouncilmembersBarry Chang,MarkSantoro,andRodSinks.Absent:none. ORALCOMMUNICATIONS None BOARDSANDCOMMISSIONSINTERVIEWS 1.Interviewapplicantsforcommissionvacancies: BicyclePedestrian TheCityCouncilinterviewedPeteHeller,ElizabethTu,AlanTakahashi, DanielHsueh,VidulaAiyer.TheCityCouncilappointedPeteHellerand VidulaAiyertofulltermsendingJanuary2017. FineArts TheCityCouncilinterviewedMichaelSanchez,MahshidModares, RajeswariMahalingam,JankiChokshi,TriciaUyeda,RussellLeong.The CityCouncilreappointedRajeswariMahalingamandRussellLeongto fulltermsendingJanuary2017;andappointedMichaelSancheztoa partialtermendingJanuary2015. Housing 146 January28,2013CupertinoCityCouncilPage2 TheCityCouncilinterviewedHarveyBarnett,VijayChavva,JennSmith, JeffreyWindham.TheCityCouncilreappointedHarveyBarnetttoafull termendingJanuary2017. Library TheCityCouncilinterviewedAnnStevenson,AnnieHo,DanielHsueh, VidulaAiyer,CatherineCoe,HueyShinYuan,JerryLiu.TheCityCouncil reappointedAnnStevensonandappointedAnnieHoandJerryLiuto fulltermsendingJanuary2017. ADJOURNMENT At9:45p.m.themeetingwasadjournedtoTuesday,January29at5:00p.m.for Commissioninterviews,CityHallConferenceRoomA,10300TorreAvenue,Cupertino, CA95014. _________________________________ KirstenSquarcia,DeputyCityClerk 147 DRAFTMINUTES CUPERTINOCITYCOUNCIL RegularAdjournedMeeting Tuesday,January29,2013 ROLLCALL At5:07p.m.MayorOrrinMahoneycalledtheregularadjournedmeetingtoorderin ConferenceRoomA,10300TorreAvenue,Cupertino,California. Present:MayorOrrinMahoney,ViceMayorGilbertWongandCouncilmembersBarry Chang,MarkSantoro,andRodSinks.Absent:none. ORALCOMMUNICATIONS KNone BOARDSANDCOMMISSIONSINTERVIEWS WrittencommunicationforthisitemincludedaletterofendorsementfromRichard RosenthalforPlanningCommissionapplicantJeffMiller. 1.Interviewapplicantsforcommissionvacancies: AuditCommittee TheCityCouncilinterviewedEnoSchmidtandNeetikaMaheshwari.TheCity CouncilappointedEnoSchmidttoafulltermendingJanuary2017. ParksandRecreation TheCityCouncilinterviewedElizabethTu,VijayChavva,CatherineCoe,and GeoffreyPaulsen.TheCityCouncilappointedGeoffreyPaulsentoapartialterm endingJanuary2015. At6:52p.m.CouncilmemberSantoroleftthemeeting. 148 January29,2013CupertinoCityCouncilPage2 Planning TheCityCouncilinterviewedPaulBrophy,TerryDoyle,WenChingLin,Winnie Lee,AlanTakahashi,SusanChen,RajeswariMahalingam,JeffreyWindham, MargaretGong,LuisBuhler,JeffMiller,GeoffreyPaulsen,AlainDang,Matangi Rajamani,andJennSmith.TheCityCouncilreappointedPaulBrophyand appointedAlanTakahashiandMargaretGongtofulltermsendingJanuary2017; andreappointedWinnieLeetoapartialtermending2015. ADJOURNMENT At10:35p.m.themeetingwasadjourned. _________________________________ GraceSchmidt,CityClerk 149 DRAFTMINUTES CUPERTINOCITYCOUNCIL RegularMeeting Tuesday,February5,2013 CITYCOUNCILMEETING PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE At6:45p.m.MayorOrrinMahoneycalledtheRegularCityCouncilmeetingtoorder andledthePledgeofAllegiance. ROLLCALL Present:MayorOrrinMahoney,ViceMayorGilbertWong,andCouncilmembersBarry Chang,MarkSantoro,andRodSink.Absent:none. CEREMONIALMATTERSANDPRESENTATIONS 1.Subject:ProclamationCelebratingthe94thAnniversaryofQuotaInternational RecommendedAction:PresentProclamation MayorMahoneypresentedtheproclamationtoCatherineChen,RachelleSander,and MaryAnnWallace. 2.Subject:Presentationregarding2012CommunitySurvey RecommendedAction:Review2012CommunitySurvey PublicAffairsDirectorRickKitsonexplainedthatthecommunitysurveyhasbeen conductedbyBryanGodbesince1998.Mr.Godbereviewedthesurveyand highlightedthemethodology;satisfactionwithqualityoflife;reasonforlivingin Cupertino;issuesfacingCupertino;senseofcommunity;satisfactionwithoverall Cityservices;supportforimprovementsatCupertinoSportsCenter;daily commutingchoices;cellphoneantennainstallation;traditionallandlinephonein household;personsinhouseholdwhohaveacellphone;personsinhouseholdwho 150 Tuesday,February5,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency haveasmartphone;satisfactionwithshoppingenvironment;supportfor downtown;crime;andattitudetowardsethnicminorities.Councilagreedthat Question22onpage28regardingtheCrossroadsDistrictinCupertinoisnolonger applicableandwillberemovedfromfuturesurveys;andstaffwilllookinto identifyingdialectsonQuestionConpage34. POSTPONEMENTS CityManagerDavidBrandtnotedthatstaffrecommendedpostponingthebag ordinancefortwomeetingssothatstaffcouldaddressapotentiallegalmatter. WongmovedandSinkssecondedtopostponeitemnumber14toMarch5.Themotion carriedunanimously. ORALCOMMUNICATIONS CathyHelgersensaidthatLehighSouthwestCementandQuarryreceivedaNoticeof ViolationfromtheSanFranciscoBayRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard.Sheread fromahandoutthatshedistributedandnotedthatLehighhashadtopayfines.She saidshewasconcernedaboutpollutioninthehumanandanimalcommunitiesandwas tryingtoputtogetherastatueoflimitationonthisviolation.SheaskedtheCityCouncil totakeaction. MichelleBazargunsaidthatLehighispollutingtheairandshewasconcernedabout thoseeffectsontheenvironment.SheaddedthatLehighhasreceivednoticesfromthe EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyforviolationsandherfamilyissufferingfrommany healthissuesbeingsoneartotheplant.SheaskedtheCounciltoclosethefactory. PaulKalrasaidheappearedbeforeCouncilatthelastmeetingaboutthehouseheis buildinginCupertino,andhassincemetwiththeCityManagerandDirectorofPublic Worksbutª¯ª´ºreceiveanyanswers.HerequestedCounciltogivehimhisanswersin writingorhearhisappealinapublicmeeting.StaffnotedthatCouncilwillreceivean updateatthenextmeeting. JenniferGriffinsaidthatbanningplasticbags½µ´ºsolvealltheproblemsandwill causemoreproblemsdowntheroad.SheaskedCounciltohavetheCupertino businessesaccountfortheirpaperbagsalesandtorunanaudittrail.Sheaddedthat¯º¹ importanttohavefreebagsforhandicapped,lowincome,andseniorcitizens.Shesaid 151 Tuesday,February5,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency isconcernedaboutthepoliticsofthebagbansincetheStatevoteddownthebagban twoyearsago. CONSENTCALENDAR SinksmovedandWongsecondedtoapprovetheitemsontheConsentCalendaras recommendedwiththeexceptionofitemnumbers8and10whichwerepulledfor discussion,andacceptingamendmentstoitemnumbers3,6,7,and9.Ayes:Chang, Mahoney,Santoro,Sinks,andWong.Noes:None.Abstain:None.Councilmember Sinkswasabsentforitemnumber8. 3.Subject:January15CityCouncilminutes RecommendedAction:Approveminutes 4.Subject:AccountsPayableforperiodendingJanuary11,2013 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13008 5.Subject:AccountsPayableforperiodendingJanuary18,2013 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13009 6.Subject:TreasurersInvestmentandBudgetReportforQuarterEndingDecember 2012 RecommendedAction:Acceptthereport 7.Subject:AmendmenttoMemorandumofUnderstandingregardingoperationofthe AutomatedFingerprintIdentificationSystem(AFIS),whichprovidesaccesstothe CaliforniaIdentificationSystem(CALID) RecommendedAction:AmendtheMemorandumofUnderstandingforCALID 8.Subject:ExtendcurrentagreementforconsultationserviceswithBAZIndustries, successorininteresttoACIHoldings,Inc. RecommendedAction:Amendtermofcurrentagreement CouncilmemberSinksleftthedaisat7:48p.m. DirectorofAdministrativeServicesCarolAtwoodreviewedthestaffreport. DarrelLumsaidhewasconcernedwiththeextensionoftheagreement.He comparedtheApplesalesagreementwiththeexpansionsofStanfordHospitalin 152 Tuesday,February5,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency PaloAltoandFacebookinMenloPark,andsaidthesalesusetaxgeneratedbythe constructionofthenewApplecampus,ResultsWayrenovation,andApplecafeteria willdecreasetherevenuetotheCityregardingitssalestax.Hereadfromahandout thathedistributedwithadefinitionof ´«½localsalesº§¾!andsaidhewas concernedbecauseweªµ´ºknowwhattheusetaxwillbeforApple.Heaskedif therewasadifferencebetweentheApplesalestaxagreementandtheInsightsales taxagreementandrequestedCouncildoafiscalimpactstudytodeterminethe impactoftheApplecampusconstructionontheCity.Hesaidthattheextensionis toolongandshouldbeinparalleltothedevelopmentagreement. RobertMcKibbinrecommendedreducingtheextensionfromoneyeartothree monthsinordertodiscussdefinitionsfurtherwithstaff. WongmovedandSantorosecondedtoextendtheagreementforconsultation serviceswithBAZIndustries,successorininteresttoACIHoldings,Inc.Themotion carriedwithSinksabsent. :AmendthePublicAgencyRetirementSystem(PARS)457FICAAlternative 9.Subject RetirementPlanforParttime,SeasonalandTemporaryEmployees RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13010 10.Subject:2012ReconstructionofCurbs,GuttersandSidewalks,ProjectNo.201207 RecommendedAction:AuthorizetheDirectorofPublicWorkstoawardacontract toBreneman,Inc.,intheamountof$199,858.00,andapproveaconstruction contingencyof$19,000,foratotalof$218,858.00 DirectorofPublicWorksTimmBordenreviewedthestaffreport. CathyHelgersensaidshewasagainstthewaiverordinanceregardingthesemirural communityandaskedforincreasedfundingforcurbs,gutters,andsidewalks.She saidmoreconstructionworkwouldcreatejobsandcausecompaniestobringtheir pricesdown.Sheaddedthatkidswalkinthestreetandinthedirt,andthemud looksugly.Shesuggestedapplyingforgrantstopayfornewsidewalks,having homeownerspayhalfandCitypaytherest,and/orusingmoneyinreservestopay forsidewalksandstreetlights. MichelleBazargunexpressedherconcernaboutthelackofsidewalksandthelackof safetywhilewalkingonthestreets.Shesaidcurbsarebecomingabigissuebecause ofthedirtandsaidshefellthreetimesduetothelackofsidewalksincertainareas 153 Tuesday,February5,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency onherstreet.Sheaddedthatfivehouseswererebuiltandnoneofthemputina sidewalkorcurb,sothereneedstobebetterlawsandregulationsinCupertino. DirectorBordensaidstaffwouldfollowupwiththeparticularstreetMs.Bazargun saidshelivesonandwouldletCouncilknow. WongmovedandSinkssecondedtoapproveitem.Themotioncarried unanimously. :AlcoholicBeverageLicenseApplication,SzechuanHouse,Inc,20956 11.Subject HomesteadRoad,SuiteA1 RecommendedAction:ApproveAlcoholicBeverageLicenseforSzechuanHouse, Inc 12.Subject:AlcoholicBeverageLicense,FreebirdsWorldBurrito,20688StevensCreek Boulevard RecommendedAction:ApproveAlcoholicBeverageLicense,FreebirdsWorld Burrito 13.Subject:AlcoholicBeverageLicense,KongTofu&BBQ,19626StevensCreek Boulevard RecommendedAction:ApproveAlcoholicBeverageLicense,KongTofu&BBQ SECONDREADINGOFORDINANCES 14.Subject:AdopttheAddendumtothepreviouslycertifiedFinalProgram EnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR)andFindingsofFactregardingSingleUse CarryoutBags.ConductsecondreadingsofaSingleUseCarryoutBagOrdinance andaLitterEnforcementOrdinance RecommendedAction:A.AdoptResolutionNo.13011certifyingtheAddendumto theFinalProgramEnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR)andadoptingassociated CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)FindingsofFactpursuanttotheEIR AddendumfortheCityof"»¶«¸º¯´µ¹OrdinanceRegulatingSingleUseCarryout Bags;B.ConductthesecondreadingofOrdinanceNo.132102:AnOrdinanceof theCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinoaddingChapter9.17totheCupertino MunicipalCoderegardingregulationofsingleusecarryoutbags;C.Conductthe secondreadingofOrdinanceNo.132103:AnOrdinanceoftheCityCouncilofthe CityofCupertinoamendingChapter9.18(StormwaterPollutionPreventionAnd WatershedProtection)oftheCupertinoMunicipalCodetoaddresslitter 154 Tuesday,February5,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency managementandantilitterenforcementinconjunctionwiththe"¯º¿¹Stormwater Permit Underpostponements,thisitemwascontinuedtoMarch5. WongmovedandSinkssecondedtomovetheOrdinancesandActionItemsbeforethe PublicHearingItems.MayorMahoneyreorderedtheagendatotakeupitemnumber16 next. ORDINANCESANDACTIONITEMS 16.Subject:Considerationofanordinanceprovidinganexceptiontoallowoffleash professionaldogservicesforCityauthorizedwaterfowlmanagementatCityParks RecommendedAction:ConductthefirstreadingofOrdinanceNo.132105:An ordinanceoftheCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinoamendingsections8.03.010 and13.04.130(d)oftheCupertinoMunicipalCodetoallowforwaterfowl managementbyaddinganoffleashdogexceptionforCityauthorizedeventsand programs DirectorofPublicWorksTimmBordenreviewedthestaffreport. CathyHelgersensaidthatallowingdogstorunintheparkwithoutleasheswould causeissueswithonleashdogsintheparkandsheaskediftheCityhadinsurance ifsomethingwentwrong.Shesuggestedtakingthebirdsandmovingthemfaraway ifthedogsª¯ª´ºwork. CityClerkGraceSchmidtreadthetitleoftheordinance. ChangmovedandSinkssecondedtoreadtheordinancebytitleonlyandthatthe City"²«¸±¹readingwouldconstitutethefirstreadingthereof.Ayes:Chang, Mahoney,Santoro,andSinks.Noes:Wong. Councilrecessedfrom8:25p.m.to8:35p.m. PUBLICHEARINGS 15.Subject:A.ApproveMitigatedNegativeDeclaration,GeneralPlanAmendment, andRezoningofaCityownedlot(actionstofurtherdogparkdevelopment);B. IncreasefundingtotheMaryAvenueDogParkconstructionprojectbudgetfora 155 Tuesday,February5,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency totalnottoexceed$450,000,authorizationtoawardprojectcontractsand authorizationtoapproveContractChangeOrders(CCO)totheextentthattotal expendituresdonotexceedtheamountoftheprojectbudget RecommendedAction: A.1)ApproveaMitigatedNegativeDeclaration&itsMitigationMonitoring Program(EA201207) A.2)AdoptResolutionNo.13012approvingGPA201201 A.3)ConductthefirstreadingofOrdinanceNo.132104:AnOrdinanceoftheCity CounciloftheCityofCupertinorezoninga0.51acrevacantparcelandthe0.32acre abuttinghalfstreetfromP(R1C)toPRforpropertylocatedatthecornerofVillaReal andMaryAvenue(Z201202) B.1)Add$100,000totheprojectbudgetforatotalamountnottoexceed$450,000,to coverpotentialadditionalcostsfortheremediationofsoil(forsoilremovaland replacement),inthecasethatthevolumeofsoiltoremediateincreasesbeyondthat anticipated,whichwillonlybediscoveredduringtheremediationwork B.2)AuthorizeCityManagertoawardcontractsfortheMaryAvenueDogParkto thelowestresponsivebidderinthecasethatthebidorbidsexceedthestanding contractauthorityoftheDirectorofPublicWorks B.3)AuthorizeCityManagertoapproveContractChangeOrders(CCO)tothe extentthattotalprojectexpendituresdonotexceedtheamountoftheprojectbudget :Application(s):GPA201201,Z201202,EA201207;Applicant:Cityof Description Cupertino;Location:CityownedlotonthecornerofVillaRealandMaryAve; APN#32627030;GeneralPlanAmendmenttochangetheGeneralPlanLandUse Mapdesignationfrom ,«ª¯»³HighDensityResidential(1020#4C&1 " !to /§¸±&Open2¶§©«!fora0.51netacrevacantparcel;Rezoningofa0.83grossacre vacantparcelfrom /1t"PlannedDevelopment,SingleFamilyResidential Cluster(´º«´º!to /1KParkandRecreation9µ´«!MitigatedNegativeDeclaration. ThePlanningCommissionrecommendsapprovalofGPA201201andZ201202per Resolutionnumbers6717and6718andrecommendsapprovalofaMitigated NegativeDeclaration(EA201207) SeniorPlannerColinJungreviewedthePlanningstaffreportviaaPowerPoint presentation. DirectorofPublicWorksTimmBordenreviewedthePublicWorksstaffreport. ConsultantSteveNoackfromThePlanningCenter/DC&Ereviewedthe environmentalreviewprocessviaaPowerPointpresentation.Hehighlightedthe environmentalsurveyreportsummary;mitigatedmeasuresforairquality, biologicalresources,culturalresources;commentsraisingissuesof:construction 156 Tuesday,February5,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency relatedairpollution;effectoftreeremovalonairqualityandhealthrisks;health issuesrelatedtodogwaste;healthissuesrelatedtoremediationactivities;increased traffic;noise;odors;propertyvalue;safetyandaggressivedogs;andtransportation relatedairpollution. MayorMahoneyopenedthepublichearing. Thefollowingpeoplewereopposedtoactionstofurtherdogparkdevelopmenton MaryAvenue:RanjanDesai,SheetalDevidasani,RamaBharathy,Prasad Pimplaskar,ManasiPimplaskar,CathyHelgersen,DuleepPillai,GopakumarPillai, LeelavathyDhanasekaran,VikiramChikoti,PushparajShanmugam,Gopal Parakularg,ThyagarajanRadhakrishnan,ManeeshPawar,VeeravelM.Muthiah, JohnLee,RaghupathiSubbiah,SudhakarReddy,AppalaPatnala,SuYinLee,Pei ChuFan,PhilipZhou,KathyKwan,DemetraBarkas,KatherineWinget,Radhika Gopalakirishnan,DixieTaylor,YunFan,DavidHollister,SivarasanThiruvadi, DevendranRethinavelu,MariaLopez,JeanSchwab,LeyiZhang,ElanGovan,Maya Reddy,RambabuPyapali,SudhaAndra,Padmaja,Nirmala,SravyaPatnala, CatherineCoe,SidShettar,VelmuruganSankar,andSubraOngolt. Thereasonsforoppositionincluded:theMaryAvenuedogparksiteistoocloseto thenearbyhomesincludingtheCasaDeAnzaCondominiumsandGlenbrook Apartments;thelotsizeistoosmallandoddlyshaped;safetyconcernsfor bicyclists,children,andtheelderly;enforcementofdogparkrules;notenoughdog ownerswouldusethepark;additionaltraffic;willcausedecreasedpropertyvalues; increasednoisefromdogsbarking;dogwastesmellandpotentialbacteria;possible litigationifsomeonegetshurt;spendingthemoneyonsomethingbetter;some residentsneverreceivednoticeaboutthedogparkbeingconsidered;disruptionof thequalityoflife;pollution;lengthoftimefortreestogrowtallenoughtouseasa barriertothefreewaynoise;theleadsoilmitigationmakesittooexpensive;thesite istooclosetofreeway;considerotherdogparklocationslikeLibraryField,Jollyman Park,ornoneatallinCupertino;alternativeusesforthesitelikeacommunity garden,orplantmoretreesandleaveasis. Thefollowingpeoplewereinfavorofactionstofurtherdogparkdevelopmenton MaryAvenue:JamesLuther,CynthiaSt.John,andPriyaSumal. Thereasonsforbeinginfavorincluded:dogparks§¸«´ºcrowdedorsmelly,and dogsbarkverylittleindogparksversesin¶«µ¶²«¹backyards;dogownerspolice eachotherindogparksandtakeresponsibilityfortheirownªµ¹behavior;having 157 Tuesday,February5,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency theconvenienceofdrivingtoadogparkinCupertino;¯º¹greatforthecommunity; havingaplacefordogstogowhentheyhavenowhereelsetorunaround;dogscan haveaplaygrouplikechildrenhaveaplaygroupwhichishealthy;havinga walkingdistancedogparkintown. MayorMahoneyclosedthepublichearing. WongmovedandChangsecondedtoapproveaMitigatedNegativeDeclaration& itsMitigationMonitoringProgram(EA201207).Themotioncarriedunanimously. WongmovedandChangsecondedtoadoptResolutionNo.13012approvingGPA 201201).ThemotioncarriedwithSinksvotingno. CityClerkGraceSchmidtreadthetitleofOrdinanceNo.132104rezoningaCity ownedlotatthecornerofVillaRealandMaryAvenue(Z201202)withthe conditionthatstaffmeetwiththeresidentsofCasaDeAnzatoworkonmitigating factorstobedeterminedbystaffandresidents. WongmovedandChangsecondedtoreadtheordinancebytitleonlyandthatthe City"²«¸±¹readingwouldconstitutethefirstreadingthereof.Ayes:Chang, Mahoney,Santoro,andWong.Noes:Sinks. WongmovedandChangsecondedtoadd$100,000totheprojectbudgetforatotal amountnottoexceed$450,000.Santoromadeafriendlyamendmentwiththe conditiontoaddanadditional$50,000togotowardabufferattheneighboring propertyline.WongandChangacceptedthefriendlyamendment.Themotion carriedwithSinksvotingno. WongmovedandChangsecondedtoauthorizetheCityManagertoaward contractsfortheMaryAvenueDogParktothelowestresponsivebidder.The motioncarriedwithSinksvotingno. WongmovedandChangsecondedtoauthorizetheCityManagertoapprove ContractChangeOrders(CCO)totheextentthattotalprojectexpendituresdonot exceedtheamountoftheprojectbudget.ThemotioncarriedwithSinksvotingno. REPORTSBYCOUNCILANDSTAFF 158 Tuesday,February5,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency CityManagerDavidBrandtsaidgoodbyetoDirectorofParksandRecreationMark LinderwhoisgoingtoCampbelltobetheCityManager.Healsosaidgoodbyeto SeniorPlannerColinJungwhoisretiring. DirectorLindersaidheenjoyedhistimeinCupertinoandislookingforwardtohisnew careerasCityManager.Mr.JungthankedCouncilandstaff. MayorMahoneypresentedaproclamationtoDirectorLinder. CouncilmemberssaidthankyouandgoodbyetoDirectorLinderandMr.Jungand highlightedtheactivitiesoftheircommitteesandvariouscommunityevents. ADJOURNMENT At12:43a.m.onWednesday,February6,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. 159 DRAFTMINUTES CUPERTINOCITYCOUNCIL SpecialMeeting Tuesday,February5,2013 ROLLCALL At6:07p.m.MayorOrrinMahoneycalledthespecialmeetingtoorderinConference RoomA,10300TorreAvenue,Cupertino,California. Present:MayorOrrinMahoney,ViceMayorGilbertWongandCouncilmembersBarry ChangandRodSinks.Absent:CouncilmemberMarkSantoro. ORALCOMMUNICATIONS KNone ORDINANCESANDACTIONITEMS :PlanningCommissionterms 1.Subject RecommendedAction:Discussterms TheCityCouncilhadmadeappointmentsonJanuary29tofillPlanning Commissionvacancies.Councilfurtherdiscussedthetermsofthoseoriginal appointments. WongmovedandSinkssecondedtochangePaul!¸µ¶®¿¹appointmenttoa partialtermendingJanuary2015(wouldcountasafullterm)andWinnie+««¹ appointmenttoafulltermendingJanuary2017.ThemotioncarriedwithCouncil memberChangabstaining. ADJOURNMENT At6:16p.m.themeetingwasadjourned. _________________________________ KirstenSquarcia,DeputyCityClerk 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3110 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:February19,2013 Subject AuthorizetheCityManagertonegotiateandexecutealongtermleaseagreementwith theCupertinoRotarytousetheCupertinoRoomattheQuinlanCommunityCenterfor weeklymeetings RecommendedAction 1.)Authorizetonegotiateandexecutetheleaseagreement;and2.)Establisha10year minimumforanytypeofmarkeronbuildings Description TheCupertinoRotarybeganusingtheCupertinoRoomattheQuinlanCommunity Centerforitsweeklymeetingsin1990.Therehasbeenastrongpartnershipbetween theCupertinoRotaryandtheCityofCupertinoformanyyears.JointCityRotary projectsinclude: RenovationoftheGazeboinMemorialPark ProvidingfundsforfurnishingsattheSeniorCenter ProvidingleadershipandfundingfortheCaptain2º«¶®«´¹Playgroundat BlackberryFarmPark.Thisonedayplaygroundbuildwasamajorcommunity buildingevent. In2012,theRotarypaid$3,585inQuinlanroomrentalfees. Discussion Staffwouldliketonegotiateandexecuteatenyearleasewithanoptionfortwo additionaltenyearextensionswiththeCupertinoRotaryforthecontinueduseofthe CupertinoRoomforthe1µº§¸¿¹weeklymeetings.ThisleaseassurestheCityofa steadyflowofrentalfeesandtheRotarythatitwillhaveaplacetomeet.TheRotary wouldalsomountabronzeplaqueatQuinlanannouncingthatRotarymeetsatnoonon Wednesdays. 170 SustainabilityImpact N/A FiscalImpact TheleaseagreementassurestheCityofCupertinoofasteadysourceofrentalincome forthenexttenyears.ThefeeswouldbeatCupertinononprofitorganizationrates. Nospecialrateisbeingrequested. _____________________________________ Preparedby:MarkLinder,Director,ParksandRecreation Reviewedby: ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments:None 171 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3227 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:February19,2013 Subject BudgetAdjustment#4 RecommendedAction ApproveBudgetAdjustment#4 Description IncreasetheGeneralFundexpenditurebudgetby$57,000toprovideforlegislative advocacyservicesregardingthe"¯º¿¹pursuitofTEA/ERAFlegislation($20,000)anda fieldcoverfortheFourthofJulyFireworksevent($37,000). Discussion 1)LegislativeAdvocacyServices: ThecitiesofCupertino,LosAltosHills,MonteSereno,andSaratogaarepursuing legislationtoaddressEducationalRevenueAugmentationFund(ERAF)inequities.In 20052006,thefourcitiesweresuccessfulinsecuringpassageofAB117(Cohn),which madesignificantimprovementsinequalizingTEAallocationsstatewidebyensuringthe fourcitieswouldreceivetheirfull7%shareofTEAfunds.Unfortunately,thelegislation wasamendedtoholdtheStateharmlessbyrequiringthefourcitiestocontinuepaying thehigherCountyERAFrateontheirincreasedshareofTEArevenues,unlikeany otherno/lowpropertytaxcity.SenatorBeallhascommittedtoauthoringabillinthe 20122013legislativesessionsthatwouldeliminatethecountyERAFraterequirement forthefourcitiesandfinallycreateparityamongallno/lowpropertytaxcitiesinthe State. ATEAWorkingGroupmadeupofrepresentativesfromthefourcitiesevaluated proposalsfromseveralprofessionallegislativeadvocacyfirmstoaggressivelypursue the©¯º¯«¹legislativeagenda,aidinthedevelopmentandinfluenceoflegislative strategies,representthe©¯º¯«¹interestsinpublicpolicyforums,andmonitorlegislation thatcouldimpactthecities.Afterareviewoftheproposalsandfacetofaceinterviews withthetoptwofirms,theTEAWorkingGrouphasrecommendedcontractingwith AaronReed&Associates. 172 TheCityofCupertinowillbecontractingwithAaronReed&Associatesfora12month periodwiththeother©¯º¯«¹L+µ¹AltosHills,MonteSereno,and2§¸§ºµ§L¹®§¸¯´in thecost.Thetotalcontractcostsin20122013willbe$35,000withreimbursementsof $15,000fromthethreeothercitiesforanetcosttotheCityof$20,000.Thisallocationis basedontheamountofpropertytaxaccruingtoeachcityiflegislationissuccessful. 2)TheCityiscurrentlystagingour4ofJulyfireworksdisplayatCupertinoHigh th School.Lastyear,therewasdamagetothenewartificialfootballfieldandtrack,and FremontUnionHighSchoolDistrictisconcernedwiththeaestheticsofthefieldfrom annualrepairs.Theyhaveinformedusthatwecancontinuetostagefireworksatthis locationprovidedwecoverthefieldwithafireresistantcover.Thecostofthecoveris $37,000.In2012,thetotalnetcost(includingfireworks)forthe4ofJulyactivitieswas th $85,386. FiscalImpact Approvaloftheabovewillresultinanadditionalappropriationof$20,000inthe GeneralFundfor201213intheCityCouncilKProfessionalandContractServices(110 10007014)and$37,000intheculturaleventsbudgetlineitem(11062489400) _____________________________________ Preparedby:JacquelineGuzman,SeniorManagementAnalyst Reviewedby:CarolAtwood,DirectorofAdministrativeServices ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager 173 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3220 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: February 19, 2013 Subject Appoint the Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer. Recommended Action Adopt the draft resolution rescinding Resolution No. 12-020 and making the appointments. Description Extend the appointments of the current City Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer. Discussion Chapter 730 of the statutes of 1976 Section 16429.1 was added to the California Government Code to create a Local Agency Investment Fund in the State Treasury. This Section requires government agencies to appoint a treasurer and deputy treasurer on an annual basis. This attached resolution extends the current appointments of Carol A. Atwood and David Woo as the City Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer, respectively. This legislation was intended to provide ongoing review of investment issues by the governing body. Fiscal Impact None _____________________________________ Prepared by: David Woo, Deputy Treasurer Reviewed by: Carol A. Atwood, City Treasurer Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A - Draft Resolution 174 RESOLUTION NO. 13- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 12-020 AND MAKING APPOINTMENTS OF THE TREASURER AND DEPUTY TREASURER WHEREAS, the City has available funds to invest in accordance with principles of sound treasury management; and WHEREAS, the City annually adopts an investment policy; and WHEREAS, the City invests funds in accordance with provisions of California Government Code Section 53600; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby rescinds Resolution No. 12-020 and appoints Carol A. Atwood as City Treasurer and David Woo as Deputy Treasurer; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Treasurer is empowered and specifically authorized to invest and reinvest City funds in accordance with California Government Code Section 53600; to buy, sell, trade and deal in authorized securities on margin or otherwise in connection therewith and to pledge any and all securities for future delivery thereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of th Cupertino this 19 day of February 2013, by the following vote: VoteMembers of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Orrin Mahoney, Mayor, City of Cupertino 175 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:February19,2013 Subject 1)ConductthesecondreadingofOrdinanceNo.132104thatrezones0.83acre fromP(R1C)toPRtoallowadogparkonaMaryAvenueparcel(fileno.Z2012 02);and 2)AuthorizetheCityManagertoapplypotentialsavingsintheprojectbudget towardsenhancementstotheprojectdesignforasoundwalloradditional landscaping. RecommendedAction ConductthesecondreadingofOrdinanceNo.132104:AnOrdinanceoftheCity CounciloftheCityofCupertinorezoninga0.51acrevacantparcelandthe0.32acre abuttinghalfstreetfromP(R1C)toPRforpropertylocatedatthecornerofVillaReal andMary ¼«´»« !AlsoauthorizetheCityManagertouseanysavingsfromthe additionalsoilremediationbudgettowardprojectenhancements. Description Application:Z201202(EA201207) Applicant:CityofCupertino PropertyOwner:CityofCupertino Location:CornerofVillaRealandMaryAve;APN#32627030 ApplicationSummary: SecondreadingandenactmentofOrdinanceNo.132104,rezoninga0.83grossacre vacantparcelfrom /1t"PlannedDevelopment,SingleFamilyResidentialCluster (´º«´º!to /1K/§¸±andRecreation9µ´«! Discussion OnFebruary5,2013,theCityCouncilvotedtoadoptaMitigatedNegativeDeclaration &MitigationMonitoringProgram(EA201207)andtoapproveaGeneralPlanMap Amendment(GP201201);aRezoningAction(Z201202);aswellasauthorizeother actionstofacilitatethedevelopmentofadogparkonaCityownedpropertyatthe cornerofVillaRealandMaryAvenue,APN#32627030.Thegeneralplanamendment andrezoningactionswerenecessarytobringthelandusedesignationsinconformance withtheplanneddogparkuse.Inadditiontothegeneralplanamendmentand rezoningapproval,theCityCouncilalsoconductedthefirstreadingofthezoning ordinance,increasedthebudgetforsoilremediationby$100,000andaddedanother 176 $50,000tobeusedonparkenhancementsthatwillbenefittheadjacentresidential neighborhoodtothenorthoftheparksite.TheCouncildirectedstafftoconsultwith thoseneighborsonthetypesofparkenhancements. 3µ´¯®º¹agendaitemisthesecondreadingofthatzoningordinanceanda modificationofthedelegationofauthoritytotheCityManagertoreflectthepossibility ofanadditionalcontributiontotheprojectenhancementsiftherearecostsavingsfrom thesoilremediationwork. ____________________________________ Preparedby:ColinJung,SeniorPlanner Reviewedby:GaryChao,CityPlanner;AartiShrivastava,DirectorofCommunity Development ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: A.ZoningOrdinanceNo.132104 177 178 179 180 181 COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT CITYHALL 1010300TORREAVENUE'CUPERTINO,CA950143255 TELEPHONE:(408)7773308www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:February19,2013 Subject AppealofaPlanningCommissionapprovalofaproposeddevelopment,SaichWay Station,at20803StevensCreekBoulevardand1003310095SaichWay. RecommendedAction StaffrecommendsthattheCityCouncilheartheappealandupholdthePlanning "µ³³¯¹¹¯µ´¹January8,2013decisiontoapprovetheproject,baseduponthe referencedattachments,includingthedraftresolutions(AttachmentsA,B,andC),and therecordofthisproceeding. Description AppealofthePlanning"µ³³¯¹¹¯µ´¹January8,2013approvalofthefollowing applicationsandenvironmentaldetermination: 1.DevelopmentPermit(DP201205)toallowthedemolitionof11,610squarefeetof existingcommercialspaceandtheconstructionof15,377squarefeetofnew commercialspaceconsistingoftwonewcommercialbuildingpads,7,000squarefeet and8,377squarefeetrespectively(AttachmentDPlanningCommissionResolution no.6714); 2.ArchitecturalandSiteApprovalapplication(ASA201213)toallowthedemolition of11,610squarefeetofexistingcommercialspaceandtheconstructionof15,377 squarefeetofnewcommercialspaceconsistingoftwonewcommercialbuilding padsandassociatedsiteimprovements(AttachmentEPlanningCommission Resolutionno.6715); 3.TreeRemovalPermit(TR201241)toallowtheremovalandreplacementof13trees inconjunctionwithaproposeddevelopmentproject(AttachmentFPlanning CommissionResolutionno.6716);and 4.MitigatedNegativeDeclaration(EA201209)fortheprojectpertheCalifornia EnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA) AlthoughtheinitialintakeoftheprojectalsoincludedanexceptiontotheHeartofthe City '."!PlanforthesetbackalongSaichWay,staffsubsequentlydeterminedon 182 detailedreviewthatanexceptionwasnotrequiredbecausetheprojectwasonacorner lot,andtheHOChasspecialrulesthatgivediscretiononsetbacksforcornerlots,as discussedinsection(C)(1)below. Appellants:DarrelLumandDennisWhittaker Applicant:BorelliInvestments(DianaTaylor) Location:20803StevensCreekBoulevardand1003310095SaichWay(APNs32632 042and32632041,respectively) Discussion A.Background OnJanuary8,2013,thePlanningCommission,ona41vote(Brophyvotingno), approvedtheproject,includingtheMitigatedNegativeDeclaration,perResolutionnos. 6714,6715,and6716(AttachmentsD,E,andF)todemolishthetwoexistingbuildings andimprovementsonthesiteandconstructtwocoreandshellcommercialbuildings (Building17,194squarefeetandBuilding28,650squarefeet)andassociated frontageimprovementsalongboththeStevensCreekBoulevardandSaichWaystreet frontage.TheCommissionsapprovalincludedaconditiontoretaintheexistingparallel parkingandbuslayoveralongSaichWay.PleaserefertoAttachmentsG,H,andIfor thePlanningCommissionstaffreport,draftmeetingminutes,andapprovedplanset. OnJanuary18,2013,CupertinoresidentsDarrelLumandDennisWhittaker,ofthe ConcernedCitizensofCupertinoneighborhoodgroup,appealedthePlanning "µ³³¯¹¹¯µ´¹decision(AttachmentJ). B.BasisofAppeal TheappellantsareappealingthePlanningCommissionsdecisiontoapprovethe projectbasedonthegroundsof,inconsistentinterpretationsoftheHeartoftheCity (HOC)SpecificPlan,suchassetbacksandparkingrequirements,andother inconsistenciesofexistingregulations,rulesandplanningpracticesoftheCityof "»¶«¸º¯´µ !Specifically,appellantsarguethat: AnexceptiontotheHeartoftheCitySpecificPlanshouldhavebeenrequiredforthe proposedbuildingsetbackalongSaichWay,andtheincorrectsidesetback requirementwasappliedfortheproject. TheprojectisinconsistentwiththeBoulevardLandscapeEasementrequirementsof theHeartoftheCitySpecificPlan. OtherCityplanningdocumentshavespecificsetbackrequirementsthatarenotopen forinterpretation. Thefloorareaofthebuildingwasincorrectlymeasured,whichcouldaffectthe parkingrequirement. 183 TheproposedtwowaydrivewayoffStevensCreekBoulevardappearstobe inefficient. C.DiscussionofIssuesRaisedinAppeal 1.AnexceptiontotheHeartoftheCitySpecificPlanisnotrequiredfortheSaich WaysetbackbecausethePlanspecifiesthatminimumfrontagerequirementsfor cornerlotsarerecommendedbutnotrequired,andtheCitythereforehasthe discretiontodetermineadesirablesetback. TheproposedprojectislocatedonacornerparcelattheintersectionofStevens CreekBoulevardandSaichWay.FortheStevensCreekfrontage,Section 1.01.030(B)(1)oftheHOCrequiresabuildingsetbacktotaling35feet(measured fromthecurb),whichconsistsofa26footBoulevardLandscapeEasementanda9 footbuildingsetbackfromthebackoftheBoulevardLandscapeEasement.Section 1.01.030(B)(2)oftheHOCsetstherequirementsforcornerparcelsandtherefore governstheSaichWaysetback.PursuanttoSection1.01.030(B)(2),thefrontsetback requirement §¶¶²¯«¹toboth¬¸µ´º§«¹!ofacornerparcel,but º®«minimum frontagerequirementrecommendedbutnot¸«·»¯¸«ª !Inaddition,HOCSection 1.01.040(D)(1)isclearthatthe26footBoulevardLandscapeEasementonlyapplies alongStevensCreekBoulevardandwouldnotberequiredonSaichWay. Therefore,the12footsetbackproposedforSaichWaycomplieswiththesetback requirementsprescribedforthecornerparcelsintheHOCandanexceptionisnot required. Alternatively,theappellantsarguethattheHOCsidesetbackrequirementofone halfthebuildingheightor10feet,whicheverisgreater[Section1.01.030(C)(1)] shouldapplyalongSaichWay,sothattheprojectmustprovideatleast13.5to14.5 feetofsetbackalongSaichWay.SinceSection1.01.030(B)(2)addressesthespecific streetsidesetbackforcornerlots,therequirementinSection1.01.030(C)(1)only appliestotheinteriorsidesetback.Section(C)(1)evenstatesthatthisinteriorside setbackmaybereducedtozerowhenadjacentpropertiesarejointlydevelopedas theymayoccurinashoppingcenter,providedthatitpromotespedestrianaccess. Theprojectproposesaminimumbuildingsetbackof30feetontheinterior(west) side,whichconformstotheHOCstandard. Therefore,becausethisisacornerparcelandtheHOCspecifiesthatthesetbackfor SaichWayisrecommendedbutnotrequired,theCityhasdiscretiontodeterminean appropriatesetback.Factorstoconsiderinmakingthatdeterminationcouldinclude theprojectcontext,properorientationforpedestrianaccessandretailvisibility, surroundinglanduses,andtheextenttowhichthereisjustificationtoeither maintainsimilarbuildingrelationshipsbetweensimilarlandusesand/ortofacilitate bettertransitionsbetweendifferentlanduses(e.g.,fromcommercialtoresidential). Forexample,theappellantsnotethatfortheBiltmoremixedusedevelopment,the 184 multifamilyresidentialbuildingsetbackreferencedbytheappellantalongBlaney Avenueexceedstheminimumrequired.Whilenotrequired,theCityfeltitwas appropriatetomaintainsimilarbuildingsetbacksbetweentheexistingapartment buildingsandnewresidentialbuildingsunderthesameownership.Theproposed projectalongSaichWaydoesnotshareasimilarprojectcontextwiththeBiltmore mixeduseproject.Thereisnojustificationtomatchthe20footdaycarebuilding setbackfurthertothenorth,sincetheprojectintendstofeatureactivecommercial usesthatwarrantaclosersetbacktothestreet.ThePlanningCommission consideredmatchingthesetbackofthedaycarebuilding,butultimatelydecidedto approvetheproposedsetbackasis,giventhatitmeetstheHOCsetback requirementsandavoidsplacingtheparkinglotinfrontofthebuilding,which wouldbeinconsistentwiththepedestrianorientedbuildingsitingpoliciesofthe HOC. 2.TheprojectisconsistentwiththeBoulevardLandscapeEasementrequirements. TheappellantsnotethattheprojectshouldcomplywiththeCentralStevensCreek Boulevardlandscapedesignconceptwhichiscorrect,andhasalreadybeen implementedintheproject.TheprojectfeaturesadoublerowofFloweringPear treesalongStevensCreekBoulevardplantedat25feetoncenter,whichconformsto theHOCstandard.Theprojectprovidesanunobstructed26footwideBoulevard LandscapeEasementwithtreewellsanddecorativepaving,similartootherrecently approveddevelopmentswithintheHeartoftheCity,suchas/««º¹C/§´«¸§ Whole Foods,andtheCupertinoCrossroads.TheCityCouncilhasthediscretiontorequire the10footcurbsideplantingstrip,6footwidesidewalk,and10footbackof sidewalkplantingstripspecifiedintheHOC,butthecurrentlyproposedBoulevard LandscapeEasementareafeaturesthesamerequireddimensions,ismoreconsistent withrecentlyapproveddevelopments,andwillhelpcreateapedestrianfriendly environmentalongStevensCreekBoulevard,consistentwiththegoalsoftheHOC. 3.TheHOCgivestheCitydiscretiontodetermineappropriatesetbacksforcorner parcels,andtheHOChasdifferentrequirementsthanotherCityplanning documents. TheappellantsnotethatotherCityplanningdocumentssuchastheNorthand SouthDeAnzaConceptualPlanandMontaVistaDesignGuidelineshavespecific setbacksapprovedbytheCityCouncil,notbyastaffinterpretation.Staffdoesnot believethattheapplicationofthesetbackrequirementsisaninterpretationsince therearemultiplesectionsoftheHOC(approvedbytheCityCouncil)thatconfirm theminimumstreetsidesetbackrequirementof9feet.ThePlanningCommission,in theirdiscretionaryauthority,determinedthattheproposedminimumstreetside setbackof12feetwasadequate.Furthermore,conceptualplans,planningareas,and designguidelinesaredifferenttypesofdocumentswithdifferentrequirementsin 185 each.TheCitydidnotestablishuniformrequirementsfororbetweeneachtypeof plan. 4.Thefloorareawasrevisedtoreflectthecorrectmeasurementsandtheparking calculationswereaccurate. Itwasbroughttothe"µ³³¯¹¹¯µ´¹attentionthatthebuildingsquarefootagewas calculatedfromtheinsidefaceoftheoutsidewallswhenthezoningordinance requiresittobemeasuredfromtheoutsideface.ThefinalPlanningCommission resolutioncontainedaconditionrequiringthatthesquarefootagebecalculated consistentwiththezoningordinance.Sincethehearing,theapplicanthasrevised thesquarefootagecalculationtobeconsistentwiththezoningordinance. Consequently,anadditional467squarefeetwasaddedfortheproject.Theapplicant hasrevisedtheseatingintensityforoneoftheeatingestablishmentstoensurethat the¶¸µ°«©º¹parkingcomplieswiththezoningordinance.Futurefoodusetenants arerequiredbytheconditionsofapprovaltoadheretotheseatingandemployee countslistedontheapprovedplansunlessaparkingstudyissubmittedatthe §¶¶²¯©§´º¹expensedemonstratingadequateparkingsupply. 5.The"¯º¿¹transportationengineersreviewedthedrivewayconfigurationoffof StevensCreekBoulevardfoundthatitisadequateandmeetsstandards. TheproposedprojectdrivewayconfigurationalongtheStevensCreekBoulevardis adequatebasedontheassessmentsoftheCitystrafficengineerandtheCitystraffic consultant,FehrandPeersbecauseitprovidesadequatedimensions,promotes pedestriansafety,andthereareotherexamplesofsimilarconfigurationsat commercialsitesthroughouttheCitywithoutahistoryofreportedproblems.The proposedtwowaydrivewayarrangementalongStevensCreekBoulevardwill significantlyimprovethevehicleaccessandcirculationtoandfromtheprojectsite comparedtotheexistingcondition. Notwithstandingthefactthattheengineersapprovedtheoriginalconfiguration,the applicanthasconsideredthepublicinputreceivedduringthePlanningCommission hearingonthissubjectanddevelopedanoption(AttachmentK)forasiteplanwith anenhancedparkinglotsetbackanddrivewaythroatof35feetfromtheStevens CreekBoulevard,whichisanincreaseof15feetfromtheoriginallyapproved20 footsetback.Therevisedsiteplaneliminatesalandscapefingerislandbutmaintains theoriginallyapprovednumberofparkingstalls.FehrandPeersreviewedthis proposalandconfirmedthatthereviseddrivewaysetbackalongStevensCreek BoulevardisadequateseeAttachmentL.IftheCouncilprefersthisrevised configuration,itmayapprovetheprojectwiththischange. 186 PermitStreamliningAct ThisprojectissubjecttothePermitStreamliningAct(GovernmentCodeSection65920K 65964).TheCityhascompliedwiththedeadlinesfoundinthePermitStreamliningAct. Projectreceived:October15,2012 Deemedincomplete:November13,2012 Deemedcomplete:December19,2012 PlanningCommissiondecisionontheprojectandadoptionoftheMitigated NegativeDeclaration:January8,2013 ThePlanningCommissionhasmadeadecisionwithin60daysoftheapplicationbeing deemedcomplete.AppealsarenotsubjecttothetimelimitsinthePermitStreamlining Act.PursuanttoCMCsection19.12.170(E),theCity"µ»´©¯²¹decisiononthisproject willbefinalandeffectiveimmediately. ____________________________________ Preparedby:GeorgeSchroeder,AssistantPlanner Reviewedby:GaryChao,CityPlannerandAartiShrivastava,Community DevelopmentDirector ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: ADP201205draftCityCouncilresolution BASA201213draftCityCouncilresolution CTR201241draftCityCouncilresolution DPlanningCommissionResolutionno.6714(fileno.DP201205) EPlanningCommissionResolutionno.6715(fileno.ASA201213) FPlanningCommissionResolutionno.6716(fileno.TR201241) GPlanningCommissionstaffreportdatedJanuary8,2013 HPlanningCommissiondraftmeetingminutesfromJanuary8,2013 IPlanningCommissionapprovedplans JAppealdocumentsfromDarrelLumandDennisWhittaker KUpdatedsiteplan LSupplementaltransportationreviewmemorandumfromthe"¯º¿¹ transportationconsultantdatedJanuary30,2013 187 DP201205 CITYOFCUPERTINO 10300TorreAvenue Cupertino,California95014 DRAFTRESOLUTION OFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCUPERTINODENYINGANAPPEALANDUPHOLDING THEPLANNING".,,(22(.-2JANUARY8,2013APPROVALOFADEVELOPMENTPERMITTO ALLOWTHEDEMOLITIONOF11,610SQUAREFEETOFEXISTINGCOMMERCIALSPACEAND THECONSTRUCTIONOF15,844SQUAREFEETOFNEWCOMMERCIALSPACECONSISTINGOF TWONEWCOMMERCIALBUILDINGPADS,7,194SQUAREFEETAND8,650SQUAREFEET RESPECTIVELY,LOCATEDAT20803STEVENSCREEKBOULEVARDAND1003310095SAICHWAY SECTIONI:PROJECTDESCRIPTION ApplicationNo.:DP201205 Applicant:TomPurtell(BorelliInvestmentCo.) PropertyOwner:DianaTaylor Appellants:DarrelLumandDennisWhittaker Location:20803StevensCreekBoulevardand1003310095SaichWay(APNs32632041and 32632042,respectively) SECTIONII:FINDINGSFORDEVELOPMENTPERMIT: WHEREAS,theCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinoreceivedanappealofthePlanning"µ³³¯¹¹¯µ´¹ January8,2013approvalofaDevelopmentPermitasdescribedinSectionI.ofthisResolution;and WHEREAS,theEnvironmentalReviewCommitteehasrecommendedadoptionofaMitigatedNegative Declaration;and WHEREAS,thenecessarypublicnoticeshavebeengivenasrequiredbytheProceduralOrdinanceofthe CityofCupertino,andthePlanningCommissionandCityCouncilhaveheldatleastonepublichearing inregardtotheapplication;and WHEREAS,theapplicanthasmettheburdenofproofrequiredtosupportsaidapplication;and WHEREAS,theCityCouncilfindsasfollowswithregardtothisapplication: a)Theproposeddevelopment,attheproposedlocation,willnotbedetrimentalorinjuriousto propertyorimprovementsinthevicinity,andwillnotbedetrimentaltothepublichealth,safety, generalwelfare,orconvenience; &¯¼«´º®§ºº®«¶¸µ°«©º¯¹©µ´¹¯¹º«´º½¯º®º®«&«´«¸§²/²§´ 9µ´¯´.¸ª¯´§´©« §´ª'«§¸ºµ¬º®«"¯º¿/²§´®§¹ ¨««´ª«¹¯´«ªºµ¨«©µ³¶§º¯¨²«½¯º®§´ª¸«¹¶«©º¬»²µ¬§ª°µ¯´¯´²§´ª»¹«¹§´ªº®§ºº®«"¯º¿3¸§¬¬¯©$´¯´««¸ §´ªº¸§´¹¶µ¸º§º¯µ´©µ´¹»²º§´º®§¼«©µ´¬¯¸³«ªº®§ºº®«¶¸µ°«©º¯¹´µº§´º¯©¯¶§º«ªºµ©¸«§º«§ª¼«¸¹«©¯¸©»²§º¯µ´ ·»«»¯´ µ¸¹§¬«º¿¯³¶§©º¹ º®«¶¸µ°«©º½¯²²´µº¨«ª«º¸¯³«´º§²µ¸¯´°»¸¯µ»¹ºµ¶¸µ¶«¸º¿µ¸¯³¶¸µ¼«³«´º¹¯´ º®«¼¯©¯´¯º¿ §´ª½¯²²´µº¨«ª«º¸¯³«´º§²ºµº®«¶»¨²¯©®«§²º® ¹§¬«º¿ «´«¸§²½«²¬§¸« µ¸©µ´¼«´¯«´©« 188 DraftResolutionDP201205February19,2013 b)Theproposeddevelopmentwillbelocatedandconductedinamannerinaccordwiththe CupertinoComprehensiveGeneralPlanandthepurposeofthe"¯º¿¹zoningordinances. 3®«¶¸µ°«©º¯¹©µ´¹¯¹º«´º½¯º®º®«"¯º¿¹&«´«¸§²/²§´ 9µ´¯´.¸ª¯´§´©« §´ª'«§¸ºµ¬º®«"¯º¿2¶«©¯¬¯© /²§´ 3®«¶¸µ°«©º¯¹ª«¹¯´«ª½¯º®º®«¯´º«´ºµ¬©¸«§º¯´§¶«ª«¹º¸¯§´¬¸¯«´ª²¿«´¼¯¸µ´³«´º§²µ´2º«¼«´¹ "¸««±!µ»²«¼§¸ª ¨«¯´©µ³¶§º¯¨²«½¯º®º®«©µ³³«¸©¯§²ª¯¹º¸¯©º¯´½®¯©®¯º¯¹²µ©§º«ª §´ª³§¾¯³¯À¯´¸«º§¯² ¼¯§¨¯²¯º¿ ©µ´¹¯¹º«´º½¯º®º®«µ§²¹µ¬º®«&«´«¸§²/²§´§´ª'«§¸ºµ¬º®«"¯º¿2¶«©¯¬¯©/²§´ NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED: Thataftercarefulconsiderationoftheinitialstudy,maps,facts,exhibits,testimonyandotherevidence submittedinthismatter,subjecttotheconditionswhichareenumeratedinthisResolutionbeginningon PAGE2thereof,: AMitigatedNegativeDeclaration(Applicationno.EA201209)isherebyadopted;andtheappealofan applicationforaDevelopmentPermit,Applicationno.DP201205isherebydenied,andthePlanning "µ³³¯¹¹¯µ´¹January8,2013approvalisherebyupheld,andthatthesubconclusionsuponwhichthe findingsandconditionsspecifiedinthisresolutionarebasedandcontainedinthePublicHearingrecord concerningApplicationno.DP201205assetforthintheMinutesofPlanningCommissionMeetingof January8,2013andCityCouncilMeetingofFebruary19,2013,andareincorporatedbyreferenceas thoughfullysetforthherein. SECTIONIII:CONDITIONSADMINISTEREDBYTHECOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTDEPT. PlanningDivision: 1.APPROVEDEXHIBITS ApprovalisbasedontheplansetdatedDecember14,2012consistingof27sheetslabeledT1,A0,A1, A2,Building1ExteriorElevations,A3,Building2ExteriorElevations,A4,D1,D2,D3,D4,D5,M1,L 1,L2,C1,C2,C3,C3.1,C3.2,C4,C5,C6,C7,C8,andPhotometricPlan,entitled, 2§¯©®Way, 20803StevensCreekBlvd.,Cupertino,California,BorelliInvestment"µ !drawnbyFCGA Architecture,Borrecco/Kilian&Associates,Inc.,andHMH;andtherevisedsiteplandatedJanuary 23,2013consistingofonesheetlabeledsheetD5drawnbyFCGAArchitecture,whichshall supersedesheetD5datedDecember14,2012exceptasmaybeamendedbyconditionsinthis resolution. 2.ACCURACYOFPROJECTPLANS Theapplicant/propertyownerisresponsibletoverifyallpertinentpropertydataincludingbutnot limitedtopropertyboundarylocations,buildingsetbacks,propertysize,buildingsquarefootage, anyrelevanteasementsand/orconstructionrecords.Anymisrepresentationofanypropertydata mayinvalidatethisapprovalandmayrequireadditionalreview. 3.CONCURRENTAPPROVALCONDITIONS Theconditionsofapprovalcontainedinfilenos.ASA201213andTR201241shallbeapplicableto thisapproval. 4.DEVELOPMENTAPPROVALANDPROJECTAMENDMENTS DevelopmentPermitapprovalisgrantedtoallowthedemolitionof11,610squarefeetofexisting commercialspaceandtheconstructionof15,844squarefeetofnewcommercialspaceconsistingof twonewcommercialbuildingpads,7,194squarefeetand8,650squarefeetrespectively. 189 DraftResolutionDP201205February19,2013 Allowedusesincludethosepermittedbythe"¯º¿¹GeneralCommercial(CG)Ordinance.Aseparate conditionalusepermitshallberequiredforthosecommercialusesrequiringusepermitapprovalas specifiedintheCGOrdinance.Developmentintensityshallberegulatedbyusepermitreview. ThePlanningCommissionshallreviewamendmentstotheprojectconsideredmajorbytheDirector ofCommunityDevelopment. 5.DEVELOPMENTALLOCATION Theapplicantshallreceiveanallocationof4,234squarefeetofretailcommercialallocationforthe HeartoftheCityGeneralPlanarea,basedontheconstructionof15,377squarefeetofnew commercialspaceanddemolitionof11,610squarefeetofexistingcommercialspace. 6.PARKINGAPPROVALANDFUTUREREVIEW Theprojectareatotalof80onsiteparkingspacesisapproved. Futureuseswillbelimitedbasedontheparkingsupplyandtripgenerationstudyconductedbythe "¯º¿¹transportationconsultantdatedNovember16,2012.Anyproposedintensificationofthe approvedusesshownonthedevelopmentplans(i.e.medicaloffices,childcare,orfooduses replacingretail,increasesinapprovedseatoremployeecounts)willrequireCityreviewand additionalstudiesatthe§¶¶²¯©§´º¹expense. 7.PARALLELPARKINGSPACESONSAICHWAY PerthePlanning"µ³³¯¹¹¯µ´¹approval,theconstructionplansshallberevisedtoreflectaparallel parkingschemealongSaichWaytothesatisfactionoftheCitypriortoissuanceofbuildingpermits. Theparallelparkingspacesshallbecompletedpriortofinaloccupancy. 8.BUSSTOP/LAYOVERONSAICHWAY TheexistingVTAbusstop/layoverlocationshallremainduetothePlanning"µ³³¯¹¹¯µ´¹approval ofparallelparkingspacesonSaichWay. 9.DRIVEWAYTHROATLENGTH PertheCity"µ»´©¯²¹approval,theconstructionplansshallberevisedtodemonstrateaminimum 35footdrivewaythroat(measuredfromthestreetcurbface)forthetwowayshareddrivewayalong StevensCreekBoulevardasshownontheapprovedsiteplan.Thedrivewaythroatareashallinclude alandscapebuffer,thefinaldetailsofwhichshallbereviewedandapprovedbytheDirectorof CommunityDevelopmentpriortobuildingpermitissuance.Noparkingspacesshallbelocated withinthisarea. 10.BICYCLEPARKING Theapplicantshallprovidebicycleparkingandbikeracksfortheproposedprojectinaccordance withthe"¯º¿¹ParkingRegulationsunderChapter19.124oftheCupertinoMunicipalCode. AdditionalbicycleparkingshallbeconsideredaroundRestaurant1. 11.COVENANTDISCLOSURE 190 DraftResolutionDP201205February19,2013 ThepropertyisunderaCupertinoplanneddevelopmentzoningandpropertypurchasersshould checkwiththeCitytodeterminethespecificrestrictionsunderthePlannedDevelopmentZoneand relatedpermits. 12.MAXIMUMPERCENTAGEOFFOODUSES Amaximumof29%or4,558squarefeetofbothbuildingscombinedmaybeoccupiedbyfooduses (including,butnotlimitedto,fastfoodrestaurants,fullservicerestaurants,andspecialtyfood shops). Whenbothbuildingsarefullyleased,thepropertyownermayrequestadditionalfooduseareawith amajormodificationapplicationthroughthePlanningCommission.Ifthereisaparkingstall deficiencyperthe"¯º¿¹ParkingOrdinance,theapplicationshallincludeaparkingstudywithan onsiteparkingdemandsurveycompletedatthe§¶¶²¯©§´º¹expense. 13.BELOWMARKETRATEHOUSINGPROGRAMMITIGATIONFEES Theapplicantshallparticipateinthe"¯º¿¹BelowMarketRate(BMR)HousingProgrambypaying thehousingmitigationfeesaspertheHousingMitigationManual.Theestimatedmitigationfeefor thisprojectis$22,567.22basedonthe20122013fiscalyearrateof$5.33persquarefootofnet addition(4,234squarefeet). 14.ODORABATEMENTSYSTEMS Ifodorimpactsfromfooduseorotherodorgeneratingusesbecomeanuisanceinthefutureas determinedbytheCommunityDevelopmentDirector(typicallyiffiveormorecomplaintsare receivedwithina12monthperiod),thepropertyownershallinstallodorabatementsystemsto reduceodorimpactstotheadjacentcommunity.Detailedplansshallbereviewedandapprovedby theCommunityDevelopmentDepartment. 15.LOTMERGERS Priortofinaloccupancy,thepropertyownershallobtainnecessaryapprovalswiththeCityand Countytomergethetwoexistingonsiteparcels(APNs32632041and32632042)intooneparcel. 16.INGRESS/EGRESSEASEMENT Thepropertyownershallrecordanappropriatedeedrestrictionandcovenantrunningwiththeland, subjecttoapprovaloftheCityAttorney,providingfornecessaryreciprocalingressandegress easementtoandfromtheaffectedparcels.Theeasementsshallberecordedpriortofinaloccupancy ofsitepermits. 17.SHAREDACCESSDRIVEWAY Thetwowaysharedaccessdrivewaybetweentheprojectsiteand20807StevensCreekBoulevard (APN32632051)shallbefullyinstalledandconstructedtothesatisfactionofthePublicWorks Departmentpriortotheissuanceoffinaloccupancyofsitepermits. 18.TRANSPORTATIONDEMANDMEASURES(TDM) TheDirectorofCommunityDevelopmenthastheabilitytorequireadditionaltransportation demandmanagementmeasurestoaddressanyfutureparkingconcerns.Examplesoftransportation demandmanagementmeasuresmayinclude,butarenotlimitedto: a)Transitimprovements b)Nonmotorizedimprovements 191 DraftResolutionDP201205February19,2013 c)Shiftpeaksharedparking d)Guaranteedridehome e)Carsharing f)Taxiservice g)Pricing 19.MAINBUILDINGENTRANCE ThemainbuildingentranceforthetenantsofBuildings1and2shallfacethepublicstreetonwhich theyarelocated.Theentrancedoorsandstorefrontaretobekeptopenandfreeofanyobstructions. Nomorethan25%ofeachstorefrontwindowbaymaybeobstructedwithsignageorotherinterior items.Boarding,closure,shelves,permanentwalls,opaquepainting/materialofwindows,andother storefrontobstructionsarenotpermitted. 20.OUTDOORDININGENCLOSURE Outdoordiningareasshallnotbeenclosedwithfencingorotherstructurestopermanentlyobstruct pedestrianwalkways,unlessitcanbedemonstratedthatanenclosedoutdoorseatingareawillnot obstructtherequiredwalkwayclearances. 21.SIGNAGE Signageisnotapprovedwiththisapplication,includingtheproposedgroundsignshownonthe plansalongStevensCreek.SignageshallconformtotheCitySignOrdinance(Chapter19.104ofthe CupertinoMunicipalCode)andHeartoftheCitySpecificPlan. 22.MASTERSIGNPROGRAM AseparatemastersignprogramapplicationfortheentireSaichWayStationdevelopmentisrequired priortofinaloccupancyofcoreandshellpermitsforthetwobuildings.Thesignprogramshallbe reviewedandapprovedbytheDirectorofCommunityDevelopment. 23.SCREENING Allmechanicalandotherequipmentonthebuildingoronthesiteshallbescreenedsotheyarenot visiblefrompublicstreetareasoradjoiningdevelopments.Screeningmaterials/colorsshallmatch buildingfeaturesandmaterials.Theheightofthescreeningshallbetallerthantheheightofthe mechanicalequipmentthatitisdesignedtoscreen.Thelocationofequipmentandnecessary screeningshallbereviewedandapprovedbytheDirectorofCommunityDevelopmentpriorto issuanceofbuildingpermits. 24.FINALCIRCULATION,TRAFFICSAFETY,ANDSTRIPINGPLAN Thefinalcirculation,striping,andtrafficsafetyplanshallbereviewedandapprovedbytheDirector ofPublicWorksandCommunityDevelopmentpriortobuildingpermitissuance. TheplanshallconsidertherecommendationsinFehr&/««¸¹transportationmemorandumdated November16,2012,including,butnotlimitedto: a.Truckdeliveryandpickuptimestooccuroutsideofpeakparkingdemandtimes b.Directionalandwarningsignage c.Landscapingaroundtheconflictarea(teejunctionoftheStevensCreekBoulevarddrivewaywith the20807StevensCreekBoulevardparkinglotaisle)shouldbekepttoaminimalheightastonot 192 DraftResolutionDP201205February19,2013 obstructsitedistanceastheremaybeahigherpotentialforpedestriancrossingsbetweenthetwo sites. d.StopbaronthePanerasite(withwrittenpermissionbypropertyowner) 25.TRASHANDDELIVERYACTIVITIES Adetailedrefuseandtruckdeliveryplanshallbepreparedbytheapplicant.Theplanshallinclude, butnotbelimitedtothefollowing: a.Locationanddesignoftrashfacilities(i.e.trashenclosuresandreceptacles).Trashenclosures shallprovideamplespacetoincludetrash,recycling,foodwaste,andwastereceptaclesalong withatallowbin. b.Quantityoftrashreceptacles.Atleastthreesetsoftrio(garbage,recycling,andcompost) receptaclesshallbeprovidedonsitetothesatisfactionoftheEnvironmentalProgramsManager. c.Primaryandalternativetruckroutes.AnAutoTurnanalysisshallbeusedtodeterminethe numberofparkingspacesrequiredtomaneuveradeliverytruckintoandoutofdesignatedtruck deliveryzone(s) d.Signageforparkingstallsdisplacedduringpickupanddeliveryhours e.Trashpickupschedule(shallnottakeplaceduringpeakbusinesshours) f.Loadingareas(withsignage/markingsrestrictingparkingintheseareasduringloadingtimes) g.Deliveryhours(shallnottakeplaceduringpeakbusinesshours) AlltrashfacilitiesmustbescreenedandenclosedtothesatisfactionofthePublicWorksDepartment. ThefinalplanshallbesubmittedtotheCityandthe"¯º¿¹refuseserviceforreviewandapproval priortoissuanceofbuildingpermits. 26.TRANSFORMERS Electricaltransformers,telephonecabinetsandsimilarequipmentshallbeplacedinunderground vaults.ThedevelopermustreceivewrittenapprovalfromboththePublicWorksDepartmentand theCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentpriortoinstallationofanyabovegroundequipment. ShouldabovegroundequipmentbepermittedbytheCity,equipmentandenclosuresshallbe screenedwithfencingandlandscapingsuchthatsaidequipmentisnotvisiblefrompublicstreet areas,asdeterminedbytheCommunityDevelopmentDepartment.Transformersshallnotbe locatedinthefrontorsidebuildingsetbackarea. 27.UTILITYSTRUCTUREPLAN Priortoissuanceofbuildingpermits,theapplicantshallworkwithstafftoprovideadetailedutility plantodemonstratescreeningorundergroundingofallnewutlitystructures[including,butnot limitedtobackflowpreventers(BFP),firedepartmentconnections(FDC),postindicatorvalves(PIV), andgasmeters]tothesatisfactionoftheDirectorofCommunityDevelopment,PublicWorks,Fire Department,andapplicableutilityagencies. 28.ROOFTOPEQUIPMENTSCREENING Allmechanicalandotherequipmentonthebuildingoronthesiteshallbescreenedsotheyarenot visiblefrompublicstreetareasoradjoiningdevelopments.Theheightofthescreeningshallbetaller thantheheightofthemechanicalequipmentthatitisdesignedtoscreen.Alineofsightplanmaybe requiredtodemonstratethattheequipmentwillnotbevisiblefromanypublicrightofway.The locationoftheequipmentandnecessaryscreeningshallbereviewedandapprovedbytheDirectorof CommunityDevelopmentpriortoissuanceofbuildingpermits. 193 DraftResolutionDP201205February19,2013 29.SITELIGHTING AllnewlightingmustconformtothestandardsintheGeneralCommercial(CG)andParking Ordinances,andthefinallightingplan(includingadetailedphotometricplan)shallbereviewedand approvedbytheCommunityDevelopmentDirectorpriortobuildingpermitissuance.Priortofinal occupancy,alicensedlightingconsultantshallconfirmthatthelightingisincompliancewiththe "¯º¿¹standards. Thelightingandphotometricplanshallberevisedtoincludethefollowingpriortoissuanceof buildingpermits: a.Ensurephotometricplanaccountsfortheapprovedlightingfixtures,wallsconces,andstreet lights. b.Showcutoffshieldstopreventlightintrusionontoadjoiningproperties. c.Notethatalllightingshallbeawhitetypelight. d.Aminimumofthreefootcandlesshallbemaintainedverticallyabovetheparkinglotsurfacein ordertoavoiddarkareasintheparkinglot 30.GEOTECHNICALREVIEW Buildingsshallbedesignedandconstructedinaccordancewithafinaldesignlevelgeotechnical investigationtobecompletedfortheprojectbyaqualifiedprofessionalandsubmittedtothe BuildingDepartmentpriortoissuanceofgradingandbuildingpermits.Thefinaldesignlevel geotechnicalinvestigationshallidentifythespecificdesignfeaturesthatwillberequiredforthe projectincludingmeasuresaddressingclearingandsitepreparation,removal,replacement,and/or compactionofexistingfill,abandonedutilities,subgradepreparation,materialforfill,trenchbackfill, temporarytrenchexcavations,surfacedrainage,foundationdesign,andpavements. 31.CITYARBORISTREVIEWOFEXISTINGNEIGHBORINGANDNEWSITETREES Priortogradingorconstructionpermitissuance,the"¯º¿¹consultingarboristshallberetainedby thedevelopertoreviewallconstructionpermitdrawingsanddetailsconcerningtheareawith25feet ofthewestsidepropertylineandTree#23tothenortheastofthesiteinordertomoreaccurately assesstheimpactstotheneighboringtrees.Thedevelopershallimplementanyadditional recommendationsandtreeprotectionmeasuresbythe"¯º¿¹consultingarborist. The"¯º¿¹consultingarboristshallalsoberetainedbythedevelopertoinspecttheexisting neighboringtreesidentifiedinthereporttoconfirmtheirgoodhealthfollowingconstruction. Correctivemeasuresshallbetaken,ifnecessary.Additionally,the"¯º¿¹consultingarboristshallbe retainedtoinspectthenewtreeplantingstoensurethattheywereplantedproperlyandaccordingto theapprovedplan. 32.LANDSCAPEPROJECTSUBMITTAL Priortoissuanceofbuildingpermits,theapplicantshallsubmitafulllandscapeprojectsubmittalper section14.15.040oftheLandscapingOrdinance.TheWaterEfficientDesignChecklist(AppendixA ofChapter14.15),LandscapeandIrrigationDesignPlans,andWaterBudgetCalculationsshallbe reviewedandapprovedtothesatisfactionoftheDirectorofCommunityDevelopmentpriorto issuanceofbuildingpermits. 33.LANDSCAPEINSTALLATIONREPORT 194 DraftResolutionDP201205February19,2013 Alandscapeinstallationauditshallbeconductedbyacertifiedlandscapeprofessionalafterthe landscapingandirrigationsystemhavebeeninstalled.Thefindingsoftheassessmentshallbe consolidatedintoalandscapeinstallationreport. Thelandscapeinstallationreportshallinclude,butisnotlimitedto:inspectiontoconfirmthatthe landscapingandirrigationsystemareinstalledasspecifiedinthelandscapeandirrigationdesign plan,systemtuneup,systemtestwithdistributionuniformity,reportingoversprayorrunoffthat causesoverlandflow,andpreparationofanirrigationschedule. Thelandscapeinstallationreportshallincludethefollowingstatement: 3®«landscapeand irrigationsystemhavebeeninstalledasspecifiedinthelandscapeandirrigationdesignplanand complieswiththecriteriaoftheordinanceandthe¶«¸³¯º ! 34.LANDSCAPEANDIRRIGATIONMAINTENANCE AmaintenancescheduleshallbeestablishedandsubmittedtotheDirectorofCommunity Developmentorhis/herdesignee,eitherwiththelandscapeapplicationpackage,withthelandscape installationreport,oranytimebeforethelandscapeinstallationreportissubmitted. a)Schedulesshouldtakeintoaccountwaterrequirementsfortheplantestablishmentperiodand waterrequirementsforestablishedlandscapes. b)Maintenanceshallinclude,butnotbelimitedtothefollowing:routineinspection;pressure testing,adjustmentandrepairoftheirrigationsystem;aeratinganddethatchingturfareas; replenishingmulch;fertilizing;pruning;replantingoffailedplants;weeding;pestcontrol;and removingobstructionstoemissiondevices. c)Failedplantsshallbereplacedwiththesameorfunctionallyequivalentplantsthatmaybesize adjustedasappropriateforthestageofgrowthoftheoverallinstallation.Failingplantsshall eitherbereplacedorberevivedthroughappropriateadjustmentsinwater,nutrients,pestcontrol orotherfactorsasrecommendedbyalandscapingprofessional. 35.SOILANALYSISREPORT Asoilsanalysisreportshalldocumentthevariouscharacteristicsofthesoil(e.g.texture,infiltration rate,pH,solublesaltcontent,percentorganicmatter,etc)andproviderecommendationsfor amendmentsasappropriatetooptimizetheproductivityandwaterefficiencyofthesoil. Thesoilanalysisreportshallbemadeavailabletotheprofessionalspreparingthelandscapeand irrigationdesignplansinatimelymannereitherbeforeorduringthedesignprocess.Acopyofthe soilsanalysisreportshallbesubmittedtotheDirectorofCommunityDevelopmentaspartofthe landscapedocumentationpackage. 36.NOISEMITIGATIONMEASURES Theprojectandretailoperationsshallcomplywiththe"¯º¿¹CommunityNoiseControlOrdinance (Chapter10.48oftheCMC).Inaddition,thefollowingmitigationmeasuresshallbetakeninorderto reducenoiseeventimpactstonearbyreceptorareas: a.Thecontractorshalluse ´«½º«©®´µ²µ¿!powerconstructionequipmentwithstateoftheart noiseshieldingandmufflingdevices.Allinternalcombustionenginesusedontheprojectsite shallbeequippedwithadequatemufflersandshallbeingoodmechanicalconditiontominimize noisecreatedbyfaultyorpoormaintainedenginesorothercomponents. 195 DraftResolutionDP201205February19,2013 b.Locatestationarynoisegeneratingequipmentasfaraspossiblefromsensitivereceptors.Staging areasshallbelocatedaminimumof200feetfromnoisesensitivereceptors,suchasresidential uses.Unnecessaryidlingofmachineswhennotinuseshallbeprohibited. c.ThedeveloperwillimplementaConstructionManagementPlanapprovedbytheCommunity DevelopmentDirectorandDirectorofPublicWorkstominimizeimpactsonthesurrounding sensitivelandusestothefullestextentpossible. d.Temporaryplywoodenclosuresshallbeerectedaroundstationaryequipmentthatproduces excessivenoiseatnearbyreceptors e.Goodmaintenanceandlubricationproceduresshallbeusedtoreduceoperatingnoise. f.Allconstructionequipmentshallconformtothefollowingstandards:1)noindividualdevice producesanoiselevelmorethan87dBAatadistanceof25feet;or2)thenoiselevelonany nearbypropertydoesnotexceedeightydBA(CupertinoMunicipalCodeSection10.48.053). g.Equipallinternalcombustionenginedrivenequipmentwithintakeandexhaustmufflersthatare ingoodconditionandappropriatefortheequipment. h.Noisefromconstruction½µ¸±«¸¹radiosshallbecontrolledtoapointthatitisnotaudibleat existingresidencesborderingtheprojectsite. i.Notifyalladjacentbusinesses,residences,andothernoisesensitivelandusesoftheconstruction scheduleinwriting. 37.PRECONSTRUCTIONMEETINGANDCONSTRUCTIONMANAGEMENTPLAN Priortocommencementofconstructionactivities,theapplicantshallarrangeforapreconstruction meetingwiththepertinentdepartments(including,butnotlimitedto,Building,Planning,Public Works,SantaClaraCountyFireDepartment)toreviewanapplicantpreparedconstruction managementplanincluding,butnotlimitedto: a.Planforcompliancewithconditionsofapproval b.Planforpublicaccessduringworkinthepublicrightofway c.Constructionstagingarea d.Constructionscheduleandhours e.Constructionphasingplan,ifany f.Contractorparkingarea g.Treepreservation/protectionplan h.Sitedust,noiseandstormrunoffmanagementplan i.Emergency/complaintandconstructionsitemanagercontacts 38.CONSTRUCTIONHOURS ConstructionactivitiesshallbelimitedtoMondaythroughFriday,7a.m.to8p.m.andSaturdayand Sunday,9a.m.to6p.m.Constructionactivitiesarenotallowedonholidays.Thedevelopershallbe responsibleforeducatingallcontractorsandsubcontractorsofsaidconstructionrestrictions.Rules andregulationpertainingtoallconstructionactivitiesandlimitationsidentifiedinthispermit,along withthenameandtelephonenumberofadeveloperappointeddisturbancecoordinator,shallbe postedinaprominentlocationattheentrancetothejobsite. 39.DEMOLITIONREQUIREMENTS Alldemolishedbuildingandsitematerialsshallberecycledtothemaximumextentfeasiblesubject totheBuildingOfficial.Theapplicantshallprovideevidencethatmaterialswererecycledpriorto issuanceoffinaldemolitionpermits. 196 DraftResolutionDP201205February19,2013 40.HAZARDOUSMATERIALMITIGATIONDURINGDEMOLITION Thefollowingrequirementsshallapplyforthedemolitionphaseoftheproject: a.InconformancewithfederalandStateregulations,aformalsurveyforACBMsandleadbased paintshallbecompletedpriortothedemolitionofbuildingsonthesite. b.AllpotentiallyfriableACBMsshallberemovedinaccordancewithNationalEmissionsStandards forHazardousAirPollutants(NESHAP)guidelinespriortobuildingdemolitionorrenovation thatmaydisturbthematerials.Alldemolitionactivitieswillbeundertakeninaccordancewith Cal/OSHAstandards,containedinTitle8oftheCaliforniaCodeofRegulations(CCR),Section 1529,toprotectworkersfromexposuretoasbestos.Materialscontainingmorethanonepercent asbestosarealsosubjecttoBayAreaAirQualityManagementDistrict(BAAQMD)regulations. c.Duringdemolitionactivities,allbuildingmaterialscontainingleadbasedpaintshallberemoved inaccordancewithCal/OSHALeadinConstructionStandard,Title8,CaliforniaCodeof Regulations1532.1,includingemployeetraining,employeeairmonitoringanddustcontrol.Any debrisorsoilcontainingleadbasedpaintorcoatingswillbedisposedofatlandfillsthatmeet acceptancecriteriaforthewastebeingdisposed. 41.DUSTCONTROL Thefollowingconstructionpracticesshallbeimplementedduringallphasesofconstructionforthe proposedprojecttopreventvisibledustemissionsfromleavingthesite: a.Allexposedsurfaces(e.g.,parkingareas,stagingareas,soilpiles,gradedareas,andunpaved accessroads)shallbewateredortreatedwithnontoxicstabilizersordustpalliativestwotimes perdayandmoreoftenduringwindyperiodstopreventdustfromleavingthesite. b.Allhaultruckstransportingsoil,sand,orotherloosematerialonsiteshallbecoveredtomaintain atleast2feetoffreeboard. c.Allvisiblemudordirttrackoutontoadjacentpublicroadsshallberemovedusingwetpower vacuumstreetsweepersatleastonceperday.Theuseofdrypowersweepingisprohibited. d.Allvehiclespeedsonunpavedroadsshallbelimitedto15mph. e.Allroadways,driveways,andsidewalkstobepavedshallbecompletedassoonaspossible. f.Buildingpadsshallbelaidassoonaspossibleaftergradingunlessseedingorsoilbindersare used. g.Postapubliclyvisiblesignwiththetelephonenumberandpersontocontactattheleadagency regardingdustcomplaints.Thispersonshallrespondandtakecorrectiveactionwithin48hours. TheAir#¯¹º¸¯©º¹phonenumbershallalsobevisibletoensurecompliancewithapplicable regulations. h.Idlingtimesshallbeminimizedeitherbyshuttingequipmentoffwhennotinuseorreducingthe maximumidlingtimeto5minutes(asrequiredbytheCaliforniaairbornetoxicscontrolmeasure Title13,Section2485ofCaliforniaCodeofRegulations[CCR]). i.Clearsignageshallbeprovidedforconstructionworkersatallaccesspoints. j.Allconstructionequipmentshallbemaintainedandproperlytunedinaccordancewith ³§´»¬§©º»¸«¸¹specifications.Allequipmentshallbecheckedbyacertifiedvisibleemissions evaluator. k.Constructionequipmentshallnotbestagedwithin200feetofexistingresidences. l.Theapplicantshallincorporatethe"¯º¿¹constructionbestmanagementpracticesintothe buildingpermitplanset. 197 DraftResolutionDP201205February19,2013 42.CULTURALRESOURCESDISCOVERIESDURINGCONSTRUCTION Intheeventofthediscoveryofprehistoricorhistoricarchaeologicaldepositsorpaleontological deposits,workshallbehaltedwithin50feetofthediscoveryandaqualifiedprofessional archaeologist(orpaleontologist,asapplicable)shallexaminethefindandmakeappropriate recommendationsregardingthesignificanceofthefindandtheappropriatemitigation.The recommendationshallbeimplementedandcouldincludecollection,recordation,andanalysisofany significantculturalmaterials. Intheeventthathumanremainsand/orculturalmaterialsarefound,allprojectrelatedconstruction shallceasewithina50footradiusofthefindinordertoproceedwiththetestingandmitigation measuresrequired.PursuanttoSection7050.5oftheHealthandSafetyCodeandSection5097.94of thePublicResourcesCodeoftheStateofCalifornia: a.Intheeventofthediscoveryofhumanremainsduringconstruction,thereshallbenofurther excavationordisturbanceofthesiteoranynearbyareareasonablysuspectedtooverlieadjacent remains.TheSantaClaraCountyCoronershallbenotifiedandshallmakeadeterminationasto whethertheremainsareNativeAmerican.IftheCoronerdeterminesthattheremainsarenot subjecttohisauthority,heshallnotifytheNativeAmericanHeritageCommissionwhoshall attempttoidentifydescendantsofthedeceasedNativeAmerican.Ifnosatisfactoryagreement canbereachedastothedispositionoftheremainspursuanttothisStatelaw,thentheland ownershallreinterthehumanremainsanditemsassociatedwithNativeAmericanburialson thepropertyinalocationnotsubjecttofurthersubsurfacedisturbance. b.AfinalreportsummarizingthediscoveryofculturalmaterialsshallbesubmittedtotheDirector ofCommunityDevelopmentpriortoissuanceofbuildingpermits.Thisreportshallcontaina descriptionofthemitigationprogramthatwasimplementedanditsresults,includinga descriptionofthemonitoringandtestingprogram,alistoftheresourcesfound,asummaryof theresourcesanalysismethodologyandconclusion,andadescriptionofthedisposition/curation oftheresources.Thereportshallverifycompletionofthemitigationprogramtothesatisfaction oftheDirectorofCommunityDevelopment. 43.CONSULTATIONWITHOTHERDEPARTMENTS Theapplicantisresponsibletoconsultwithotherdepartmentsand/oragencieswithregardtothe proposedprojectforadditionalconditionsandrequirements.Anymisrepresentationofany submitteddatamayinvalidateanapprovalbytheCommunityDevelopmentDepartment. 44.INDEMNIFICATION Totheextentpermittedbylaw,theApplicantshallindemnifyandholdharmlesstheCity,itsCity Council,itsofficers,employeesandagents(the ¯´ª«³´¯¬¯«ª¶§¸º¯«¹!fromandagainstanyclaim, action,orproceedingbroughtbyathirdpartyagainsttheindemnifiedpartiesandtheapplicantto attack,setaside,orvoidthisordinanceoranypermitorapprovalauthorizedherebyfortheproject, including(withoutlimitation)reimbursingtheCityitsactual§ººµ¸´«¿¹feesandcostsincurredin defenseofthelitigation.TheCitymay,initssolediscretion,electtodefendanysuchactionwith attorneysofitschoice. 45.NOTICEOFFEES,DEDICATIONS,RESERVATIONSOROTHEREXACTIONS TheConditionsofProjectApprovalsetforthhereinmayincludecertainfees,dedication requirements,reservationrequirements,andotherexactions.PursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection 66020(d)(1),theseConditionsconstitutewrittennoticeofastatementoftheamountofsuchfees,and 198 DraftResolutionDP201205February19,2013 adescriptionofthededications,reservations,andotherexactions.Youareherebyfurthernotified thatthe90dayapprovalperiodinwhichyoumayprotestthesefees,dedications,reservations,and otherexactions,pursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection66020(a),hasbegun.Ifyoufailtofilea protestwithinthis90dayperiodcomplyingwithalloftherequirementsofSection66020,youwill belegallybarredfromlaterchallengingsuchexactions. !»¯²ª¯´#¯¼¯¹¯µ´ 46.INFORMATIONTOPROVIDEONCONSTRUCTIONPERMITPLANS TheapplicantshallsubmitconstructiondrawingstotheCityforreview,including,butnotlimitedto thefollowinginformationontheconstructionpermitplans: a.Checkaccessibleparkingstalldimensionstocoderequirements. b.Reviewplacementrequirementsfortruncateddomesatcurbcutsandatramps. c.Accessiblepathoftravelshallmaintain2%orlesscrossslopeatallwalkingsurfaces. d.Providetypeofconstruction,sprinklers,unprotectedopening,anddistancetopropertyline information. SECTIONIV:CONDITIONSADMINISTEREDBYTHEPUBLICWORKSDEPARTMENT 1.STREETIMPROVEMENTS Curbsandgutters,sidewalksandrelatedstructuresshallbeinstalledinaccordancewithgradesand standardsasspecifiedbytheCityEngineer.Improvementsmayincluderealigningtheexistingcurb andgutteralongSaichWaytoincorporateangledparking,andinstallingnewsigningandstriping asnecessarytoaccommodateangledparkingorcurbrelocations.Pavementrehabilitationshallbe performedasdirectedbytheCityEngineer. 2.BUSSTOPLOCATION DevelopershallimprovebusstopsalongtheSaichWayandtheStevensCreekBoulevardfrontageto thesatisfactionoftheCityEngineer.Improvementsmayincludeduckouts,relocationofexisting busstops,andbusshelters. 3.STREETWIDENING PublicstreetwideninganddedicationsshallbeprovidedinaccordancewithCityStandardsand specificationsandasrequiredbytheCityEngineer. 4.PEDESTRIANANDBICYCLEIMPROVEMENTS DevelopershallprovidepedestrianandbicyclerelatedimprovementsconsistentwiththeCupertino BicycleTransportationPlanandthePedestrianTransportationGuidelines,andasapprovedbythe CityEngineer. 5.STREETLIGHTINGINSTALLATION StreetlightingshallbeinstalledandshallbeasapprovedbytheCityEngineer.Lightingfixtures shallbepositionedsoastoprecludeglareandotherformsofvisualinterferencetoadjoining properties,andshallbenohigherthanthemaximumheightpermittedbythezoneinwhichthesite islocated. 6.GRADING 199 DraftResolutionDP201205February19,2013 GradingshallbeasapprovedandrequiredbytheCityEngineerinaccordancewithChapter16.08of theCupertinoMunicipalCode.401Certificationsand404permitsmayberequired.Pleasecontact ArmyCorpofEngineersand/orRegionalWaterQualityControlBoardasappropriate. 7.DRAINAGE DrainageshallbeprovidedtothesatisfactionoftheCityEngineer.Hydrologyandpreandpost developmenthydrauliccalculationsmustbeprovidedtoindicatewhetheradditionalstormwater controlmeasuresaretobeconstructedorrenovated.Thestormdrainsystemmayinclude,butisnot limitedto,subsurfacestorageofpeakstormwaterflows(asneeded),bioretentionbasins,vegetated swales,andhydrodynamicseparatorstoreducetheamountofrunofffromthesiteandimprove waterquality.Thestormdrainsystemshallbedesignedtodetainwateronsite(e.g.,viaburied pipes,retentionsystemsorotherapprovedsystemsandimprovements)asnecessarytoavoidan increaseoftheonepercentfloodwatersurfaceelevationtothesatisfactionoftheCityEngineer.Any stormwateroverflowsorsurfacesheetingshouldbedirectedawayfromneighboringprivate propertiesandtothepublicrightofwayasmuchasreasonablypossible. 8.UNDERGROUNDUTILITIES DevelopershallcomplywiththerequirementsoftheUndergroundUtilitiesOrdinanceNo.331and otherrelatedOrdinancesandregulationsoftheCityofCupertino,andshallcoordinatewithaffected utilityprovidersforinstallationofundergroundutilitydevices.Developershallsubmitdetailed plansshowingutilityundergroundprovisions.Saidplansshallbesubjecttopriorapprovalofthe affectedUtilityproviderandtheCityEngineer. 9.BICYCLEPARKING Developershallprovidebicycleparkingconsistentwiththe"¯º¿¹requirementstothesatisfactionof theCityEngineer. 10.IMPROVEMENTAGREEMENT TheprojectdevelopershallenterintoadevelopmentagreementwiththeCityofCupertino providingforpaymentoffees,includingbutnotlimitedtocheckingandinspectionfees,stormdrain fees,parkdedicationfeesandfeesforundergroundingofutilities.Saidagreementshallbeexecuted priortoissuanceofconstructionpermits Fees: a.Checking&InspectionFees:$Percurrentfeeschedule($4,183.00or6%) b.GradingPermit:$Percurrentfeeschedule($2,435.00or6%) c.DevelopmentMaintenanceDeposit:$1,000.00 d.StormDrainageFee:$TBD e.PowerCost:** f.MapCheckingFees:$Percurrentfeeschedule(N/A) g.ParkFees:$Percurrentfeeschedule(N/A) h.StreetTreeByDeveloper **BasedonthelatesteffectivePG&EratescheduleapprovedbythePUC Bonds: FaithfulPerformanceBond:100%ofOffsiteandOnsiteImprovements 200 DraftResolutionDP201205February19,2013 Labor&MaterialBond:100%ofOffsiteandOnsiteImprovement OnsiteGradingBond:100%ofsiteimprovements. ThefeesdescribedaboveareimposedbaseduponthecurrentfeescheduleadoptedbytheCity Council.However,thefeesimposedhereinmaybemodifiedatthetimeofrecordationofafinalmap orissuanceofabuildingpermitintheeventofsaidchangeorchanges,thefeeschangedatthattime willreflectthethencurrentfeeschedule. 11.TRANSFORMERS Electricaltransformers,telephonecabinetsandsimilarequipmentshallbeplacedinunderground vaults.ThedevelopermustreceivewrittenapprovalfromboththePublicWorksDepartmentand theCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentpriortoinstallationofanyabovegroundequipment. ShouldabovegroundequipmentbepermittedbytheCity,equipmentandenclosuresshallbe screenedwithfencingandlandscapingsuchthatsaidequipmentisnotvisiblefrompublicstreet areas,asdeterminedbytheCommunityDevelopmentDepartment.Transformersshallnotbe locatedinthefrontorsidebuildingsetbackarea. 12.WATERBACKFLOWPREVENTERS DomesticandFireWaterBackflowpreventersandsimilarabovegroundequipmentshallbeplaced awayfromthepublicrightofwayandsitedrivewaystoalocationapprovedbytheCupertino PlanningDepartment,SantaClaraCountyFireDepartmentandthewatercompany. 13.BESTMANAGEMENTPRACTICES UtilizeBestManagementPractices(BMPs),asrequiredbytheStateWaterResourcesControlBoard, forconstructionactivity,whichdisturbssoil.BMPplansshallbeincludedingradingandstreet improvementplans. 14.NPDESCONSTRUCTIONGENERALPERMIT WhenandwhereitisrequiredbytheStateWaterResourcesControlBoard(SWRCB),thedeveloper mustobtainaNoticeofIntent(NOI)fromtheSWRCB,whichencompassespreparationofaStorm WaterPollutionPreventionPlan(SWPPP),useofconstructionBestManagementPractices(BMPs)to controlstormwaterrunoffquality,andBMPinspectionandmaintenance. 15.C.3REQUIREMENTS C.3regulatedimprovementsarerequiredforallprojectscreatingand/orreplacing10,000S.F.or moreofimpervioussurface(collectivelyovertheentireprojectsite).Thedevelopershallreservea minimumof4%ofdevelopablesurfaceareafortheplacementoflowimpactdevelopmentmeasures, forstormwatertreatment,onthetentativemap,unlessanalternativestormwatertreatmentplan, thatsatisfiesC.3requirements,isapprovedbytheCityEngineer. Thedevelopermustincludetheuseandmaintenanceofsitedesign,sourcecontrolandstormwater treatmentBestManagementPractices(BMPs),whichmustbedesignedperapprovednumericsizing criteria.AStormWaterManagementPlan,StormWaterFacilitiesEasementAgreement,Storm WaterFacilitiesOperationandMaintenanceAgreement,andcertificationofongoingoperationand maintenanceoftreatmentBMPsareeachrequired. AllstormwatermanagementplansarerequiredtoobtaincertificationfromaCityapprovedthird partyreviewer. 201 DraftResolutionDP201205February19,2013 16.EROSIONCONTROLPLAN DevelopershallmustprovideanapprovederosioncontrolplanbyaRegisteredCivilEngineer.This planshouldincludeallerosioncontrolmeasuresusedtoretainmaterialsonsite.Erosioncontrol notesshallbestatedontheplans. 17.WORKSCHEDULE Every6months,thedevelopershallsubmitaworkscheduletotheCitytoshowthetimetableforall grading/erosioncontrolworkinconjunctionwiththisproject. 18.OPERATIONS&MAINTENANCEAGREEMENT DevelopershallenterintoanOperations&MaintenanceAgreementwiththeCitypriortofinal occupancy.TheAgreementshallincludetheoperationandmaintenancefornonstandard appurtenancesinthepublicroadrightofwaythatmayinclude,butisnotlimitedto,sidewalk, pavers,andstreetlights. 19.TRAFFICCONTROLPLAN ThedevelopermustsubmitatrafficcontrolplanbyaRegisteredTrafficEngineertobeapprovedby theCity.Theplanshallincludeatemporarytrafficcontrolplanforworkintherightofwayaswell asaroutingplanforallvehiclesusedduringconstruction.Alltrafficcontrolsignsmustbereviewed andapprovedbytheCitypriortocommencementofwork.TheCityhasadoptedManualon UniformTrafficControlDevices(MUTCD)standardsforallsignageandstripingworkthroughout theCity. 20.TRAFFICSIGNS TrafficcontrolsignsshallbeplacedatlocationsspecifiedbytheCity. 21.FULLTRASHCAPTURESYSTEM Thedeveloperwillberesponsibleforinstallingafulltrashcapturesystem/devicetocapturetrash fromtheonsitestormdrainbeforethestormwaterreachestheCityownedstormdrainsystem.A fullcapturesystemordeviceisasingledeviceorseriesofdevicesthattrapsallparticlesretainedby a5mmmeshscreenandhasadesigntreatmentcapacityofnotlessthanthepeakflowrateQ resultingfromaoneyear,onehourstorminthesubdrainagearea(seetheMunicipalRegional PermitsectionC.10forfurtherinformation/requirements). 22.TRASHENCLOSURES ThetrashenclosureplanmustbedesignedtothesatisfactionoftheEnvironmentalPrograms Manager.ClearancebythePublicWorksDepartmentisneededpriortoobtainingabuildingpermit. 23.REFUSETRUCKACCESS DevelopermustobtainclearancefromtheEnvironmentalProgramsManagerinregardstorefuse truckaccessfortheproposeddevelopment. 24.STREETTREES StreettreesshallbeplantedwithinthePublicRightofWaytothesatisfactionoftheCityEngineer andshallbeofatypeapprovedbytheCityinaccordancewithOrdinanceNo.125. 25.FIREPROTECTION 202 DraftResolutionDP201205February19,2013 FiresprinklersshallbeinstalledinanynewconstructiontotheapprovaloftheCity. 26.SANTACLARACOUNTYFIREDEPARTMENT AletterofclearancefortheprojectshallbeobtainedfromtheSantaClaraCountyFireDepartment priortoissuanceofbuildingpermits.Clearanceshouldincludewrittenapprovalofthelocationof anyproposedFireBackflowPreventers,FireDepartmentConnectionsandFireHydrants(typically BackflowPreventersshouldbelocatedonprivatepropertyadjacenttothepublicrightofway,and firedepartmentconnectionsmustbelocatedwithintssofaFireHydrant). 27.FIREHYDRANT FirehydrantsshallbelocatedasrequiredbytheCityandSantaClaraCountyFireDepartmentas needed. 28.CALIFORNIAWATERSERVICECOMPANYCLEARANCE ProvideCaliforniaWaterServiceCompanyapprovalforwaterconnection,servicecapabilityand locationandlayoutofwaterlinesandbackflowpreventersbeforeissuanceofabuildingpermit approval. 29.DEDICATIONOFWATERLINES Developershalldedicate,asdeemednecessary,allwaterlinesandappurtenancesinstalledtowater companystandardsrequirements,andshallreachanagreementwithCaliforniaWaterServices Companyforwaterservicetothesubjectdevelopment. 30.DEDICATIONOFUNDERGROUNDWATERRIGHTS Developershall ·»¯º©²§¯³!totheCityallrightstopump,takeorotherwiseextractwaterfromthe undergroundbasinoranyundergroundstrataintheSantaClaraValley. 31.SANITARYDISTRICT AletterofclearancefortheprojectshallbeobtainedfromtheCupertinoSanitaryDistrictpriorto issuanceofbuildingpermits. 32.UTILITYEASEMENTS Clearanceapprovalsfromtheagencieswitheasementsontheproperty(includingPG&E,PacBell, andCaliforniaWaterCompany,and/orequivalentagencies)willberequiredpriortoissuanceof buildingpermits. 33.PEDESTRIANCROSSWALKS ThedevelopershallenhancepedestriancrosswalksatStevensCreekBoulevardandSaichWay,as wellasatAlvesDriveandSaichWay.Enhancementsmayincludenewstriping,replacementof existingstriping,ornewsignage.Finalcrosswalkimprovementplansshallbereviewedand approvedbytheCityEngineer. SECTIONV:CONDITIONSADMINISTEREDBYTHESANTACLARACOUNTYFIREDEPARTMENT 1.FIREAPPARATUS(ENGINE)ACCESSROADSREQUIRED Provideaccessroadwayswithapavedallweathersurface,aminimumunobstructedwidthof16 feet,verticalclearanceof13feet6inches,minimumcirculatingturningradiusof36feetoutsideand 203 DraftResolutionDP201205February19,2013 23feetinside,andamaximumslopeof15%.ForinstallationguidelinesrefertoFireDepartment StandardDetailsandSpecificationssheetA1. 2.FIRESPRINKLERSREQUIRED Approvedautomaticsprinklersystemsinnewandexistingbuioldingsandstructuresshallbe providedinthelocationsdescribedinthissectionorinsections903.2.1through903.2.18whicheveris themorerestrictive.Forthepurposesofthissection,firewallsusedtoseparatebuildingareasshall beconstructedinaccordancewiththeCaliforniaBuildingCodeandshallbewithoutopeningsor penetrations.Anautomaticsprinklersystemshallbeprovidedthroughtallnewbuildingsand structures.$¾©«¶º¯µ´GroupA,B,E,F,I,L,M,SandUoccupancybuildingsandstructuresthatdo notexceed1,000squarefeetofbuildingareaandthatarenotlocatedintheWildlandUrbanInterface FireArea.-.3$Theowner(s),occupant(s),andanycontractor(s)orsubcontractor(s)are responsibleforconsultingwiththewaterpurveyorofrecordinordertodetermineifany modificationorupgradeoftheexistingwaterserviceisrequired.AStateofCalifornialicensed(C16) FireProtectionContractorshallsubmitplans,calculations,acompletedpermitapplicationand appropriatefeestothisdepartmentforreviewandapprovalpriortobeginningtheirwork.Sections 903.2asadoptedinSection1640210oftheCMC. 3.WATERSUPPLYREQUIREMENTS Potablewatersuppliesshallbeprotectedfromcontaminationcausedbyfireprotectionwater supplies.Itistheresponsibilityoftheapplicantandanycontractorsandsubcontractorstocontactthe waterpurveyorsupplyingthesiteofsuchproject,andtocomplywiththerequirementsofthat purveyor.Suchrequirementsshallbeincorporatedintothedesignofanywaterbasedfireprotection system,and/orfiresuppressionwatersupplysystemsorstoragecontainersthatmaybephysically connectedinanymannertoanappliancecapableofcausingcontaminationofthepotablewater supplyofthepurveyorofrecord.Finalapprovalofthesystem(s)underconsiderationwillnotbe grantedbythisofficeuntilcompliancewiththerequirementsofthewaterpurveyorofrecordare documentedbythatpurveyorashavingbeenmetbytheapplicant(s).2010CFCSec.903.3.5and HealthandSafetyCode13114.7. 4.PREMISESIDENTIFICATION Approvednumbersoraddressesshallbeplacedonallnewandexistingbuildingsinsuchaposition astobeplainlyvisibleandlegiblefromthestreetorroadfrontingtheproperty.Numbersshall contrastwiththeirbackground.CFCSec.505. 5.CONSTRUCTIONSITEFIRESAFETY AllconstructionsitesmustcomplywithapplicableprovisionsoftheCFCChapter14andCounty FireStandardDetailandSpecificationSI7. 6.CONSTRUCTIONPLANNOTES Topreventplanreviewandinspectiondelays,theabovenotedDevelopmentReviewConditions shallbeaddressedas ´µº«¹!onallpendingandfutureplansubmittalsandanyreferenceddiagrams tobereproducedontothefutureplansubmittal. SECTIONVI:CONDITIONSADMINISTEREDBYTHECUPERTINOSANITARYDISTRICT 1.SANITARYSEWERAVAILABILITY 204 DraftResolutionDP201205February19,2013 Sanitarysewerserviceisbeingprovidedtothesubjectparcelsthroughasewermainlocatedwithin aneasementlocatedintherearofparcels32632041and32632042.TheDistrictdoesnotallowfor sharedeasementsorconstructionofanystructuresandinstallationoflightpoleswithinthesanitary sewereasement. 2.IMPROVEMENTPLANS ImprovementplansforthesubjectprojectshallbereviewedbytheDistrict.Theexistingand proposedsanitarysewereasementsshouldbedelineatedandnotedontheimprovementplans.The applicantshallcontacttheSanitaryDistrictpriortoproceedingwithconstructionplans. 3.FEESANDPERMITS CupertinoSanitaryDistrictFeesandPermitsshallberequiredforthesubjectapplicationbasedon theproposedareaandusemodifications. PASSEDANDADOPTEDthis19thdayofFebruary,2013,attheRegularMeetingoftheCityCouncilof theCityofCupertino,StateofCalifornia,bythefollowingrollcallvote: AYES:CITYCOUNCILMEMBERS: NOES:CITYCOUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN:CITYCOUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT:CITYCOUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST:APPROVED: GraceSchmidtOrrinMahoney,Mayor CityClerkCityofCupertino &D/²§´´¯´D/#1$/.13D""1«¹DustuD#/ustusx""¸«¹ ªµ© 205 ASA201213 CITYOFCUPERTINO 10300TorreAvenue Cupertino,California95014 DRAFTRESOLUTION OFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCUPERTINODENYINGANAPPEALANDUPHOLDING THEPLANNING".,,(22(.-2JANUARY8,2013APPROVALOFANARCHITECTURALAND SITEAPPROVALPERMITTOALLOWTHEDEMOLITIONOF11,610SQUAREFEETOFEXISTING COMMERCIALSPACEANDTHECONSTRUCTIONOF15,844SQUAREFEETOFNEW COMMERCIALSPACECONSISTINGOFTWONEWCOMMERCIALBUILDINGPADSAND ASSOCIATEDSITEIMPROVEMENTS,LOCATEDAT20803STEVENSCREEKBOULEVARDAND 1003310095SAICHWAY SECTIONI:PROJECTDESCRIPTION ApplicationNo.:ASA201213 Applicant:TomPurtell(BorelliInvestmentCo.) PropertyOwner:DianaTaylor Appellants:DarrelLumandDennisWhittaker Location:20803StevensCreekBoulevardand1003310095SaichWay(APNs32632041and 32632042,respectively) SECTIONII:FINDINGSFORDEVELOPMENTPERMIT: WHEREAS,theCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinohasreceivedanappealofthePlanning "µ³³¯¹¹¯µ´¹January8,2013approvalofanArchitecturalandSiteApprovalasdescribedinSectionI. ofthisResolution;and WHEREAS,theEnvironmentalReviewCommitteehasrecommendedadoptionofaMitigatedNegative Declaration;and WHEREAS,thenecessarypublicnoticeshavebeengivenasrequiredbytheProceduralOrdinanceofthe CityofCupertino,andthePlanningCommissionandCityCouncilhaveheldatleastonepublichearing inregardtotheapplication;and WHEREAS,theapplicanthasmettheburdenofproofrequiredtosupportsaidapplication;and WHEREAS,theCityCouncilfindsasfollowswithregardtothisapplication: 1.Theproposal,attheproposedlocation,willnotbedetrimentalorinjurioustopropertyor improvementsinthevicinity,andwillnotbedetrimentaltothepublichealth,safety,general welfare,orconvenience; GiventhattheprojectisconsistentwiththeGeneralPlan,ZoningOrdinance,andHeartoftheCitySpecific Plan;hasbeendesignedtobecompatiblewithandrespectfulofadjoininglanduses;andthattheCityTraffic Engineerandtransportationconsultanthaveconfirmedthattheprojectisnotanticipatedtocreateadverse circulation,queuing,orsafetyimpacts,theprojectwillnotbedetrimentalorinjurioustopropertyor 206 DraftResolutionASA201213February19,2013 improvementsinthevicinity,andwillnotbedetrimentaltothepublichealth,safety,generalwelfare,or convenience. 2.TheproposalisconsistentwiththepurposesofChapter19.168,ArchitecturalandSiteReview,ofthe CupertinoMunicipalCode,theGeneralPlan,anyspecificplan,zoningordinances,applicable planneddevelopmentpermit,conditionalusepermits,variances,subdivisionmapsorother entitlementstousewhichregulatethesubjectpropertyincluding,butnotlimitedto,adherenceto thefollowingspecificcriteria: a)Abruptchangesinbuildingscalehavebeenavoided.Agradualtransitionrelatedtoheightand bulkhasbeenachievedbetweennewandexistingbuildings. Theprojectiscompatiblewiththescaleofthesurroundingcommercialbuildingsandstreetscapeinterms ofheight,bulk,andform.ThebuildingdesignandheightareconsistentwiththeHeartoftheCitySpecific Plan. b)Designharmonybetweennewandexistingbuildingshavebeenpreservedandthematerials, texturesandcolorsofnewbuildingsharmonizewithadjacentdevelopmentwithdesignand colorschemes,andwiththefuturecharacteroftheneighborhoodandpurposesofthezonein whichitissituated.Thelocation,heightandmaterialsofwalls,fencing,hedgesandscreen plantingharmonizewithadjacentdevelopment.Unsightlystorageareas,utilityinstallationsand unsightlyelementsofparkinglotshavebeenconcealed.Groundcoverorvarioustypesof pavementshavebeenusedtopreventdustanderosion,andtheunnecessarydestructionof existinghealthytreeshavebeenavoided.Lightingfordevelopmentisadequatetomeetsafety requirementsasspecifiedbytheengineeringandbuildingdepartments,andshieldingto adjoiningpropertyowners. TheprojectisharmoniouswiththeexistingbuildingsandstreetscapeintheCrossroadsdistrictoftheHeart oftheCitySpecificPlan.ThedesignisalsoconsistentwiththedesignguidelinescontainedintheHeartof theCitySpecificPlan.The¶¸µ°«©º¹retainingwallsarelocatedalongthewestrearperimeteroftheproject site,willbeminimalinheight,willbescreenedbylandscaping,andwillbeminimallyvisiblefrompublic view.Allabovegroundutilityinstallationsarerequiredtobescreenedfrompublicview.Thedesignhas incorporateddecorativepavingmaterialandlandscaping,aswellaslightingtoilluminatepedestrianpaths andvehicularroutes,whichwillnotglareontoadjoiningproperties.The"¯º¿¹consultingarboristhas confirmedthattheexistingtreesonsitearenotsuitableforpreservationorrelocation.Theprojectisrequired toincorporatepreservationmeasuresforthetreesonneighboringproperties. c)Thenumber,location,color,size,height,lightingandlandscapingofoutdooradvertisingsigns andstructureshavebeendesignedtominimizetraffichazard,positivelyaffectthegeneral appearanceoftheneighborhoodandharmonizewithadjacentdevelopment. Theprojectisrequiredtosubmitamastersignprogramforthedevelopmentinordertoensurethatexterior signageisdesignedandlocatedtominimizetraffichazards,positivelyaffectthegeneralappearanceofthe neighborhoodandharmonizewithadjacentdevelopment. d)Thisnewdevelopment,notabuttinganexistingresidentialdevelopment,hasbeendesignedto protectresidentsfromnoise,traffic,lightandvisuallyintrusiveeffectsbyuseofbuffering, setbacks,landscaping,wallsandotherappropriatedesignmeasures. 207 DraftResolutionASA201213February19,2013 Theprojectisnotlocatedwithinanexistingresidentialneighborhood,nordoesitabutaresidentialproperty. Theprojecthasbeendesignedtomitigateanypotentiallyintrusiveeffectstothesurroundingcommercial area. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED: Thataftercarefulconsiderationoftheinitialstudy,maps,facts,exhibits,testimonyandotherevidence submittedinthismatter,subjecttotheconditionswhichareenumeratedinthisResolutionbeginningon PAGE2thereof,: AMitigatedNegativeDeclaration(Applicationno.EA201209)isherebyadopted;andtheappealofthe applicationforanArchitecturalandSiteApproval,Applicationno.ASA201213isherebydenied,andthe Planning"µ³³¯¹¹¯µ´¹January8,2013approvalisherebyupheld,andthatthesubconclusionsupon whichthefindingsandconditionsspecifiedinthisresolutionarebasedandcontainedinthePublic HearingrecordconcerningApplicationno.ASA201213assetforthintheMinutesofPlanning CommissionMeetingofJanuary8,2013andCityCouncilMeetingofFebruary19,2013,andare incorporatedbyreferenceasthoughfullysetforthherein. SECTIONIII:CONDITIONSADMINISTEREDBYTHECOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTDEPT. 1.APPROVEDEXHIBITS ApprovalisbasedontheplansetdatedDecember14,2012consistingof27sheetslabeledT1,A0,A1, A2,Building1ExteriorElevations,A3,Building2ExteriorElevations,A4,D1,D2,D3,D4,D5,M1,L 1,L2,C1,C2,C3,C3.1,C3.2,C4,C5,C6,C7,C8,andPhotometricPlan,entitled, 2§¯©®Way, 20803StevensCreekBlvd.,Cupertino,California,BorelliInvestment"µ !drawnbyFCGA Architecture,Borrecco/Kilian&Associates,Inc.,andHMH;andtherevisedsiteplandatedJanuary 23,2013consistingofonesheetlabeledsheetD5drawnbyFCGAArchitecture,whichshall supersedesheetD5datedDecember14,2012,exceptasmaybeamendedbyconditionsinthis resolution. 2.ACCURACYOFPROJECTPLANS Theapplicant/propertyownerisresponsibletoverifyallpertinentpropertydataincludingbutnot limitedtopropertyboundarylocations,buildingsetbacks,propertysize,buildingsquarefootage, anyrelevanteasementsand/orconstructionrecords.Anymisrepresentationofanypropertydata mayinvalidatethisapprovalandmayrequireadditionalreview. 3.CONCURRENTAPPROVALCONDITIONS Theconditionsofapprovalcontainedinfilenos.DP201205andTR201241shallbeapplicableto thisapproval. 4.FINALBUILDINGDESIGN Thefinalbuildingdesignandexteriortreatmentplansshallbereviewedandapprovedbythe DirectorofCommunityDevelopmentpriortoissuanceofbuildingpermits.TheDirectorof CommunityDevelopmentmayapproveadditionaldesignsormakeminorvariationsasdeemed appropriate.Thefinalbuildingexteriorplanshallcloselyresemblethedetailsshownontheoriginal approvedplans.AnyexteriorchangesdeterminedtobesubstantialbytheDirectorofCommunity Developmentshallrequireamodificationapproval. 208 DraftResolutionASA201213February19,2013 5.FRONTAGEDETAILS Thefinalstreetfrontagedetails,including,butnotlimitedtosidewalkpavingmaterialandwidths, treegrates,streetfurniture,landscapingandtreeselectionshallbesubjecttoreviewandapprovalby theDirectorofCommunityDevelopmentpriortobuildingpermitissuance.Frontagedetailsshall matchorcloselyresembleexistingmaterialsinthe "¸µ¹¹¸µ§ª¹!planningarea. 6.FINALLANDSCAPINGPLAN ThefinallandscapingplanshallbereviewedandapprovedbytheDirectorofCommunity Developmentpriortoissuanceofbuildingpermits.Theapplicantshallworkwithstaffonthe following: a.Speciesandsizeselection b.Buffersattydeepparkingstalls c.Screeningofutilitystructures d.Designofonstreetlandscapingcurbplanters,ifnecessary e.ProvidingawiderhardscapeareatothesouthofRestaurant5foroutdoorseating 7.INDEMNIFICATION Totheextentpermittedbylaw,theApplicantshallindemnifyandholdharmlesstheCity,itsCity Council,itsofficers,employeesandagents(the ¯´ª«³´¯¬¯«ª¶§¸º¯«¹!fromandagainstanyclaim, action,orproceedingbroughtbyathirdpartyagainsttheindemnifiedpartiesandtheapplicantto attack,setaside,orvoidthisordinanceoranypermitorapprovalauthorizedherebyfortheproject, including(withoutlimitation)reimbursingtheCityitsactual§ººµ¸´«¿¹feesandcostsincurredin defenseofthelitigation.TheCitymay,initssolediscretion,electtodefendanysuchactionwith attorneysofitschoice. 8.NOTICEOFFEES,DEDICATIONS,RESERVATIONSOROTHEREXACTIONS TheConditionsofProjectApprovalsetforthhereinmayincludecertainfees,dedication requirements,reservationrequirements,andotherexactions.PursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection 66020(d)(1),theseConditionsconstitutewrittennoticeofastatementoftheamountofsuchfees,and adescriptionofthededications,reservations,andotherexactions.Youareherebyfurthernotified thatthe90dayapprovalperiodinwhichyoumayprotestthesefees,dedications,reservations,and otherexactions,pursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection66020(a),hasbegun.Ifyoufailtofilea protestwithinthis90dayperiodcomplyingwithalloftherequirementsofSection66020,youwill belegallybarredfromlaterchallengingsuchexactions. PASSEDANDADOPTEDthis19thdayofFebruary,2013,RegularMeetingoftheCityCouncilofthe CityofCupertino,StateofCalifornia,bythefollowingrollcallvote: AYES:CITYCOUNCILMEMBERS: NOES:CITYCOUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN:CITYCOUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT:CITYCOUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST:APPROVED: 209 DraftResolutionASA201213February19,2013 GraceSchmidtOrrinMahoney,Mayor CityClerkCityofCupertino G:\Planning\PDREPORT\CCRes\2012\ASA201213CCres.doc 210 TR201241 CITYOFCUPERTINO 10300TorreAvenue Cupertino,California95014 DRAFTRESOLUTION OFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCUPERTINODENYINGANAPPEALANDUPHOLDING THEPLANNING".,,(22(.-2JANUARY8,2013APPROVALOFATREEREMOVALPERMITTO ALLOWTHEREMOVALANDREPLACEMENTOF13TREESINCONJUNCTIONWITHA PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENTPROJECTLOCATEDAT20803STEVENSCREEKBLVDAND10033 10095SAICHWAY SECTIONI:PROJECTDESCRIPTION ApplicationNo.:TR201241 Applicant:TomPurtell(BorelliInvestmentCo.) PropertyOwner:DianaTaylor Appellants:DarrelLumandDennisWhittaker Location:20803StevensCreekBoulevardand1003310095SaichWay(APNs32632041and 32632042,respectively) SECTIONII:FINDINGSFORDEVELOPMENTPERMIT: WHEREAS,theCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinoreceivedanappealofthePlanning"µ³³¯¹¹¯µ´¹ January8,2013approvalofaTreeRemovalPermitasdescribedinSectionI.ofthisResolution;and WHEREAS,theEnvironmentalReviewCommitteehasrecommendedadoptionofaMitigatedNegative Declaration;and WHEREAS,thenecessarypublicnoticeshavebeengivenasrequiredbytheProceduralOrdinanceofthe CityofCupertino,andthePlanningCommissionandCityCouncilhasheldatleastonepublichearingin regardtotheapplication;and WHEREAS,theapplicanthasmettheburdenofproofrequiredtosupportsaidapplication;and WHEREAS,theCityCouncilfindsasfollowswithregardtothisapplication: a)Thatthetreesareirreversiblydiseased,areindangeroffalling,cancausepotentialdamageto existingorproposedessentialstructures,orinterfereswithprivateonsiteutilityservicesandcannot becontrolledorremediedthroughreasonablerelocationormodificationofthestructureorutility services; 3®«"¯º¿¹©µ´¹»²º¯´§¸¨µ¸¯¹º®§¹ª«º«¸³¯´«ªº®§ºº®«º¸««¹¶¸µ¶µ¹«ª¬µ¸¸«³µ¼§²§¸«§²²¯´©µ´¬²¯©º½¯º®º®« ¶¸µ¶µ¹«ª´«½¨»¯²ª¯´¹§´ª¹¯º«¯³¶¸µ¼«³«´º¹ §´ª ¯¼«´º®«¯¸©µ´ª¯º¯µ´ §¸«´µº¹»¯º§¨²«¬µ¸¶¸«¹«¸¼§º¯µ´µ¸ ¸«²µ©§º¯µ´ b)Thatthelocationofthetreesrestrictstheeconomicenjoymentofthepropertybyseverelylimiting theuseofpropertyinamannernottypicallyexperiencedbyownersofsimilarlyzonedandsituated 211 DraftResolutionTR201241February19,2013 property,andtheapplicanthasdemonstratedtothesatisfactionoftheapprovalauthoritythatthere arenoreasonablealternativestopreservethetree(s). 3®«"¯º¿¹©µ´¹»²º¯´§¸¨µ¸¯¹º®§¹ª«º«¸³¯´«ªº®§ºº®«º¸««¹¶¸µ¶µ¹«ª¬µ¸¸«³µ¼§²§¸«§²²¯´©µ´¬²¯©º½¯º®º®« ¶¸µ¶µ¹«ª´«½¨»¯²ª¯´¹§´ª¹¯º«¯³¶¸µ¼«³«´º¹ §´ª ¯¼«´º®«¯¸©µ´ª¯º¯µ´ §¸«´µº¹»¯º§¨²«¬µ¸¶¸«¹«¸¼§º¯µ´µ¸ ¸«²µ©§º¯µ´ NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED: Thataftercarefulconsiderationoftheinitialstudy,maps,facts,exhibits,testimonyandotherevidence submittedinthismatter,subjecttotheconditionswhichareenumeratedinthisResolutionbeginningon PAGE2thereof,: AMitigatedNegativeDeclaration(Applicationno.EA201209)isherebyadopted;andtheappealofan applicationforaTreeRemovalPermit,Applicationno.TR201241isherebydeniedandthePlanning "µ³³¯¹¹¯µ´¹January8,2013approvalisherebyupheld,andthatthesubconclusionsuponwhichthe findingsandconditionsspecifiedinthisresolutionarebasedandcontainedinthePublicHearingrecord concerningApplicationno.TR201241assetforthintheMinutesofPlanningCommissionMeetingof January8,2013andCityCouncilMeetingofFebruary19,2013,andareincorporatedbyreferenceas thoughfullysetforthherein. SECTIONIII:CONDITIONSADMINISTEREDBYTHECOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTDEPT. 1.APPROVEDEXHIBITS ApprovalisbasedontheplansetdatedDecember14,2012consistingof27sheetslabeledT1,A0,A1, A2,Building1ExteriorElevations,A3,Building2ExteriorElevations,A4,D1,D2,D3,D4,D5,M1,L 1,L2,C1,C2,C3,C3.1,C3.2,C4,C5,C6,C7,C8,andPhotometricPlan,entitled, 2§¯©®Way, 20803StevensCreekBlvd.,Cupertino,California,BorelliInvestment"µ !drawnbyFCGA Architecture,Borrecco/Kilian&Associates,Inc.,andHMH;theconsultingarboristpeerreview reportentitled, ReviewoftheExistingTreesattheSaichWayStationProject,StevensCreekand SaichWay,Cupertino,"§²¯¬µ¸´¯§ !preparedbyMichaelBench,RegisteredConsultingArborist# WE1897datedNovember2012;andthearboristreportentitled, !µ¸«²²¯InvestmentCompany, 20803StevensCreekBoulevard/1003310095SaichWay,PreConstructionTreeProtection/²§´ ! preparedbySamuelOakley,CertifiedArborist#WE9474AdatedJune18,2012;exceptasmaybe amendedbyconditionsinthisresolution. 2.CONCURRENTAPPROVALCONDITIONS Theconditionsofapprovalcontainedinfilenos.DP201205andASA201213shallbeapplicableto thisapproval. 3.TREEREPLACEMENTSANDFINALPLANTINGPLAN Theapplicantshallplantreplacementtreesinaccordancewiththereplacementrequirementsofthe ProtectedTreeOrdinance.StreettreesalongStevensCreekBoulevardandSaichWayshallbe consistentwiththeHeartoftheCitySpecificPlan.Thetreesshallbeplantedpriortofinaloccupancy ofsitepermits. ThefinalplantingplanshallbereviewedandapprovedbytheDirectorofCommunityDevelopment withconsultationbytheCityArboristpriortoissuanceofbuildingpermits.TheDirectorof CommunityDevelopmentshallhavethediscretiontorequireadditionaltreereplacementsas 212 DraftResolutionTR201241February19,2013 deemednecessary.TheCityArboristshallconfirmthatthereplacementtreeswereplantedproperly andaccordingtoplanpriortofinaloccupancy. 4.TREEREPLACEMENTBOND TheapplicantshallprovideatreereplacementbondinanamountdeterminedbytheCityArborist priortoremovalsandissuanceofdemolitionandgradingpermits.Thebondshallbereturnedafter therequiredtreereplacementshavebeenplantedandverifiedbytheCityArborist. 5.SCHEDULINGOFTREEREMOVALSTOAVOIDIMPACTSTONESTINGBIRDS Theprojectshallimplementthefollowingmeasurestoavoidimpactstonestingbirds: a)RemovaloftreesontheprojectsitecouldbescheduledbetweenSeptemberandDecember (inclusive)toavoidthenestingseasonforbirdsandnoadditionalsurveyswouldberequired. b)IfremovalofthetreesonsiteisplannedtotakeplacebetweenJanuaryandAugust(inclusive),a preconstructionsurveyfornestingbirdsshallbeconductedbyaqualifiedornithologistto identifyactivenestingraptororotherbirdneststhatmaybedisturbedduringproject implementation.BetweenJanuaryandApril(inclusive)preconstructionsurveysshallbe conductednomorethan14dayspriortotheinitiationofconstructionactivitiesortreerelocation orremoval.BetweenMayandAugust(inclusive),preconstructionsurveysshallbeconductedno morethanthirty(30)dayspriortotheinitiationoftheseactivities.Thesurveyingornithologist shallinspectalltreesinandimmediatelyadjacenttotheconstructionareafornests.Ifanactive raptornestisfoundinorcloseenoughtotheconstructionareatobedisturbedbytheseactivities, theornithologistshall,inconsultationwiththeStateofCalifornia,DepartmentofFish&Game (CDFG),designateaconstructionfreebufferzone(typically250feet)aroundthenestuntilthe endofthenestingactivity.Buffersforotherbirdsshallbedeterminedbytheornithologist. c)Areportsummarizingtheresultsofthepreconstructionsurveyandanydesignatedbufferzones orprotectionmeasuresfortreenestingbirdsshallbesubmittedtotheCommunityDevelopment Directorpriortothestartofgradingortreeremoval. 6.CONSULTATIONWITHOTHERDEPARTMENTS Theapplicantisresponsibletoconsultwithotherdepartmentsand/oragencieswithregardtothe proposedprojectforadditionalconditionsandrequirements.Anymisrepresentationofany submitteddatamayinvalidateanapprovalbytheCommunityDevelopmentDepartment. 7.INDEMNIFICATION Totheextentpermittedbylaw,theApplicantshallindemnifyandholdharmlesstheCity,itsCity Council,itsofficers,employeesandagents(the ¯´ª«³´¯¬¯«ª¶§¸º¯«¹!fromandagainstanyclaim, action,orproceedingbroughtbyathirdpartyagainsttheindemnifiedpartiesandtheapplicantto attack,setaside,orvoidthisordinanceoranypermitorapprovalauthorizedherebyfortheproject, including(withoutlimitation)reimbursingtheCityitsactual§ººµ¸´«¿¹feesandcostsincurredin defenseofthelitigation.TheCitymay,initssolediscretion,electtodefendanysuchactionwith attorneysofitschoice. 8.NOTICEOFFEES,DEDICATIONS,RESERVATIONSOROTHEREXACTIONS TheConditionsofProjectApprovalsetforthhereinmayincludecertainfees,dedication requirements,reservationrequirements,andotherexactions.PursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection 213 DraftResolutionTR201241February19,2013 66020(d)(1),theseConditionsconstitutewrittennoticeofastatementoftheamountofsuchfees,and adescriptionofthededications,reservations,andotherexactions.Youareherebyfurthernotified thatthe90dayapprovalperiodinwhichyoumayprotestthesefees,dedications,reservations,and otherexactions,pursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection66020(a),hasbegun.Ifyoufailtofilea protestwithinthis90dayperiodcomplyingwithalloftherequirementsofSection66020,youwill belegallybarredfromlaterchallengingsuchexactions. PASSEDANDADOPTEDthis19thdayofFebruary,2013,RegularMeetingoftheCityCouncilofthe CityofCupertino,StateofCalifornia,bythefollowingrollcallvote: AYES:CITYCOUNCILMEMBERS: NOES:CITYCOUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN:CITYCOUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT:CITYCOUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST:APPROVED: GraceSchmidtOrrinMahoney,Mayor CityClerkCityofCupertino &D/²§´´¯´D/#1$/.13D""1«¹DustuD31ustuwt""¸«¹ ªµ© 214 DP-2012-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6714 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF 11,610 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING SPACE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF 15,377 SQUARE FEET OF NEW COMMERCIAL SPA CONSISTING OF TWO NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING PADS, 7,000 SQUARE FEE SQUARE FEET RESPECTIVELY, LOCATED AT 20803 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AND 10033- 10095 SAICH WAY SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: DP-2012-05 Applicant: Tom Purtell (Borelli Investment Co.) Property Owner: Diana Taylor Location: 20803 Stevens Creek Boulevard and 10033-10095 Saich Way (APNs 326-32-041 and 326-32-042, respectively) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino receiv Development Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adopof a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as requireProcedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at l the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to a)The proposed development, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrim general welfare, or convenience; b)The proposed development will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of . 215 Resolution No. 6714 DP-2012-05 January 8, 2013 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof,: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2012-09) is hereby adopted; and the application for a Development Permit, Application no. DP-2012-05 is hereby approved and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. DP-2012-05 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of January 8, 2013, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPME Planning Division: 1.APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set dated December 14, 2012 consisting of 27 sheets labeled T1, A0, A1, A2, Building 1 Exterior Elevations, A3, Building 2 Exterior Elevatio A4, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, M1, L-1, L-2, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-3.1, C-3.2, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, and Photometric Plan, entitled, Saich Way, 20803 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, California, Borelli Investment Co. drawn by FCGA Architecture, Borrecco/Kilian & Associates, Inc., and HMH; except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2.ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but no limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, prope any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepreata may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3.CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. ASA-2012-13 and TR-2012-41 shall be applicable to this approval. 4.DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND PROJECT AMENDMENTS Development Permit approval is granted to allow the demolition of 11,610 square feet of existing commercial space and the construction of 15,377 square feet of n two new commercial building pads, 7,000 square feet and 8,377 square feet respectively. Floor area shall be measured from the outside surfaces of exterior walls. Allowed uses include those permitted neral Commercial (CG) Ordinance. A separate conditional use permit shall be required for those commercial uses requiring use permit approval as specified in the CG Ordinance. Development intensity review. The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project c of Community Development. 216 Resolution No. 6714 DP-2012-05 January 8, 2013 5.DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The applicant shall receive an allocation of 3,767 square feet of retail commercial allocation for the Heart of the City General Plan area, based on the construction of 15,377 square feet of new commercial space and demolition of 11,610 square feet of existing commercial space. 6.PARKING APPROVAL AND FUTURE REVIEW The project area total of 80 onsite parking spaces is approved. Future uses will be limited based on the parking supply and trip generate approved uses shown on the development plans (i.e. medical offic, child care, or food uses replacing retail, increases in approved seat or employee counts)ll require City review and 7.PARALLEL PARKING SPACES ON SAICH WAY he construction plans shall be revised to reflect a parallel parking scheme along Saich Way to the satisfaction of the City prior to issuance of building permits. The parallel parking spaces shall be completed prior to final oc 8.BUS STOP/LAYOVER ON SAICH WAY approval of parallel parking spaces on Saich Way. 9.BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall provide bicycle parking and bike racks for t Additional bicycle parking shall be considered around Restaurant 1 10.COVENANT DISCLOSURE The property is under a Cupertino planned development zoning and check with the City to determine the specific restrictions under Development Zone and related permits. 11.MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE OF FOOD USES A maximum of 28% or 4,380 square feet of both buildings combined may be occupied by food uses (including, but not limited to, fast food restaurants, full-service restaurants, and specialty food shops). When both buildings are fully leased, the property owner may request additional food use area with a major modification application through the Planning CommissionIf there is a parking stall , the application shall include a parking study with an onsite parking demand survey . 12.BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING PROGRAM MITIGATION FEES ogram by paying the housing mitigation fees as per the Housing Mitigation Manual 217 Resolution No. 6714 DP-2012-05 January 8, 2013 this project is $20,078.11 based on the 2012-2013 fiscal year rate of $5.33 per square foot of net addition (3,767 square feet). 13.ODOR ABATEMENT SYSTEMS If odor impacts from food use or other odor-generating uses become a nuisance in the future as determined by the Community Development Director (typically if five or more complaints are received within a 12-month period), the property owner shall install odor abatement systems to reduce odor impacts to the adjacent community. Detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 14.LOT MERGERS Prior to final occupancy, the property owner shall obtain necessapprovals with the City and County to merge the two existing onsite parcels (APNs 326-32-041 and 326-32-042) into one parcel. 15.INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT The property owner shall record an appropriate deed restriction and covenant runnin land, subject to approval of the City Attorney, providing for necessary reciprocal ingress and egress easement to and from the affected parcels. The easements shall prior to final occupancy of site permits. 16.SHARED ACCESS DRIVEWAY The proposed shared access driveway between the project site and 20807 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN 326-32-051) shall be fully installed and constructed to the satisfaction of Department prior to the issuance of final occupancy of site permits. 17.TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MEASURES (TDM) The Director of Community Development has the ability to require demand management measures to address any future parking concern transportation demand management measures may include, but are not limited to: a)Transit improvements b)Non-motorized improvements c)Shift peak-shared parking d)Guaranteed ride home e)Car sharing f)Taxi service g)Pricing 18.MAIN BUILDING ENTRANCE The main building entrance for the tenants of Buildings 1 and 2 shall face the public street on which they are located. The entrance doors and storefront are to be kept open and free of any obstructions. No more than 25% of each storefront window bay may be obstructed with signage or other interior items. Boarding, closure, shelves, permanent walls, opaque painting/material of windows, and other storefront obstructions are not permitted. 218 Resolution No. 6714 DP-2012-05 January 8, 2013 19.OUTDOOR DINING ENCLOSURE Outdoor dining areas shall not be enclosed with fencing or other pedestrian walkways, unless it can be demonstrated that an enclosed outdoor seating area wil obstruct the required walkway clearances. 20.SIGNAGE Signage is not approved with this application, including the proposed ground sign shown on the plans along Stevens Creek. Signage shall conform to the City Sign Ordinance (Chapter 19.104 of the Cupertino Municipal Code) and Heart of the City Specific Plan. 21.MASTER SIGN PROGRAM A separate master sign program application for the entire Saich Way Station development is required prior to final occupancy of core and shell permits for the two buildings. The sign program shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Deve 22.SCREENING All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the sitre not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. Scre building features and materials. The height of the screening sh mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Comm issuance of building permits. 23.FINAL CIRCULATION, TRAFFIC SAFETY, AND STRIPING PLAN The final circulation, striping, and traffic safety plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and Community Development prior to building perm randum dated November 16, 2012, including, but not limited to: a.Truck delivery and pick-up times to occur outside of peak parking demand times b.Directional and warning signage c.Landscaping around the conflict area (tee junction of the Stevens Creek Boul with the 20807 Stevens Creek Boulevard parking lot aisle) should be kept to a minimal height as to not obstruct site distance as there may be a higher potential the two sites. d.Stop bar on the Panera site (with written permission by property) 24.TRASH AND DELIVERY ACTIVITIES A detailed refuse and truck delivery plan shall be prepared by tinclude, but not be limited to the following: a.Location and design of trash facilities (i.e. trash enclosures a. Trash enclosures shall provide ample space to include trash, recycling, food wast with a tallow bin. b.Quantity of trash receptacles. At least three sets of trio (garb receptacles shall be provided onsite to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Manager. 219 Resolution No. 6714 DP-2012-05 January 8, 2013 c.Primary and alternative truck routes. An AutoTurn analysis shall be used to determine the number of parking spaces required to maneuver a delivery truck i designated truck delivery zone(s) d.Signage for parking stalls displaced during pick-up and delivery hours e.Trash pick-up schedule (shall not take place during peak business hours) f.Loading areas (with signage/markings restricting parking in thes g.Delivery hours (shall not take place during peak business hours) All trash facilities must be screened and enclosed to the satisf Department. The final plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 25.TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipmen vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public the Community Development Department prior to installation of any abov Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipmen screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment im public street areas, as determined by the Community Development Department. Transformers shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 26.UTILITY STRUCTURE PLAN Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall work with staff to provide a detailed utility plan to demonstrate screening or undergrounding of all new utlity structures [including, but not limited to backflow preventers (BFP), fire department connection-indicator valves (PIV), and gas meters] to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, Public Works, Fire Department, and applicable utility agencies. 27.ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT SCREENING All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the sit visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. The height of th taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is de may be required to demonstrate that the equipment will not be vible from any public right-of-way. The location of the equipment and necessary screening shall be r Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building 28.SITE LIGHTING All new lighting must conform to the standards in the General Commercial (CG) and Parking Ordinances, and the final lighting plan (including a detailed photometric shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to building permit iPrior to final occupancy, a licensed lighting consultant shall confirm that the lighting is The lighting and photometric plan shall be revised to include th building permits: a.Ensure photometric plan accounts for the approved lighting fixtures, wall sconces, and street lights. 220 Resolution No. 6714 DP-2012-05 January 8, 2013 b.Show cut-off shields to prevent light intrusion onto adjoining properties c.Note that all lighting shall be a white type light. d.A minimum of three foot candles shall be maintained vertically above the parking lot surface in order to avoid dark areas in the parking lot 29.GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW Buildings shall be designed and constructed in accordance with a-level geotechnical investigation to be completed for the project by a qualified professional and submitted to the Building Department prior to issuance of grading and building permits. The final design-level geotechnical investigation shall identify the specific design fe project including measures addressing clearing and site preparation, removal, repl compaction of existing fill, abandoned utilities, subgrade prepa backfill, temporary trench excavations, surface drainage, foundand pavements. 30.CITY ARBORIST REVIEW OF EXISTING NEIGHBORING AND NEW SITE TREES the developer to review all construction permit drawings and detning the area with 25 feet of the west side property line and Tree #23 to the northeas accurately assess the impacts to the neighboring trees. The deve additional recommendations and tree protection me also be retained by the developer to inspect the existing neighboring trees identified in the report to confirm their good Corrective measures sh retained to inspect the new tree plantings to ensure that they w to the approved plan. 31.LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a full landscape proje per section 14.15.040 of the Landscaping Ordinance. The Water-Efficient Design Checklist (Appendix A of Chapter 14.15), Landscape and Irrigation Design P Calculations shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of Development prior to issuance of building permits. 32.LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT A landscape installation audit shall be conducted by a certifiednal after the landscaping and irrigation system have been installed. The findi consolidated into a landscape installation report. The landscape installation report shall include, but is not limiat the landscaping and irrigation system are installed as specified in plan, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspra-off that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule. irrigation system have been installed as specified in the landsc complies with the criteria of the ordinance and t 221 Resolution No. 6714 DP-2012-05 January 8, 2013 33.LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE A maintenance schedule shall be established and submitted to the Development or his/her designee, either with the landscape appli installation report, or any time before the landscape installation report is submitte a) Schedules should take into account water requirements for the pl water requirements for established landscapes. b) Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to the following: routine inspection; pressure testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aeratin-thatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; replanting of failed p removing obstructions to emission devices. c) Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally eq- adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall i either be replaced or be revived through appropriate adjustments in water, nutrients, pest control or other factors as recommended by a landscaping profess 34.SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT A soils analysis report shall document the various characteristitration rate, pH, soluble salt content, percent organic matter, etc) and amendments as appropriate to optimize the productivity and water The soil analysis report shall be made available to the professials preparing the landscape and irrigation design plans in a timely manner either before or duri soils analysis report shall be submitted to the Director of Comm landscape documentation package. 35.NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES (Chapter 10.48 of the CMC). In addition, the following mitigatio reduce noise event impacts to nearby receptor areas: a.-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices. All internal combustion e shall be equipped with adequate mufflers and shall be in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poor maintained engines or o b.Locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as possible areas shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from noise sensitive receptors, such as resid uses. Unnecessary idling of machines when not in use shall be pr c.The developer will implement a Construction Management Plan appr Development Director and Director of Public Works to minimize impacts on the surrounding sensitive land uses to the fullest extent possible. d.Temporary plywood enclosures shall be erected around stationary excessive noise at nearby receptors e.Good maintenance and lubrication procedures shall be used to reduce operating f.All construction equipment shall conform to the following standa produces a noise level more than 87 dBA at a distance of 25 feetny nearby property does not exceed eighty dBA (Cupertino Municipal g.Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intak 222 Resolution No. 6714 DP-2012-05 January 8, 2013 are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. h.Noise from cons existing residences bordering the project site. i.Notify all adjacent businesses, residences, and other noise-sensitive land uses of the construction schedule in writing. 36.PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN Prior to commencement of construction activities, the applicant -construction meeting with the pertinent departments (including, but not limited to, Building, Planning, Public Works, Santa Clara County Fire Department) to review an applicant-prepared construction management plan including, but not limited to: a.Plan for compliance with conditions of approval b.Plan for public access during work in the public right-of-way c.Construction staging area d.Construction schedule and hours e.Construction phasing plan, if any f.Contractor parking area g.Tree preservation/protection plan h.Site dust, noise and storm run-off management plan i.Emergency/complaint and construction site manager contacts 37.CONSTRUCTION HOURS Construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Frida Sunday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Construction activities are not allowe responsible for educating all contractors and subcontractors of said construction restrictions. Rules and regulation pertaining to all construction activities and lim with the name and telephone number of a developer appointed dist be posted in a prominent location at the entrance to the job site. 38.DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to to the Building Official. The applicant shall provide evidence that materials were recycled prior to issuance of final demolition permits. 39.HAZARDOUS MATERIAL MITIGATION DURING DEMOLITION The following requirements shall apply for the demolition phase a.In conformance with federal and State regulations, a formal survey for ACBMs and lead-based paint shall be completed prior to the demolition of buildings on b.All potentially friable ACBMs shall be removed in accordance wit Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb the materials. All demolition activi accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to Bay Area Air Quali (BAAQMD) regulations. 223 Resolution No. 6714 DP-2012-05 January 8, 2013 c.During demolition activities, all building materials containing -based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title Regulations 1532.1, including employee training, employee air mo debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings will be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. 40.DUST CONTROL The following construction practices shall be implemented during proposed project to prevent visible dust emissions from leaving the site: a.All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil p access roads) shall be watered or treated with non-toxic stabilizers or dust palliatives two times per day and more often during windy periods to prevent dust from leaving the site. b.All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material-site shall be covered to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. c.All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry pow d.All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e.All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be compble. f.Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading un used. g.Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and perso regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. regulations. h.Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne t measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations i.Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all j.All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with evaluator. k.Construction equipment shall not be staged within 200 feet of ex l.The appl building permit plan set. 41.CULTURAL RESOURCES DISCOVERIES DURING CONSTRUCTION In the event of the discovery of prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits, work shall be halted within 50 feet of the discovery a archaeologist (or paleontologist, as applicable) shall examine t recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the aropriate mitigation. The recommendation shall be implemented and could include collection any significant cultural materials. In the event that human remains and/or cultural materials are fo-related construction shall cease within a 50-foot radius of the find in order to proceed with the testing and 224 Resolution No. 6714 DP-2012-05 January 8, 2013 measures required. Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and the Public Resources Code of the State of California: a.In the event of the discovery of human remains during constructi excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasona remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determin subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American He attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to owner shall re-inter the human remains and items associated with Native America the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. b.A final report summarizing the discovery of cultural materials s of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. description of the mitigation program that was implemented and its result description of the monitoring and testing program, a list of the the resources analysis methodology and conclusion, and a descripition/curation of the resources. The report shall verify completion of the miti of the Director of Community Development. 42.CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. An submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Devel 43.INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemapplicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or appro defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. 44.NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Govern 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a st and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exYou are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedicat reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code S fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such ex 225 Resolution No. 6714 DP-2012-05 January 8, 2013 Building Division 45.INFORMATION TO PROVIDE ON CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PLANS The applicant shall submit construction drawings to the City for review, including, but not limited to the following information on the construction permit plans: a.Check accessible parking stall dimensions to code requirements. b.Review placement requirements for truncated domes at curb cuts a c.Accessible path of travel shall maintain 2% or less cross slope at d.Provide type of construction, sprinklers, unprotected opening, a information. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1.STREET IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be ins standards as specified by the City Engineer. Improvements may i and gutter along Saich Way to incorporate angled parking, and installing new signing and strip as necessary to accommodate angled parking or curb relocations. performed as directed by the City Engineer. 2.BUS STOP LOCATION Developer shall improve bus stops along the Saich Way and the Stevens Creek Boulevard fron to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Improvements may include duck outs, relocation of existing bus stops, and bus shelters. 3.STREET WIDENING Public street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 4.PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS Developer shall provide pedestrian and bicycle related improveme Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Pedestrian Transportation Guidelines, an City Engineer. 5.STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by t shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjo properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permi is located. 6.GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer i accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Boa 7.DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Hydrology and pre- and post- development hydraulic calculations must be provided to indicate 226 Resolution No. 6714 DP-2012-05 January 8, 2013 control measures are to be constructed or renovated. The storm not limited to, subsurface storage of peak stormwater flows (as vegetated swales, and hydrodynamic separators to reduce the amou improve water quality. The storm drain system shall be designed detain water on-site (e.g., via buried pipes, retention systems or other approved systems and im an increase of the one percent flood water surface elevation to Any storm water overflows or surface sheeting should be directed away from neighborin properties and to the public right of way as much as reasonably 8.UNDERGROUND UTILITIES Developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinao. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertin affected utility providers for installation of underground utiliDeveloper shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 9.BICYCLE PARKING the City Engineer. 10.IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement w providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to chec drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($4,183.00 or 6%) b. Grading Permit: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,435.00 or 6%) c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: $ TBD e. Power Cost: ** f. Map Checking Fees: $ Per current fee schedule (N/A) g. Park Fees: $ Per current fee schedule (N/A) h. Street Tree By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC Bonds: Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by t Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said changeanged at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 227 Resolution No. 6714 DP-2012-05 January 8, 2013 11.TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipmen vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both tpartment and the Community Development Department prior to installation of an Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipmen screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas, as determined by the Community Development Department. T located in the front or side building setback area. 12.WATER BACKFLOW PREVENTERS Domestic and Fire Water Backflow preventers and similar above ground equipment shall be placed away from the public right of way and site driveways to a locati Planning Department, Santa Clara County Fire Department and the 13.BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resour for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall improvement plans. 14.NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT When and where it is required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the SWRCB, which encom Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Bes(BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maint 15.C.3 REQUIREMENTS C.3 regulated improvements are required for all projects creatin more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site). The developer shall reserve a minimum of 4% of developable surface area for the placement of l measures, for storm water treatment, on the tentative map, unles treatment plan, that satisfies C.3 requirements, is approved by the City Engineer. The developer must include the use and maintenance of site desig treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs), which must be design sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Water Facilities Easement A Storm Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and operation and maintenance of treatment BMPs are each required. All storm water management plans are required to obtain certification from a City approved party reviewer. 16.EROSION CONTROL PLAN Developer shall must provide an approved erosion control plan by This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans. 228 Resolution No. 6714 DP-2012-05 January 8, 2013 17.WORK SCHEDULE Every 6 months, the developer shall submit a work schedule to th grading/erosion control work in conjunction with this project. 18.OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Developer shall enter into an Operations & Maintenance Agreement with the City p occupancy. The Agreement shall include the operation and mainte-standard appurtenances in the public road right-of-way that may include, but is not limited to, sidewalk, pavers, and street lights. 19.TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as wel as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The Citn Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signag the City. 20.TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by 21.FULL TRASH CAPTURE SYSTEM The developer will be responsible for installing a full trash capture system/device to capture from the onsite storm drain before the storm water reaches the C full capture system or device is a single device or series of deticles retained by a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not le resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the sub-drainage area (see the Municipal Regional Permit section C.10 for further information/requirements). 22.TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of Manager. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed pri permit. 23.REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS Developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regar truck access for the proposed development. 24.STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way to and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 25.FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to th 229 Resolution No. 6714 DP-2012-05 January 8, 2013 26.SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. Clearance should include any proposed Fire Backflow Preventers, Fire Department Connectio Backflow Preventers should be located on private property adjacent to t 27.FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santanty Fire Department as needed. 28.CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY CLEARANCE Provide California Water Service Company approval for water conn location and layout of water lines and backflow preventers beforng permit approval. 29.DEDICATION OF WATERLINES Developer shall dedicate, as deemed necessary, all waterlines an company standards requirements, and shall reach an agreement wit Company for water service to the subject development. 30.DEDICATION OF UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS underground basin or any underground strata in the Santa Clara V 31.SANITARY DISTRICT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the issuance of building permits. 32.UTILITY EASEMENTS Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the prop and California Water Company, and/or equivalent agencies) will b building permits. 33.PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS The developer shall enhance pedestrian crosswalks at Stevens Cre well as at Alves Drive and Saich Way. Enhancements may include new striping, replaceme existing striping, or new signage. Final crosswalk improvement approved by the City Engineer. SECTION V: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1.FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE) ACCESS ROADS REQUIRED Provide access roadways with a paved all-weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 16 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulatinand 230 Resolution No. 6714 DP-2012-05 January 8, 2013 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. For installation gui Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. 2.FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buioldi shall be provided in the locations described in this section or in sectio is the more restrictive. For the purposes of this section, firew shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided all new buildings and structures. Exception: Group A, B, E, F, I, L, M, S and U occupancy buildings and struc not exceed 1,000 square feet of building area and that are not locat-Urban Interface Fire Area. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s), and any contractor(s) or subcontracto responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in der to determine if any modification or upgrade of the existing water service is requireA State of California licensed (C- 16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. Sections 903.2 as adopted in Section 16-40-210 of the CMC. 3.WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination cau supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subco the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to co purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the desig water-based fire protection system, and/or fire suppression water supply systems physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of cacontamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2010 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7. 4.PREMISES IDENTIFICATION Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and exi as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fro contrast with their background. CFC Sec. 505. 5.CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of Fire Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. 6.CONSTRUCTION PLAN NOTES To prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Development Review diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan submittal. 231 Resolution No. 6714 DP-2012-05 January 8, 2013 SECTION VI: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT 1.SANITARY SEWER AVAILABILITY Sanitary sewer service is being provided to the subject parcels an easement located in the rear of parcels 326-32-041 and 326-32-042. The District does not allow for shared easements or construction of any structures and installat sewer easement. 2.IMPROVEMENT PLANS Improvement plans for the subject project shall be reviewed by t proposed sanitary sewer easements should be delineated and noted on t applicant shall contact the Sanitary District prior to proceedin 3.FEES AND PERMITS Cupertino Sanitary District Fees and Permits shall be required for the subject application based on the proposed area and use modifications. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of January, 2013, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following : AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Miller, Vice Chair Sun, Lee, Brownley NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Brophy ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Aarti Shrivastava /s/Marty Miller Aarti Shrivastava Marty Miller, Chair Community Development Director Planning Commission G:\Planning\PDREPORT\CC RES\2012\DP-2012-05 res.doc 232 ASA-2012-13 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6715 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION O SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL SPACE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF 15,377 SQUARE FEET OF NEW COMMERCIAL SPACE CONSISTING OF TWO NEW COMMER BUILDING PADS AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, LOCATED AT 20803 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AND 10033-10095 SAICH WAY SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: ASA-2012-13 Applicant: Tom Purtell (Borelli Investment Co.) Property Owner: Diana Taylor Location: 20803 Stevens Creek Boulevard and 10033-10095 Saich Way (APNs 326-32-041 and 326-32-042, respectively) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as requireProcedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at l the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to 1.The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the welfare, or convenience; 2.The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 19.168, Architectural and Site Review, of the Cupertino Municipal Code, the General Plan, any specific plan, z planned development permit, conditional use permits, variances, entitlements to use which regulate the subject property includin not limited to, adherence to the following specific criteria: 233 Resolution No. 6715 ASA-2012-13 January 8, 2013 a)Abrupt changes in building scale have been avoided. A gradual t bulk has been achieved between new and existing buildings. b)Design harmony between new and existing buildings have been preserved and the materials, textures and colors of new buildings harmonize with adjacent dev color schemes, and with the future character of the neighborhood which it is situated. The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and planting harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly storage and unsightly elements of parking lots have been concealed. Groes of pavements have been used to prevent dust and erosion, and the un existing healthy trees have been avoided. Lighting for developm requirements as specified by the engineering and building departnts, and shielding to adjoining property owners. c)The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscap and structures have been designed to minimize traffic hazard, po appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development. d)This new development, not abutting an existing residential development, has been designed protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrus setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design measures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration ofthe initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof,: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2012-09) is hereby adopted; andthe application for an Architectural and Site Approval, Application no. ASA-2012-13 is hereby approved and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application noASA-2012-13 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of January 8, 2013, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPME 1.APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set dated December 14, 2012 consiseled T1, A0, A1, A2, Building 1 Exterior Elevations, A3, Building 2 Exterior M1, L-1, L-2, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-3.1, C-3.2, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, and Photometric Plan, entitled, drawn by FCGA Architecture, Borrecco/Kilian & Associates, Inc., and HMH; except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 234 Resolution No. 6715 ASA-2012-13 January 8, 2013 2.ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, prope any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepre may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3.CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. DP-2012-05 and TR-2012-41 shall be applicable to this approval. 4.FINAL BUILDING DESIGN The final building design and exterior treatment plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building Community Development may approve additional designs or make minor variations as deemed appropriate. The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details s approved plans. Any exterior changes determined to be substanti Development shall require a modification approval. 5.FRONTAGE DETAILS The final street frontage details, including, but not limited to sidew and widths, tree grates, street furniture, landscaping and tree selection shall be subjec by the Director of Community Development prior to building permit issuance. Frontage details shall match or 6.FINAL LANDSCAPING PLAN The final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Development prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant shall work with staff o following: a.Species and size selection b.Buf c.Screening of utility structures d.Design of on-street landscaping curb planters e.Providing a wider hardscape area to the south of Restaurant 5 for outdoor seating 7.INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify an claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indem attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or appro including (without limitation) reimbursing the defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such a attorneys of its choice. 8.NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fee requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pu 235 Resolution No. 6715 ASA-2012-13 January 8, 2013 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a stmount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other ex notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedicat reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such ex PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day ofJanuary, 2013,Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Miller, Vice Chair Sun, Lee, Brownley NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Brophy ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Aarti Shrivastava /s/Marty Miller Aarti Shrivastava Marty Miller, Chair Community Development Director Planning Commission G:\Planning\PDREPORT\CC RES\2012\ASA-2012-13 res.doc 236 TR-2012-41 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6716 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF 13 TREES IN CONJU A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 20803 STEVENS CREEK BLVD A- 10095 SAICH WAY SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TR-2012-41 Applicant: Tom Purtell (Borelli Investment Co.) Property Owner: Diana Taylor Location: 20803 Stevens Creek Boulevard and 10033-10095 Saich Way (APNs 326-32-041 and 326-32-042, respectively) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino receivTree Removal Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adop Declaration; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as requireProcedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application: a)That the trees are irreversibly diseased, are in danger of falli existing or proposed essential structures, or interferes with pr-site utility services and cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the st utility services; b)That the location of the trees restricts the economic enjoyment the use of property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated property, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s). 237 Resolution No. 6716 TR-2012-41 January 8, 2013 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration ofthe initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are en PAGE 2 thereof,: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2012-09) is hereby adopted; andthe application for a Tree Removal Permit, Application no. TR-2012-41 is hereby approved and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. TR-2012-41 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of January 8, 2013, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1.APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set dated December 14, 2012 consis A1, A2, Building 1 Exterior Elevations, A3, Building 2 Exterior M1, L-1, L-2, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-3.1, C-3.2, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, and Photometric Plan, entitled, drawn by FCGA Architecture, Borrecco/Kilian & Associates, Inc., and HMH; the consulting arborist peer review Arborist # WE-1897 dated November 2012; and Borelli Investment Company, 20803 Stevens Creek Boulevard/10033-10095 Saich Way, Pre-Construction Tree Protection PlanSamuel Oakley, Certified Arborist # WE-9474A dated June 18, 2012; except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2.CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. DP-2012-05 and ASA-2012-13 shall be applicable to this approval. 3.TREE REPLACEMENTS AND FINAL PLANTING PLAN The applicant shall plant replacement trees in accordance with the replacement requirements of the Protected Tree Ordinance. Street trees along Stevens Creek Boule consistent with the Heart of the City Specific Plan. The trees shall be planted prior to final occupancy of site permits. The final planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Di Development with consultation by the City Arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The Director of Community Development shall have the discretion to require additional tree replacements as deemed necessary. The City Arborist shall confirm that the replacement trees were planted properly and according to plan prior to final occupancy. 238 Resolution No. 6716 TR-2012-41 January 8, 2013 4.TREE REPLACEMENT BOND The applicant shall provide a tree replacement bond in an amount determined by the City Arborist prior to removals and issuance of demolition and grading permits the required tree replacements have been planted and verified by 5.SCHEDULING OF TREE REMOVALS TO AVOID IMPACTS TO NESTING BIRDS The project shall implement the following measures to avoid impa a)Removal of trees on the project site could be scheduled between (inclusive) to avoid the nesting season for birds and no additional surveys would be require b)If removal of the trees on-site is planned to take place between January and August (inclus pre-construction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qu to identify active nesting raptor or other bird nests that may be d implementation. Between January and April (inclusive) pre-construction surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of constrities or tree relocation or removal. Between May and August (inclusive), pre-construction surveys shall be conducted no more than thirty (30) days prior to the initiation of these a ornithologist shall inspect all trees in and immediately adjacent to the construction area for nests. If an active raptor nest is found in or close enough to the cons these activities, the ornithologist shall, in consultation with Fish & Game (CDFG), designate a construction-free buffer zone (typically 250 feet) around the nest until the end of the nesting activity. Buffers for other bi ornithologist. c)A report summarizing the results of the pre-construction survey and any designated buffer zones or protection measures for tree nesting birds shall be sub Development Director prior to the start of grading or tree remov 6.CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. An submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Devel 7.INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify an action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or appro defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such a attorneys of its choice. 8.NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include in fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pu 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a st 239 Resolution No. 6716 TR-2012-41 January 8, 2013 and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedicat reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code S fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such ex PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day ofJanuary, 2013,Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Miller, Vice Chair Sun, Lee, Brownley NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Brophy ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Aarti Shrivastava /s/Marty Miller Aarti Shrivastava Marty Miller, Chair Community Development Director Planning Commission G:\Planning\PDREPORT\CC RES\2012\TR-2012-41 res.doc 240 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777--3333 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: January 8, 2013 Applications: (NOT REQUIRED) DP-2012-05, ASA-2012-13, EXC-2012-02 , TR-2012-41 Applicant: Tom Purtell, Borelli Investment Company (Diana Taylor) Location: 20803 Stevens Creek Boulevard and 10033-10095 Saich Way (APNs 326-32- 042 and 326-32-041, respectively) APPLICATION SUMMARY: 1.Development Permit (DP-2012-05) to allow the demolition of 11,610 square feet of existing commercial space and the construction of 15,377 square feet of new commercial space consisting of two new commercial building pads, 7,000 square fee respectively. 2.Architectural and Site Approval application (ASA-2012-13) to allow the demolition of 11,610 square feet of existing commercial space and the construction of 15,377 square feet of new commercial space consisting of two new commercial building pads improvements. 3.Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan (EXC-2012-02) to allow a reduced street side setback for two new commercial building pads, where a 35 foot se NOT REQUIRED- SEE DISCUSSION BELOW curb) is required. 4.Tree Removal Permit (TR-2012-41) to allow the removal and replacement of 13 trees in conjunction with a proposed development project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the following: 1.Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2012-06); 2.Development Permit (DP-2012-05); 3.Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2012-13); (NOT REQUIRED) 4.Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan (EXC-2012-02) ; and 5.Tree Removal Permit (TR-2012-41) in accordance with the model resolutions. 241 DP-2012-05, EXC-2012-02, Saich Way Station January 8, 2013 ASA-2012-13, TR-2012-41 PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation Commercial/Office/Residential Specific Plan Heart of the City (Crossroads Area) Zoning Designation P (CG, Res)- Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential intent Environmental Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2012-09) Assessment Lot Size (2 parcels) 56,196 square feet (1.29 acres) Lot Width 112.6 feet Existing building area (to 11,610 s.f. (Bombay Oven building- 2,850 s.f., Vacant building- be demolished) 8,760 s.f) Proposed Building 1 7,000 s.f. Proposed Building 2 8,377 s.f. Total proposed building 15,377 s.f. (3,767 s.f. net new) area Required/Allowed Proposed Building 1 Setback Front: 35 feet from edge of Front: 35 feet (meets requirement curb along Stevens Creek Boulevard) Street Side: 35 feet from edge Street Side: 14 feet of curb Interior Side: 30 feet Interior Side: 14.5 feet (based Rear: 355 feet on ½ the height of the Building 2 Setback Front: 247 feet (meets requirement buildings) along Stevens Creek Boulevard) Rear: 20 feet Street Side: 12 feet Interior Side: 62 feet Rear: 70 feet Building 1 Height 45 feet 27 feet Building 2 Height 29 feet Project Auto Parking 80 onsite stalls , based on a 80 onsite stalls rate of 1/250 s.f. of retail 16 on-street diagonal stalls 96 spaces total space (44 stalls); and 1/4 and 1/3 seats plus 1/employee of restaurant/food use space (36 stalls). A total of 4,377 s.f. or 28% food use space is proposed Project Bicycle Parking 4 Class II 10 Class II 242 DP-2012-05, EXC-2012-02, Saich Way Station January 8, 2013 ASA-2012-13, TR-2012-41 BACKGROUND: Existing Site and Surroundings The project site is situated on two narrow parcels located at the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Saich Way. The site is currently developed with a 2,850 square foot full-service restaurant (Bombay Oven) and an 8,760 square foot vacant commercial building, which was destroyed by a fire in 2008. The site was originally developed in the late 1960s, and has been historically used for Vicinity Aerial commercial purposes. The site topography is relatively flat, and is approximately two fee Bread, and the Stevens Creek Office Center. Adjacent and across the street land uses include a commercial day care/preschool to the north; the Target commercial shopping center across Saich Way to the east; commercfood use and office uses to the west; and a commercial shopping center and restaurants across Steven Boulevard to the south. DISCUSSION: New Buildings The applicant, Tom Purtell, of Borelli Investment Company, representing the property owner, Diana Taylor, is proposing to demolish the two existing buildings and improvements on the site and construct two core and shell commercial buildings (Building 1 - 7,000 square feet and Building 2 - 8,377 square feet) and associated improvements along both the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Saich Way street frontage. The project proposes a net gain of 3,767 square feet to the site and will leave a balance of 133,402 square feet in the Heart of the City General Plan Development Allocation. The proposed setback along Stevens Creek Boulevard maintains the required 35-foot curb setback. Site and Off-Site Improvements Site and off-site improvements proposed are summarized as follows: 243 DP-2012-05, EXC-2012-02, Saich Way Station January 8, 2013 ASA-2012-13, TR-2012-41 New pedestrian crosswalks at the Saich and Stevens Creek and Sai Re-grading the site in order to accommodate a shared driveway and reciprocal access between the site and the adjoining commercial development to the Public sidewalk, landscaping, tree, and street furniture enhancements along the street frontage, consistent with the Heart of City Specific Plan and siother recent developments in the Crossroads area New parking lot designed to maximize parking capacity and to enhance efficiency, landscaping, onsite permeability, stormwater treatment facilities, and pedestrian safety. New bicycle parking facilities New trash enclosures for each building Outdoor seating areas New pedestrian-scale lighting along walkways, building lights, and parking lot lighting throughout the project site New diagonal parking with associated curb planters along the wes maintaining two-way street access (the applicant also presents an option with pa parking along Saich Way) Relocation of the existing VTA bus stop on the east side of Saich Way approximately 100 feet to the north to accommodate the new diagonal parking Architectural Review The applicant has designed both buildings to reflect more modern forms and building materials with wide storefronts and warm colors, similar to the recently constructed Islands Restaurant across Stevens Creek Boulevard. The buildings were designed with the concept of activating the street frontages along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Saich Way. As feature entries on the street side, making convenient entry possible for pedestrians along the sidewalk. The sidewalk frontages include urban streetscape elements, such and other street furniture. The buildings also pay attention to -scale features such as lower metal awnings and canopies, large window openings along th- friendly entries. The height and massing of the buildings are compatible with the adjacent and surrounding developments. ant has reviewed both buildings and supports the design. The applicant has worked with staff to incorporate all of the commen consultant. Heart of the City Street Side Setback Exception After further review and consideration of the Heart of the City Specific Plan (HOC), staff has determined that an exception is not required for the proposed bulding setback along Saich Way. According HOC Section 1.01.030(B)(1) & 1.01.040(D)(1), the requibuilding setback along the Stevens Creek Boulevard frontage is 35 feet (measured from the curb), which consists of a 26 foot Boulevard Landscape Easement and a 9 foot building 244 DP-2012-05, EXC-2012-02, Saich Way Station January 8, 2013 ASA-2012-13, TR-2012-41 Boulevard Landscape Easement. Since the boulevard landscape easement only applies to the Stevens Creek frontage, any non-Stevens Creek frontage only requires a minimum building setback of 9 feet. The project proposes a minimum building setback of 12 feet, whic conforms to the HOC standard. Parking and Street Improvements The project satisfies t80 required, 80 proposed). The intended tenants of the buildings are retail/general commercial establishments. A condition of approval is added to restrict the future uses to what is currently proposed adequate parking supply. There is an existing reciprocal access easement granted by the a . The easement does not allow shared parking, and the applicant will not be required to record a shared parking agreement due to providing the code-required parking supply onsite. Sixteen surplus on-street diagonal public parking stalls are proposed on the west side of Saich Way near Building 2. The proposed diagonal stalls provide overflow parking opportunities to support the adjoining retail uses by providing easily accessible , and reduce the vehicle travel speeds by narrowing Saich Way. The diagonal stalls also provide opportunities to add landscaping islands to enhance visual aesthetics of the stre. The proposed diagonal parking arrangement requires the following modifications to Saich Way: Extension of existing curb lines to buffer the stalls from oncoming traffic; Relocation of the existing bus stop along the east side of Saich Way approximately 100 feet to the north on Saich to conform to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (V requirements; Prohibit public street parking along the entire east side of Saich Way to allow adequate and safe vehicle turning radii and two-way access. This would also alleviate the existing issues of large commercial trucks parking along the east side of Saich Wayle vehicular and pedestrian safety concerns. Parallel parking may remain on the west side of Saich along the existing day care site at 10115 Saich Way. and supports the proposed diagonal parking and conceptual street striping plan. The VTA also reviewed the proposed bus stop relocation and modified streetscape and confirmed that it will meet their s The final bus stop design will be reviewed by the City and VTA prior to issuance of The applicant has also submitted an alternate public street parking scheme with 10 parallel parking spaces along the west side of Saich Way instead of the 16 diagonal stalls in the event that the Planning Commission wishes to consider the parallel opt. The applicant and staff prefer the diagonal parking option. 245 DP-2012-05, EXC-2012-02, Saich Way Station January 8, 2013 ASA-2012-13, TR-2012-41 Traffic The net increase in building square footage will generate additional tra significant degree. conducted a trip generation analysis based on the existing and proposed uses, applying the most conservative retail and restaurant use codes per the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Tr (See Attachment 4). The net increase in AM peak hour is expected to be 55 trips split 60/40 in and out of the site, and 46 more PM peak hour trips split 50/50 in and out of the site. Signalized intersections at Saich Way and Stevens Creek Boulevar Stevens Creek Boulevard are currently operating at level of service (LOS) D or better. The increment of new trips is expected to have a less than significa Moreover, a comprehensive Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) i Guidelines since the project is estimated to generate less than 100 net new peak hour trips in the morning or afternoon peak hour. Circulation, Queuing, and Safety The City's traffic consultant traffic circulation, queuing, and safety, and no significant project impacts were identified (See Attachment 4). In order to ensure efficient circulation, the consultant recommends to schedule truck deliveries and pick-ups outside of peak parking demand hours in order to avoid parking impacts and blocking portions of the one-way aisle on the west side of Building 2. The City Traffic Engineer supports the currently proposed width of 24 feet for the existing driveway on Stevens Creek proposed for two-way conversion. consultant recommends that landscaping at the tee junction of the new Stevens Creek two- that stop bars be provided. and the project will be required to submit a final circulation and safety plan prior to issuan building permits. Tree Removals, Replacements, and Protection The project proposes to remove all 13 existing trees onsite (5- Grecian Laurel, 3- Southern Magnolia, 2- Coast Live Oak, and 1- Evergreen Pear), including two street trees (1- Narrow Leaf Black Peppermint and 1- Mexican Fan Palm), in order to facilitate the proposed buildings and site improvements. It should be noted that none of the trees removed are specimen trees, as they are either are smaller than 10 inches in diameter or species list. The (see Attachment 5). In order to mitigate the trees being removed, the project proposes to plant 64 low and medium water use 24-inch box trees (including, but not limited to Brisbane Box, Crape Myrtle, Flower Pear, and Scarlet Oak) in the parking lot and street frontage, consistent with the repl 246 DP-2012-05, EXC-2012-02, Saich Way Station January 8, 2013 ASA-2012-13, TR-2012-41 requirements of the Protected Tree Ordinance and landscape design concept of the Hea City Specific Plan. Staff supports the tree removals since they allow for a safer, m pedestrian and vehicle circulation system. Further, the proposed replacement trees will visually enhance the site. The final location and species of the tree replacements will be in conjunction with the building permit review. A condition of approval requires the applicant iew all construction permit drawings and details to more accurately potential impacts to the neighboring Redwood trees to the west and the Coast Live Oak, all of which are proposed to be saved. The project is required to fulfill the recommendations contained in the arborist report in order to protect and increas retained. The applicant is also required to retain the arborist to confirm neighboring trees and take corrective measures, if necessary, following construction. Signage The applicant has provided conceptual designs for exterior signa on Stevens Creek Boulevard, which is not a part of these applications. allows a ground sign on Stevens Creek, since there is at least 100 line However, staff does not support the ground sign design in the cu it would block the visibility to the primary street frontage ret and potentially disrupt the pedestrian experience. A separate application for review and approval of a sign program for the project as a condition of approval. Housing Element Site The City updated the General Plan Housing Element in 2010, which included the project site as a potential opportunity site for residential housing. The site was selected due to its central location in the Heart of the City district, community support for housing, and potential for redevelopment. The site is currently zoned to accommodate commercial and/or residential uses. The redevelopment of this site to maintain its commercial use is permitted and consistent with the Housing Element in that it does not prevent the property owner from considering future residential redevelopment. KEY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Lot Mergers In accordance with City policy, the property owner will be requithe two parcels onsite into one. Food Use Restriction In order to limit potential parking impacts, food uses and restaurants are limited to the two spaces currently shown on the plans (28% of the total building a, unless it can be 247 DP-2012-05, EXC-2012-02, Saich Way Station January 8, 2013 ASA-2012-13, TR-2012-41 demonstrated through a parking study that the parking supply is Shared Access Driveway The applicant shall memorialize the new two-way access on the driveway between the site and ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT On December 6, 2012, the Environmental Review Committee recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2012-09, see Attachment 6) for the project per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project includes the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential environmental impacts of the project to lesvels: Objectionable Odors: Condition of Approval requirement for restaurant odor abatement systems if odors become a nuisance to nearby receptors. Biological Resources: . Geology and Soils: Design-level geotechnical investigation shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Abatement of asbestos-containing building materials prior to demolition. Water Quality and Runoff: Implementation of storm water best management practices (BMPs); construction of parking lot bio-swales; drainage provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Temporary Noise Levels: Ordinance and standard noise mitigation measures. OTHER DEPARTMENT/AGENCY REVIEW Department, the Cupertino Sanitary District, PG&E, Cal Water, and the VTA reviewed the project and have no objections. Their pre-hearing comments have been incorporated as conditions of approval in the draft resolutions. PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for Notice of Public Hearing, Site Notice & Agenda Legal Ad Site Signage Posted on the City's official notice (14 days prior to the hearing) bulletin board (one week prior to the Legal ad placed in newspaper hearing) (at least 10 days prior to the hearing) 7 notices mailed to property owners Web site (one week prior to the 248 DP-2012-05, EXC-2012-02, Saich Way Station January 8, 2013 ASA-2012-13, TR-2012-41 adjacent to the project site (300 foot) hearing) (10 days prior to the hearing) Neighborhood Meeting On December 5, 2012 the applicant voluntarily mailed out notices to property owners within 500 feet of the project, inviting them to attend a neighborhood mto discuss the project with neighboring stakeholders (see Attachment 7). On December 19, 2012, the applicant hosted the neighborhood meeting at the Quinlan Community Center design and consulting team, the property owner, and a Planning D attended the meeting. No other persons attended the meeting. Neighboring Property Owner Comments Two neighboring property owners provided comments on the project (see Attachment 8). Their comments are summarized below with staff responses in italics: Property owner to the west The buildout seems dense, and the building design does not appear to be consistent with surrounding projects. Floor area ratio is not limited in planned development zones, provided that it is with surrounding developments and does not exceed the available in their respective geographic planning area. The parking supply provided adequately serves intensity of the uses proposed, and no significant traffic impacts are anticipate There is an eclectic palette of architectural designs throughout diverse architectural styles in order to create an organic and varied urban form. However, the pedestrian amenities and streetscape program in the Crossroads a The project is consistent with the existing Crossroads streetscahe project is designed to be compatible in scale and mass of surrounding devel in the Crossroads area, and the overall building height is relatively comparable to the building. The building along Stevens Creek Boulevard is located at the required 35-foot setback, and is setback about 5 feet further The parking spaces on the west side of Building 1 create a confl exiting the site at the proposed two-way reciprocal driveway. The City Traffic Engineer does not have any concerns with this particular area. Moreover, the pedestrian activity along Stevens Creek. Existing tenants have already expressed concerns about parking, and are concerned that users of the proposed project will take up prime parking on thei. Given that the project supplies the code-required parking supply, in theory there should not be a need for users of the project site to park on the site to the west. It is acknowledged that there may be 249 DP-2012-05, EXC-2012-02, Saich Way Station January 8, 2013 ASA-2012-13, TR-2012-41 overflow during peak business times, but the project parking supply and new shared access driveway is actually anticipated to benefit the property to the west, duecross-access shopping opportunities and enhanced circulation between the sites. The shared access driveway will eliminate the need for vehicles to merge onto Stevens Creek in order to acwill not require two driveway curb cuts along Stevens Creek. The proposed diagonal parking also intends to accommodate the need for overflow parking if it were to arise. The existing redwood trees should be protected from potential ad project. The applicant will be required to reta plans and provide tree protection measures. The project will be required to implement the recommended tree protection measures, which will be field-verified by the arborist. Property owner to the east Intends to develop their property in the future, and the propose- street parallel spaces and street narrowing of Saich Way would a development opportunities. Suggests parallel parking, speed bumps, and clear striping and signage along Saich instead. To date, the city has not received any other formal development applications for the area. Consequently, the City is not able to require the applicant to design their plans around a potential future conceptual project. The City always has the ability to modify the public right-of-way if warranted, including but not limited to, conversion to parallel parking, striping, speed bumps, and other frontage improvements. The introduction of diagonal on-street parking on one side of the street is not anticipated to create traffic or accessibility impacts for the neighboring property. The proposed diagonal parking scheme provides the opportunity to reduce vehicle speeds, and eliminate large commercial truck staging/parking along Saich Way. The applicant has submitted an alternate, parallel on-street parking option for the Planning However, staff and the applicant support the diagonal parking. The building setback and sidewalk location along Saich Way restricts future street widening or street vacation opportunities. The City does not have any current or future plans to widen or vacate Saich Way, nor require street dedications for the project site. The project conforms to the setback standards as prescribed in the HOC. Concerned with the project being able to adequately address the project and the parking situation at Peet's/Panera. The project satisfies the ordinance-required parking demand on the site. In addition, the project also proposes 16 public diagonal parking stalls along Saich Way as surplus commer the retail shops. Peet's/Panera also satisfies their ordinance-required parking demand onsite and 250 DP-2012-05, EXC-2012-02, Saich Way Station January 8, 2013 ASA-2012-13, TR-2012-41 through an existing shared parking agreement with the office center. As proposed, the project enhances the vehicular access and circulation between both comme, which in turn should further improve the parking efficiency for both sites. The bus stop should be relocated either to Alves or Bandley Drive in order to reduce traffic congestion. The relocation of the bus stop further north on Saich minimizes established bus routes and transit user convenience. The bus stop will be positioned to allow adequate two-way vehicle traffic while buses are parked. Further, the VTA approves of the relocation. The relocation of the bus stop to Alves Drive is an option, but create the potential for disturbances to the adjacent residential apartment users. PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT This project is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Secti 65964). The City has complied with the deadlines found in the Permit Str Project Received : October 15, 2012 Deemed Incomplete : November 13, 2012 Deemed Complete: December 19, 2012 The City has 60 days (until February 19, 2013) to make a decision on the project since a Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA is recommended. The Planning Commissi decision on this project is final unless appealed within 14 cale CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the project since the project and c concerns related to the proposed development and all of the findings for approval of the proposed project, consistent with Chapter 19.168 of the Cupertin made. Prepared by: George Schroeder, Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Approved by: /s/Gary Chao /s/Aarti Shrivastava Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava City Planner Community Development Director 251 DP-2012-05, EXC-2012-02, Saich Way Station January 8, 2013 ASA-2012-13, TR-2012-41 ATTACHMENTS: 1 - DP-2012-05 Draft Resolution 2 ASA-2012-13 Draft Resolution 3 TR-2012-41 Draft Resolution (excluding resolution for EXC-2012-02, since the exception is not required) 4 - Transportation evaluation by Fehr & Peers, dated November 16, 2012 5 - Arborist report by , dated November 2012 6 - Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2012-09) 7 - 8 - Pre-hearing public comments 9 - Plan Set 252 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. January 8, 2013 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of January 8, 2013 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Marty Miller. SALUTE TO THE FLAG . ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Marty Miller Vice Chairperson: Don Sun Commissioner: Paul Brophy Commissioner: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Clinton Brownley Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava City Planner: Gary Chao Senior Planner: Colin Jung Assistant Planner: George Schroeder Assistant City Attorney: MelissaTronquet Public Works Department: Timm Borden APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the December 11, 2012 Planning Commission meeting: 1. MOTION: Motion by Com. Lee, second by Vice Chair Sun, and carried 4-0-1, Com. Brophy abstain; to approve the December 11, 2012 Planning Commission minutes as presented. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING 2. DP-2012-05, ASA-2012-13, Development Permit to allow the demolition of EXC-2012-02, TR-2012-41 11,610 sq. ft. of existing commercial space and the Tom Purtell, Borelli Investment construction of 15,377 sq. ft. of new commercial space 253 Cupertino Planning Commission 2 January 8, 2013 Co. (Diana Taylor) consisting of two new commercial building pads; 7,000 sq. ft. and 20803 Stevens Creek Blvd. 8,377 sq. ft. respectively, Architectural and Site Approval Permit & 10033-10095 Saich Way to allow the demolition of 11,610 sq. ft. of existing commercial and the construction of 15,377 sq. ft. of new commercial space consisting of two new commercial building pads and associated site improvements; Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow a reduced street side setback (from the edge of the curb) is required; Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 13 trees in conjunction with a proposed development project. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. George Schroeder, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: Reviewed the application for Development Permit, Architectural and Site Approval, Exception to Heart of the City Specific Plan, and Tree Removal Permit relative to the demolition of existing commercial space and construction of new commercial space; and allowance for a reduced street side setback for two new commercial building pads and to allow removal and replacement of trees in conjunction with a proposed development project at 20803 Stevens Creel Blvd and 10033-10095 Saich Way, as outlined in the attached staff report. He reviewed the video presentation including the following topics: Application Request; Heart of the City Street Side Setback Exception; Proposed Site Plan w/Diagonal Parking; Architectural Review Bldgs 1 and 2; Parking and Street Improvements; Saich Way Street Plan; Traffic, Circulation, Safety and Queuing; Proposed Street Removals; Tree Replacements/Protection; Key Conditions of Approval; Neighboring Property Owner Comments; Environmental Assessment. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the development permits, architectural and site application, and tree removal permit per the draft resolutions. The Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed to City Council within 14 calendar days. Staff answered questions regarding parking; it was noted that all parking was provided onsite and none from Saich Way would count toward the parking requirement. In the past it has only been for the Main Street project. Gaylan Grant, FCGA Architecture, Danville: Said their goal was to have a project that was safe, pedestrian and vehicular friendly, and a retail project that would survive. Relative to the roof style of the buildings, he noted that the style depends much on the location; the flat roof provides opportunity for rooftop equipment; a sloped roof is not a complete pitched roof; a mansard roof reduces the area allowable on the roof for rooftop equipment. In the project, they wanted a more contemporary center, have complementary colors to flow from Panera Bread along Stevens Creek to the street corner at Saich; wanted to provide more window space for display and view in; and they like to have variety of roof heights for horizontal and vertical articulation. Relative to the possibility of recycling building materials, he said that it is not anticipated that there will be a lot of usable product to recycle but they would recycle materials whenever possible. Staff said that some of the project requirements are even stricter than Whole Foods had because of the newer C3 regulations. They would ensure that the water percolates on site; and Public Works would review details. He reviewed the site plan; the goal was to bring the buildings closer to the street, with a strong street frontage and maintain the pedestrian flow and clear passage from in front of Panera Bread without any obstructions and make the passageway one they would want in an urban environment. Said the diagonal parking is a good solution; Given the fact that is not the condition on the east side, there is ve a large parking lot there; it makes sense to take advantage of that opportunity here; it helps to make the shops work. Initially there were not doors at both ends of the shop spaces, they were on the parking lot side, because that is where the park is; it was agreed that with the allowance of 254 Cupertino Planning Commission 3 January 8, 2013 diagonal parking on that side of the street, it would make sense to have doors on that sidewalk. That will be a meaningful pedestrian experience that currently exist on that side of the street. He reviewed the landscaping plans including special pavers, benches, awnings, grove of trees, and removal of landscape strips; in keeping with the desire to make it an urban pedestrian friendly walking space. He acknowledged that deliveries must take place before or after hours; trash enclosures are easily accessible and carry the architectural design theme and are set to the rear and off to the side so they are not highly visible. Bicycle parking is encouraged and exceeds the requirement; the bus stop requires relocation to the north, because of the addition of the diagonal parking; there is a distribution of handicapped parking spaces. Vice Chair Sun: Said the issue was the concern about traffic; and asked the applicant if he felt it was a legitimate concern. Gaylan Grant: Said the proposal is an improvement over what presently exists; it may not be perfect but is safer as proposed than the existing narrow drive; there is parking on the proposed site to help support the parking need for Panera and they all need to be good neighbors and work together to create a combined entry that is as safe as possible and it provides as much parking as possible. He pointed out that the tenant in shop 7 which is on their corner would be adamant about retaining the parking; if there was no parking, they would not rent the space. He said they needed the parking; changing the direction will eliminate one space. The spaces are deeper when the parking is angled; it makes it easier to pull in; it does confine the backout to the lane in the northbound lane; there is a safety factor there that is an improvement over 90 degree parking. Said they are seeking approval; and it would be ideal to have conditions of approval to work with staff on the entry condition. They are willing to work with staff further; there is a possibility of using the southern-most space as a handicapped space. Vice Chair Sun: Relative to solving the traffis concern about the intersection of Stevens Creek and Saich, is it possible for the entry from Stevens Creek to still maintain the one-way entry and change the first parking entry between building 1 and 2 into one way and move the double direction. He asked if there was a better way to solve the traffic issue. Gaylan Grant: Said there was not a better way to solve the traffic issue; they have studied every imaginable way of easing the traffic concerns, entering and flowing thru the site and have reached the conclusion with the city, staff, Public Works, and the traffic consultant that what they have now is the safest possible solution. Tom Purtell, Borelli Investment Co.: Said his contact with Target about their plans was about 18 months ago, at which time their intent was to try and close down Saich Way and have parking on each side. He said nothing has been submitted and they need to move their project along. Chair Miller: Relative to the angled parking on Saich Way, there was mention that it would make sense to have angled parking on the other side, but there is not enough footage there to do angled parking on both sides; but there is enough footage to do parallel parking on both sides. If there was parallel parking instead of angled parking, how much of a difference does that make in terms of the retail value. 255 Cupertino Planning Commission 4 January 8, 2013 Tom Purtell: There is an alternative in the package that shows parallel parking; they prefer the angled parking because they feel it creates a presence for their site that is more attractive both to the pedestrians walking along the sidewalk in front and the cars that are pulling in because there are entrances off Saich. The parallel parking works for now but they would prefer angled parking. Gaylan Grant: Referred to a diagram of a fire truck exiting the Target parking lot where there was concern from nagement that if a fire truck exited at that particular entry, it is within the area of the diagonal or angled parking, and it would be difficult for the fire truck to exit. That is a truism, the reality is a fire truck exiting the Target site has other opportunities for exit and they take whatever path of travel works best for them. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Steven Carlson, Co-Owner of Target Center: Said they have been in contact with Planning staff and conveyed concerns to them with respect to the diagonal parking. In reviewing the study exhibits and third party reports provided by staff, they found that the traffic engineer did not evaluate the changes to Saich Way with respect to turning movements, stacking, and a number of changes in capacity. The proposed diagonal parking plan at first eliminates 9 stalls from the existing configuration on site with the movement of the bus stop which takes 6 stalls to the north, and with the introduction of the angled parking. The turn movements existing on their project were not evaluated; their project is approximately ten times the size of this property; it generates approximately 20,000 daily trips to and from the site; these trips are served out of three primary driveways, one on Saich, one on Bandley and one on Stevens Creek. Because of the restricted movements on Stevens Creek, all customers coming from the west make the turn on Saich Way to come onto the property and it is estimated that a third of all the customers who go into and out of that center go in thru that driveway. Exhibits are in staff report relative to fire department equipment apparatus access into the three driveways and they illustrate entries and exits of any possible combinations. What they have ignored is that we have the same movements that we have to maintain on our side; it is not just getting out, it is getting in. Outside radius for fire truck equipment is 36 feet; you cannot make a 36 foot turn in 24 feet of lane; the exhibit provided in letters to staff illustrates by overlaying those same templates on their existing driveway in showing they cross well into the angled parking and that is a big problem. He said they applaud the project, but would recommend the project be approved with the parallel parking option included in the packet, not the angled parking which would obliterate the movements in their driveways. Ty Bash, Owner, Happy Days Child Development Center: Addressed the issue of the setbacks. In 1999 he went before the Planning Commission for approval of his preschool, at which time he was instructed to provide a 10-foot setback for the project; measured from the property line. Discussed the setback with staff and agreed to disagree on how the code is read. If looking at setbacks that are established from Stevens Creek, there is a 26 foot setback plus a 9 foot setback from the curb; along Saich Way since the 20 foot setback is not required, staff is measuring setback from the curb. The size of the public right-of-way is 10 feet, so if were measure a 9 foot setback from the public right-of-way the applicant can build their building all the way on the public right-of-way, a foot into the public right-of-way. He said he felt it was an incorrect interpretation. If looking at the code from the side setback, then the side setback requirement is either 10 feet or half the height of the 256 Cupertino Planning Commission 5 January 8, 2013 building. It is difficult to believe that the intention of the code was that the setbacks measured either from the property line or from the edge of the curb intended to provide a zero setback from the property line as the project has now been proposed. The second issue is the impact of angled parking; while it provides excellent opportunities to the proposed project, it damages access to their site. Saich Way in addition to providing 30% of their traffic, provides 95% of our traffic and it also provides a vast majority of the traffic to the YMCA, narrowing that drive aisle to 24 feet which is the width of a drive aisle on a parking lot. In addition to the angled parking, if most people do access Saich Way from Stevens Creek, angled parking is spaced the wrong way; people who drive into Saich are going to have to make a U-turn in order to enter the angled parking. As more people do that, traffic will back up into Stevens Creek. Said that their highest traffic is between 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and between 4:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Parking is also in demand from the YMCA at that point; overflow parking from the YMCA impacts their parking lot and parking along Saich Way and Alves. He said the project from the design point is excellent, and they are excited to see a new project, but would ask that the Planning Commission consider not allowing angled parking; allowing them to maintain the width of the street as it is with parallel parking and seriously look at the interpretation of the setback to make sure that it fulfills the requirements, as he was not familiar with setbacks measured from the edge of the curb not the property line. It is unusual and should be looked at relative to the interpretation of the Code. Barry Watkins, Co-Owner Target Center: Said they were pleased to see the project move forward but have some reservations about its intensity and other problems. They have concerns on how it is going to impact their property, their future development and their major tenant. Relative to the project design, it is unlikely that anyone would lease the corner building if they cannot park there; Panera Bread will likely park there most of the time and that tenant will have a difficult time finding parking spaces with the limited amount due to the business next door. The building calculations were made based upon the interior square footage of the premises excluding the exterior walls; there is a difference of several hundred square feet. He said he has not seen that before and was not sure the city code allowed for that. He discussed the truck loading situation, stating that it was difficult to regulate the delivery times from independent truckers, and parking in the street if other spaces are already filled. He suggested that the truck loading have its own dedicated parking area and posting signs for no truck parking. The bus duckout can be easily located onto Alves Drive; a red zone is east of the Target property; it was mentioned that fire trucks can go another way; other trucks also have to go through the driveway and if angled parking is there, the truck deliveries cannot occur. Recommend that the project be approved subject to the limitations. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Riconada resident: Asked that the following be discussed/explained: the side setback exception; comment on what is current or future reciprocal parking agreement between Panera Bread and the Borelli property; make certain that the two restaurants install odor abatement equipment. She said she was pleased that Heart of the City has been respected; and wished them success. Blair Volkmann, representing office development to the west of the Saich Way development: Supports the redevelopment and is looking forward to working with the city as well as the ownership; one of major concerns is relative to the current/future parking agreement. As it currently stands they are in opposition to the reciprocal ingress/egress agreement. Pointed out there is no current easement agreement; when the Peets and Panera redevelopment was done they approached the Borelli and Saich Way ownership in order to get an easement, but it was 257 Cupertino Planning Commission 6 January 8, 2013 declined. The city granted a covenant for easement agreement to grant future reciprocal ingress and egress. Concerned that the future redevelopment of the property would provide an adverse affect, and backing up the points mentioned regarding the entry off Stevens Creek Blvd, there has already been existing issues and there is concern with the parking spaces adjacent to Stevens Creek and so close when they back up it is going to further impact traffic going in and out of both properties. Darrel Lum: Said initially he supported the project if the applicant presented adequate information for an exception to the Heart of the City Plan (HOC); however, there appears to be a major change since the decision of the ERC, mainly that exception to the HOCSP is not required. The Planning Commission report states that according to HOC the required building setback along the Stevens Creek Blvd. frontage is 35 feet; the actual language in the HOC is minimum setback for new development shall be 35 feet from the edge of the curb. Also according to that same section B2, the corner parcel setback requirement applies to both frontages. Main Street on both Tantau and Stevens Creek, on Tantau there is a 35 foot setback; on the recent Biltmore project even though they back at 35 feet. Recommended that the project be resubmitted with exception to HOC included. There are some other factors not disclosed at this point, but he said he felt the city should seriously consider including the exception to the HOC. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Chair Miller: Asked staff to address questions raised by speakers, including exception to HOC; setback from the property line on Saich Way; the angled parking and the impact it has on turning movements for fire trucks; traffic; vehicular movements and parking; relocation of bus stop; reciprocal parking agreement between Borelli and Panera site; and odor abatement equipment for restaurants. Gary Chao, City Planner: Addressed setbacks; there are comments regarding the way HOC prescribed setback requirements. It is unique in that HOC does work for this area; it does require setbacks to be measured from the curb as opposed to the property line. The setback exception is not required and the applicant is not requesting for one; as proposed it meets the letter of the HOC. There is mention of Tantau Main Street project; he clarified that in the General Plan for the Vallco Park South area, it specifically calls out unique setbacks for those areas in which case it has to do with the height of the building slope line; and again it is measured from the curb in those areas. The project Main Street where it relates to Tantau is different than this area; there is a special callout in the General Plan. Other questions regarding fire truck or diagonal parking, the safety of that and the logistics of getting in and out; the diagonal parking is not meant for people if you are traveling northbound to make an illegal U-turn to enter into it the other way around; it is a violation of the vehicle code. It was mentioned previously that the fire dept. has looked at this project from the perspective of getting in, out and around the project area; and there is a reason why they are okay with the diagonal parking because there is multiple access points to the project as well as multiple access and exits points to the Target center as well. With regards to delivery hours and areas, there is a condition that the delivery hours occur outside of the hours of operation; the applicant has confirmed that they will comply. Relative to the bus stop locations, staff has had conversations with the VTA about the location; they are open to relocate the bus stop if warranted by the Planning Commission. Staff will discuss with 258 Cupertino Planning Commission 7 January 8, 2013 them about potentially relocating the bus stop to Alves; it is less desirable from because there are pros and cons; it may be more convenient for the apartment residents to get to the bus stop with natural direct access and there may be merits, but there may be some impact or disturbances to them as well since it is closer to the apartment units, but VTA is open to that if the Commission want to explore it. Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director: Relative to the comment about reciprocal access easement, she said the applicant was referring to an easement they had recorded on their property in 2005 as part of the Peets and Panera project; which is not for discussion today; they are not being asked for reciprocal access easement. She said she felt they supported the current site plan, although Mr. Volkman did discuss some concerns about where the parking was located,, but that access is not in question as part of this hearing; nothing is required of the adjacent property. The only easement is the driveway entrance into and out of the property and not anything past that. Gary Chao: Regarding odor abatement, the standard practice is to require odor abatement systems for restaurants not the case; there is not a concern with odor abatement, although there is a condition that covers odor abatement mitigation in the event complaints are received. The applicant would be obligated to address the issue at that time, although they are encouraged to implement it at the beginning since it is more cost effective Aarti Shrivastava: Relative to delivery trucks, there are a number of tight sites; they are given the conditions of approval and are managed well in most cases. Where there are instances, Code Enforcement makes certain the businesses know what they need to do; the tenants do much of the policing themselves because they Bread. Gary Chao: Relative to travel lane along Saich Way, the comment about the travel lane being reduced or modified to less than currently there is untrue; the current existing travel lane is 12 feet for each lane which consists of 24 feet total; the proximity of where it exists is going to shift a little; but the total vehicle travel lane the width itself is not being reduced by this project; it is being maintained and preserved. The parking adjacent to it is going to be redesigned; the total parking on Saich Way is being reduced. Historically the city has had problems with Saich Way with vehicles travelling at a fast speed as well as 18 wheelers and large trucks parked along the east side of Saich. Even with or without this project Public Works was contemplating some plan to address that, possibly eliminating parking on the east side of the street. That may or may not happen outside the context of the project; it is an issue that the city would like to address. He confirmed that by taking out parking along that side of the street there is a net reduction; there are some potential options to explore if the Commission is interested in adding more diagonal parking further down north of Saich which could potentially make up the net difference. Aarti Shrivastava: Relative to eco issues, several speakers raised the question about the exception of the setback. The 35 foot setback is required along Stevens Creek Blvd; it is not required on the side street; the 9 feet is required the minimum and the landscape setback is encouraged but not required. That is why it does not require an exception. 259 Cupertino Planning Commission 8 January 8, 2013 Com. Brophy: Said he was interested in input about the diagonal parking on Saich, and concerned about the entry way off Stevens Creek into the combined entry way that would be into the Saich project and the Panera Peets site. Said he did not feel the parking spaces could be so close to the entry way and even the need for some adjustments to the site plan. Relative to the relocation of the bus stop, it is a bus layover location for the lines 25 and 51and there is another stop on the backside of Target on Alves and Park Circle East. Given that there is more traffic on Saich than on Alves, and more parking, the logical thing would be to look into the possibility of relocating the bus layover to that location instead. He said the architecture was appropriate. Gary Chao: If the bus stop was relocated to Alves that would potentially free up some additional parallel parking. Vice Chair Sun: The biggest concern is understanding the Saich Way parking; changing the current parallel parking benefit entire community. Narrowing down Saich is the only benefit for egative impact on the neighbors. Said he preferred not to narrow Saich Way. In favor of parallel parking on Saich Way; supports moving the bus stop; still concerned about parking at the entrance on Stevens Creek. Concur with Com. Brophy on that; architecture appropriate. Com. Lee: Said she had some concerns but supported the entry into the parking lot from Stevens Creek; the possibility of a car rear ending another existed. Said along Saich Way she would like to see angled parking; it will help the businesses and will slow down traffic and make for a better pedestrian experience. Said there were two adjacent property owners who support keeping the parallel parking. Said she would like to have more discussion about the bus stop relocation and angled vs. parallel parking. The architectural design is okay; it is a good sized building; she hoped to hear some elements of green building design; tree removal no issues; setbacks okay. The goal is to have successful new retail and have a good pedestrian experience; the site has some constraints; it is narrow, they had to put in 80 parking spaces, they had to make the storefronts attractive and deep enough so they would work. Staff did a good job with the applicant. Com. Brownley: Concurred with d architecture; great pedestrian friendly project; said he supported moving the bus stop as there were benefits to moving it out of the proposed location. Said he likes the angled parking on Saich; it is pedestrian friendly, is easier and safer to pull into and out of on that side of the street. There were positive options proposed for the entryway off Stevens Creek; there were comments that the angled parking retains the majority of the spaces and can improve safety along that route; another option is making one of the end spaces a handicapped space. Both staff and traffic consultant say that everything proposed is acceptable; he supported the proposed solution, but was open to discussing possible options. Com. Brophy: Relative to the bus stop, there is already a bus stop at Alves and Park Circle; the concern would be if the buses are sitting idling; which could be clarified by VTA. 260 Cupertino Planning Commission 9 January 8, 2013 Chair Miller: It is a good addition to the project and a complement to the development that is in the area in terms of Panera and the Target center; it is hoped that Target comes in with their project and improves the site even more. He noted that the developer did the best they could with what they had and did pack a lot into a relatively small space. Said he had the same issue with the parking spaces on the entrance from Stevens Creek; the first parking space is a concern because when backing out of that parking space problem; but it looks like a blind spot; it may be a safety issue. Eliminating the parking spot or doing some angled parking may make it easier to back out without backing so far out into the street may solve the problem. Given all the parking spaces on Saich Way it should not be an issue in terms of meeting the parking requirements for the project. Supports moving the bus stop to allow more parking on the street; also leaning toward the parallel parking option because at some point in time; if that is an issue now, it is going to be more of an issue when the other side of the street is developed because they will not have any parking on that side of the street if there is angled parking. They could try the angled parking initially and then when a project comes in on the other side of the street go back to parallel parking or just do parallel parking now. Given that there may be a potential loss of spaces by going to angled parking, he said he was inclined to favor the parallel parking as an overall solution. Com. Brophy: Said he preferred parallel parking, and noted for the record that he would vote against it because the traffic consultants hired by the city said that they needed a 50 foot throat there and even eliminating one or two parking spaces in the entryway would not be sufficient. He suggested going closer to 50 feet of no parking, lose potentially 5 spaces which would require some modification on the design. There is a safety issue at the entrance point with the parking so close to it; is there an issue if it is reduced by one, two or three that they still meet their parking requirement based on the excess parking on Saich Way. Aarti Shrivastava: Said they usually like to get the parking on site; but this is a planned development and will not specifically require a parking exception; the Commission can circumscribe what they want staff to look at and how many spaces they are willing to lose. Com. Brophy: Said it is supposedly solved by parking elsewhere in the office complex but that is not the way it works; he said they should not be counting spaces on the public right-of-way as part of the commercial project. Com. Lee: Said she did not support counting spaces on Saich Way as part of the project. The first two spaces in front of shop 7 close to Stevens Creek would be the last ones. It is tight, but the circulation is adequate that they will find other parking spots. If there is no other parking, someone will try to park in those spaces and there will be some risk they will get rear ended. Does not want to set a precedent and allow parking spaces to be on Saich; it is best to ensure that all required parking is onsite otherwise people will say you let that development slide by last time, why not let another slide by and it just gets more difficult. Motion: Motion by Com. Lee, second by Com. Brownley, to approve Application DP-2012-05, ASA-2012-13, EA-212-09, and TR-2012-41 per the model resolutions 261 Cupertino Planning Commission 10 January 8, 2013 Friendly Amendment by Vince Chair Sun: to make it parallel parking instead of angled parking; accepted by Com. Lee. Com. Brophy: Said something has to be done there as he could not support it in its current parking arrangement on the entry off Stevens Creek. The architecture is attractive; supports parallel parking; staff has to work on the bus site. The project is a good replacement for what has been sitting for 4 or 5 years, but it is a step too far in terms of the amount of square footage being squeezed onto a site and still meet the The motion was carried 4-1-0, Com. Brophy voted No. Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed to City Council within 14 days. 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 MEMORANDUM Date: January 30, 2012 To: George Schroeder, Assistant Planner Gary Chao, Planning Manager Community Development Department, City of Cupertino From: Ian Barnes and Katy Cole, Fehr & Peers Subject: Clarification of Recommendations from Saich Way Station Dated November 16, 2012 SJ12-1389 This memorandum clarifies our findings presented in our memorand Evaluation of Proposed Redevelopment at 20803 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cuper dated November 16, 2012. Our evaluation provided comments and recommendations to enhance within the project site. The site layout is complex and many factors should be considered determining the implementation of any recommendations. Therefore recommendations should not be viewed as absolute, but as guidanc design. We understand that there has been concern with one of the items November 16, 2012 memorandum; specifically, the recommendation t the driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard be removed to provide gr This recommendation was made to reduce potential conflicts betwe project site and vehicles parked in the spaces within the aisle, Stevens Creek Boulevard. We identified a target throat depth of thumb, and was not based on analysis specific to the subject dri provided to Fehr & Peers on January 25, 2013 shows a revision to stalls along the west side of the Shops 7 building nearest Steve removed to increase the driveway throat depth to approximately 3. Increasing the throat depth to 35 feet meets the intent of the recommendation, and is site. There are several examples of parcels that have access to throat depths of less than 50 feet. We also understand that there was consideration of increasing th entering the site from Stevens Creek Boulevard. The purpose of i vehicles would be able to enter the site at higher speeds, which Stevens Creek Boulevard. Increasing speeds could have negative s pedestrians walking along Stevens Creek Boulevard and pedestrian 160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 675, San Jose CA 95113 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com 303 Mr. George Schroeder and Mr. Gary Chao January 30, 2013 Page 2 of 2 therefore, we do not recommend increasing the turn radius as a m speeds entering the site. The slower vehicle speeds within the d could enhance safety in a heavy pedestrian area. Ultimately, the determination as to what improvements or changes, if any, must b of project approval. If you have any questions, please call Ian Barnes at (408) 645-7 304 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:February19,2013 Subject RequesttowaivethetimelinesetforthinCupertinoMunicipalCode(CMC)Chapter 14.04foranappealrelatedtostreetimprovementrequirementsat10567SanLeandro Avenue. RecommendedAction Decidewhethertograntarequesttowaivetheappealtimelineforstreetimprovements requiredaspartofadevelopmentprojectat10567SanLeandroAvenueand,ifthe waiverisgranted,directstafftosettheappealforhearing. Discussion CMCChapter14.04allowstheCitytorequirecertainstreetimprovementsofapplicants whoproposetoconstruct,alterorrepairabuildingonlandadjacenttoanunimproved street.Thepropertyat10567SanLeandroAvenueisadjacenttoanunimprovedstreet. Inearlyspring,2012,theownersubmittedanapplicationtoconstructanewsingle familyhomeontheproperty.InMarch2012,thePublicWorksDepartmentinformed himthatseveralstreetimprovementswouldberequired,includingrelocationofa utilitypoleoutofthepublicrightofwayatthepropertyline.OnJune11,2012,the PlanningDepartmentapprovedthedevelopmentapplication.Thepropertyowner submittedabondsecuringthestreetimprovementwork,includingthepolerelocation, requiredbythePublicWorksDepartmentonJuly27,2012,andwasissuedabuilding permitonAugust3,2012.Theresidenceiscurrentlyunderconstruction. OnAugust14,2012,thepropertyownercontactedthePublicWorksDirectortoask severalquestionsabouttheutilitypolerelocationrequirement.Aftermuch correspondenceoverthenexttwomonths,andafterobtainingthenecessaryeasement fromtheneighboringproperty,theDirectorconfirmedagainonOctober26,2012that relocationofthepolewasrequired.Thepropertyownercontinuedtoobjecttothe DirectorandultimatelyfiledanappealofthepolerelocationrequirementwiththeCity ClerkonDecember19,2012. 305 CMCsection14.04.240providesthatappealsmustbefiledinwritingwiththeCity Clerkwithin30daysofadecisionrelatedtoarequirementofChapter14.04,andmust statetheassertederror,thegroundsforappeal,andthe§¶¶«²²§´º¹contactinformation. Section14.04.240specificallyprovidesthat 2§¯ªnoticeofappealshallnotbeeffective unlessitisfiledwiththeCityClerkwithinthetimerequired[30days]bysubsectionA ofthis¹«©º¯µ´ !Theappealofthedecisiontorequirerelocationoftheutilitypolewas notfiledwithintherequired30daytimeframe.Thepropertyownerwasawareofthe relocationrequirementasearlyasMarch2012onthePublicWorksconfirmationform requiredforhisplanningapplicationanddidnotappealatthattimeoratanyofthe subsequentapprovalsandpermitsissuedinJune,JulyandAugust2012.Thus,based ontheprovisionsofCMCsection14.04.240,theCity ººµ¸´«¿¹Officeandstaff determinedthathisDecember19,2012appealwasnoteffectivebecauseitwasnotfiled within30daysofthePublicWorks#¯¸«©ºµ¸¹decisiontorequirepolerelocation. OnJanuary24,2013,thepropertyownersubmittedanotherappealformtotheCity Clerkchallengingthe"¯º¿¹decision,findingthathisDecember2012appealwasnot timely,andeffectivelyrequestingthattheCitywaivetherequirementtoappealwithin 30daysofadecision. ItisquiterareforCityCounciltowaivetheexpirationofanappealperiod.Inthiscase theownermayassertthatgroundsexistbecausehesubmittedwrittenobjectionstothe polerelocationrequirementwithin30daysofsubmittinghisbondandbecausethe noticehewasgivenwhenhewasfirstinformedoftherequirementdidnotcontaina writtendescriptionoftheappealprocessassetforthinCMCsection14.04.240. However,theappealshouldhavebeenproperlyreceivedbackinAprilof2012tobe effective,insteadtheownerwaiteduntilAugust2012,afterhereceivedbuilding permits,toobject.StaffcanfindnopreviousoccasionwhereCouncilhaswaivedthe expirationofanappealperiodonthesegrounds.Itistypicallypresumedthat applicantsarerequiredtoinquireabouttherelevantappealprocessiftheydonot understandoragreewiththerequirementsestablishedbytheCity. IftheCouncilchoosestowaivetheappealtimelineforthisproject,staffwillsetthe matterforhearingatafuturemeeting. __________________________________ Preparedby:MelissaTronquet,AssistantCityAttorney Reviewedby:TimmBorden,DirectorofPublicWorksDepartment ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: AAppeal 306 307 308 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:February19,2012 Subject UpdateontheGeneralPlanAmendmentprocess,Councilauthorizationforabudget amendmenttoadd$150,507tothebudgetfortheGeneralPlanAmendmentprocess, andapprovalofcontractswithMIGastheplanningconsultantandThePlanning Center/DC&Eastheenvironmentalconsultant. RecommendedAction StaffrecommendsthattheCityCouncilapprovethefollowing: 1.ScopesofworkfortheGeneralPlanAmendment(GPA),VallcoShoppingDistrict SpecificPlanandassociatedEnvironmentalImpactReports(EIR)(SeeAttachmentA ProposedscopesofworkforGeneralPlanAmendment,VallcoSpecificPlan,and EIRs);and 2.Budgetamendmentforanadditionalamountof$150,507tofundcostsofthe GeneralPlanAmendmentprocessnotcurrentlybudgeted,foratotalbudgetamount of$1,036,545;and 3.AuthorizetheCityManagertoapprovetheattachedcontractwithMIGasthe planningconsultantfortheGeneralPlanAmendmentintheamountnottoexceed $476,096(AttachmentBDraftContractwithMIGfortheGeneralPlan Amendment).ThescopeforthiscontractwouldbetheGPAwithanoptionforthe CitytoauthorizetheVallcoShoppingDistrictSpecificPlanatalaterdate.Ifthe CitydecidestoproceedwiththeVallcoplaninthefuture,staffwouldreturnto Councilwithacontractamendment,andadditionalbudgetauthority,toaddthe necessaryfundsfortheVallcoPlan. 4.AuthorizetheCityManagertoapprovetheattachedcontractwithThePlanning Center/DC&EtopreparetheEnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR)fortheGeneral PlanAmendmentintheamountnottoexceed$393,490(AttachmentCDraft ContractwithThePlanningCenter/DC&EfortheGeneralPlanAmendmentEIR). ThiscontractwouldalsoincludetheoptionfortheCitytoauthorizeanEIRforthe VallcoSpecificPlanatalaterdate. 309 5.AuthorizetheCityManagertoapproveContractChangeOrders(CCO)forcontracts forItems3and4abovetotheextentthattotalexpendituresdonotexceedthetotal amountoftheprojectbudget. Background AttheAugust21,2012meeting,theCityCouncilauthorizedstafftoproceedwiththe initiationofaGeneralPlanAmendmentandrequestedthatstaffreturnbacktoCouncil withthefollowing(seeAttachmentsDGeneralPlanAmendmentOutline,EAugust 21,2012CityCouncilreportandFMinutesoftheAugust21,2012CityCouncil meeting): 1.ScopeofworkfortheGeneralPlanAmendmentprocess,includingthetimingofa Specificand/orMasterPlanfortheVallcoShoppingDistrictinconjunctionwiththe GeneralPlanAmendmentprocess;and 2.ProposaltofundtheGeneralPlanAmendmentprocess,includingtheCityshare andthecontributionsmadebypropertyownersofkeyopportunitysitestosharein thecostofreviewingandstudyingtheirparticularsites(withamechanismtobe developedaspartoftheGeneralPlanAmendmentprocesstodeterminethefair shareapportionmentofcontributionsbypropertyownersbasedonpaymentsmade inadvanceandthosethataredeferred);and 3.ListofBQ(QuasiPublicBuilding)propertieswheretheCG(GeneralCommercial) zoningisproposedtobeadded. Discussion A.ScopeofWorkfortheGeneralPlanAmendment(MIG) TheproposedscopeofworkfortheGeneralPlanAmendmentincludes: Increasesinthecitywidedevelopmentallocationsasfollows: 23millionsquarefeetofofficeallocation o 2millionsquarefeetofcommercialallocation o 1,000K1,500roomstothehotelallocation o Reviewofseven(7)opportunitysites Preparationofthefollowingreports: Initialreportonsettingsandopportunities o Visioningstrategiesandframework o ConceptAlternativesanalysisandreportincludingthreelanduseanddesign o conceptalternativesforeachsite EconomicandMarketStudy o DraftandFinalGeneralPlan o Acommunityoutreachprocess,includingthefollowing: Oneinitialcitywidepostcardnotice o 310 Alllegalnoticingasrequired o Projectwebsite o Threecommunityvisioningmeetingsand5stakeholdermeetings o TimelineK12K15months StafforiginallyrecommendedincludingthefollowingopportunitysitesintheGeneral PlanAmendment(seeAttachmentGMapofpropertiesinoriginalstaffproposal): 1.ChurchsiteatStellingandHomesteadRoadsKcommercialoverlay 2.PG&EsiteatBlaneyAvenueandHomesteadRoadKcommercialoverlay 3.VallcoShoppingDistrictKlandusealternativeanalysis ThefollowingpropertyownershavealsorequestedthattheCityalsoincludetheirsites intheAmendmentprocessandconsidernewregulationsthatwouldbespecifictotheir sites(seeAttachmentHMapofpropertieswhoseownershaverequestedtobe included): 1.Target/Bottegas(BajaFreshshoppingcenter)/Leong%§º¯³§¹restaurant)Kfor increaseinheightandlandusealternativesformixeduse 2.StevensCreekBusinessCenter(eastoftheWholeFoodssite)Kforincreaseinheight andlandusealternativesformixeduse 3.CupertinoInnKforincreaseinheightandadditionalhotelrooms 4.CityCenterKforincreaseinheight,additionalofficeallocationandlanduse alternativesformixeduse 5.Mirapath(nearthePG&Esite)Kforcommercialoverlay 6.CupertinoVillageKforincreaseinheightandadditionalhotelandcommercial allocation AsdiscussedwithCouncil,theadditionalreviewproposedbythesepropertyowners goesbeyondthescopethatstaffwouldordinarilyconsiderincludingintheGeneral PlanAmendment.However,staffbelievesthatanalyzingtheabovesites,whichare majorsitesforpotentialdevelopmentwithintheCity,willallowincreasedcommunity involvementandprovideforamorecomprehensivecommunitywidediscussionof landuseandheightalternatives.Similarly,althoughinclusionintheGPAprocesswill notguaranteeanyparticularoutcomeforthesepropertyowners,itwillallowthe opportunityforacommunitywidedialogueonheights,landuseanddevelopment allocation.Therefore,staffiswillingtoaddthislevelofreview,providedtheseproperty ownersarewillingtocoverthecostsofreviewfortheirpropertiesupfront.Thatcost allocationprocessisdiscussedbelow. 311 B.CostAllocationProcessforInterestedProperties Todate,mostoftheinterestedpropertyownerswhoapproachedtheCityabout includingtheirsitesintheGPAprocesshaveagreedtothe ¬§¯¸¹®§¸«!allocation process,andstaffrecommendsthatthesitesofthosewhoagreetopaybeincludedin thestudy. Thefairshareallocationforeachadditionalsiterequestedforinclusionwouldbebased onthefollowingfactors: 1.BasecostKforeachsite 2.AreachargeKsitesscatteredovermorethanonearea 3.Heightincreasereview 4.LandUsechangeKCGoverlay 5.LandUsechangeKResidential 6.Developmentallocation 7.Sitesize AttachmentIFairShareWeightingandAllocation,showstheallocationofweighted factorsandcostsamongthevariousproperties.Propertyownerswhohaveagreedto shareinthecostofreviewingtheirsiteswillbechargedtotalconsultantcostsand10% foradministrativecosts,basedontheirweightedfactors. Anumberofpropertyownersin¹º§¬¬¹originalproposal(fourofthefiveproperty ownersinVallcoShoppingDistrictandtwopropertyownerswithsitesthathave QuasiPubliclanduse)willnotbefundingtheconsultantfeeatthistime.These propertieswillberequiredtopayfairshareoftotalconsultantcosts,staffand miscellaneouscosts(estimatedatabout35%ofconsultantcosts)andcarryingcostsata rateof4%peryear.Thiswillbetranslatedintoacostpersquarefootforthese properties,whichwillbepaidbyapplicantswhenprojectsareapproved.Thecostof increasingoveralldevelopmentallocation(office,commercialandhotel)willbe calculatedseparatelyandageneraladvanceplanningfeewillbeproposed(onaper squarefootbasis)forprojectsthatrequestadditionaldevelopmentallocation.A consultantwillcalculatethesefeesattheendoftheprocess. Thefollowingpropertyownershaveinformedstaffthattheyarewillingtofullyfund thefairshareofconsultantcostsfromthebeginningoftheprocess: 1.Volckmann(StevensCreekBusinessCenter) 2.Vidovich(CupertinoInn) 3.Prometheus(CityCenter) 312 4.(DorisYeh)Mirapath 5.Kimco(CupertinoVillage) 6.KCR(sitenorthofJCPenneyintheVallcoShoppingDistrict) Forthefairshareallocationofconsultantcostsforeachoftheseproperties,pleasesee AttachmentKGeneralPlanPaymentScheduleandApplicantShare.Staffnotesthat thisfairshareallocationisbasedonconsultantcostsaspartofthecurrentscope.Any increasedscopeandrelatedconsultantcostswillalsobeapportionedamongthe variouspartiesusingthesameweightingfactors.SincetheTarget/Bottegas/Leong propertieshavenotcommittedtofundingtheirfairsharefromthebeginningofthe process,staffisnotrecommendingaddingthemtotheGPAasanopportunitysiteat thistime. ConsultantContracts OnOctober1,2012,RequestsforProposals(RFPs)weresentoutforaqualified planningandenvironmentalconsultanttopreparetheGeneralPlanAmendment, VallcoShoppingDistrictSpecificPlanandassociatedEnvironmentalImpactReport (EIR).TheCityconductedconsultantinterviewsinNovemberandDecember2012.The resultsoftheinterviewunanimouslyplacedMIGasthefirstchoicefortheprospective planningconsultant,andThePlanningCenter/DC&EasthefirstchoicefortheEIR consultantfortheproject. ThetotalcostfortheGeneralPlan,anditsassociatedEIRwouldbe$1,036,545including miscellaneouscostsandcontingency.ThecosttopreparetheVallcoSpecificPlanand EIRis$495,407includingmiscellaneouscostsandcontingency.TheCitywouldbeable tosaveapproximately$103,197bypreparingthetwodocumentsconcurrentlyand havingajointEIR(seeAttachmentJGeneralPlanAmendmentandSpecificPlan Cost).However,thecurrentrequestedbudgetfortheGPAof$1,036,545willnot accommodateconcurrentpreparation. Therefore,staffrecommendsthattheCouncilapprovecontractswithMIGandThe PlanningCenter/DC&EthatfundtheGeneralPlanAmendmentandEIRonly.Staff recommendsthisapproachbecauseitallowstheCitytoproceedwiththeGeneralPlan AmendmentandthelargerissueoflandusealternativesfortheVallcoShopping District,whiledeferringtheSpecificPlan.TheGeneralPlanAmendmentprocesswill involvetheVallcoShoppingDistrictpropertyownersindevelopingthreelanduse alternatives,whichcaninformtheSpecificPlanprocess.Itwillalsorequireasmaller contributionbytheCity. 313 However,staffhasdraftedthesecontractstogivetheCitytheoptiontoauthorizethe VallcoShoppingDistrictSpecificPlanandseparateEIRwithin6monthsofstartingthe GeneralPlanprocess.IfandwhentheCitychoosestomoveforwardontheSpecific Plan,staffwouldneedadditionalapprovalbeforeauthorizingthisoption.Thebenefit ofincludingthisoptionisthatithelpsstreamlinetheSpecificPlanprocessifandwhen theCitydoesdecidetoproceedbecauseitsetsthescopeandrates. BudgetAmendmentRequestandFiscalImpact ThetotalcostfortheGeneralPlanandEIRthatstaffisrecommendingis$1,036,545. TheCouncilhasbudgeted$350,000towardthiseffortforFY201213.Thefairsharefor propertyownerswhohaveagreedtocontributeupfronttotheconsultantcostswill total$436,037(notincluding10%foradministrativecosts).Staffisthereforerequesting thattheCouncilapproveabudgetamendmenttoallowtheCitytofundthebalanceof $150,507fromunassignedreservesatthistime.Theremainingbalanceof$100,000that isneededwouldcomefromsalarycostsavingsfromtheCommunityDevelopment Department.ThiswillallowtheCitytoproceedwiththeGeneralPlanAmendment andEIR. ____________________________________________________ Preparedby:AkiHondaSnelling,SeniorPlanner Reviewedby:AartiShrivastava,CommunityDevelopmentDirector ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments:A.ProposedscopesofworkforGeneralPlanAmendment,Vallco SpecificPlan,andEIRs B.DraftContractwithMIGfortheGeneralPlanAmendment C.DraftContractwithThePlanningCenter/DC&EfortheGeneral PlanAmendmentEIR D.GeneralPlanAmendmentOutline E.August21,2012CityCouncilreport F.MinutesoftheAugust21,2012CityCouncilmeeting G.Mapofpropertiesinoriginalstaffproposal H.Mapofpropertieswhoseownershaverequestedtobeincluded I.FairShareWeightingandAllocation J.GeneralPlanAmendmentandSpecificPlanCost K.GeneralPlanPaymentScheduleandApplicantShare 314 City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 The following Work Plan outlines a logical series of phases and General Plan Amendment, with information from each step creating the next step. Our approach allows City staff, stakeholders, oth Planning Commission, City Council and the community ample opport comment on the information compiled during each phase. Our proce extensive, inclusive public participation and outreach program t and proven high tech and high touch tools that will result in ge participation in this important project. This approach ensures t kept well informed and actively engaged in the General Plan Amen which will result an updated General Plan with a higher level of friendliness and legal compliance. Phase 1: Project Kick-Off and Existing Conditions Analysis Task 1.1: Project Kick-Off Meeting and Opportunity Sites Tour At the beginning of the project, the MIG Team will attend a proj City staff and tour the seven opportunity sites that will be a p will be responsible for all meeting and tour logistics (e.g., sc facilities, van for City tour, etc.). This all day event will ha 1.Meeting with City Project Manager. The MIG Team and the Citys Project Manager will meet to discuss the overall project and develop pro management, communication, invoicing and billing protocols. The meeting will provide an opportunity for the MIG Team to collabor City to finalize the project framework and refine the customized approach. 2.Opportunity sites tour. City staff will lead the MIG Team on a tour of seven opportunity sites, including the South Vallco area , that will c this General Plan Amendment project. This will include discussin opportunities for each opportunity site. MIG will photo-document use in subsequent presentations and work products. 3.Meetings with individual departments. The MIG Team will meet individually with City departments for their respective topic areas. During t MIG Team will discuss major goals of the project and collect har files of existing data, reports, entitlement and zoning document City staff. City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 1 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 315 4.Identification of key issues and opportunities. The MIG Team, working with City staff, will develop a preliminary list of major issues and each opportunity site. Task 1.2: Refined Work Plan MIG will work with City staff to determine the final overall wor will include refining the work program, preparing a detailed pro developing a management structure that will be critical componen deadlines are met and the update is completed on-time and on-bud provide an opportunity to refine the approach for how the MIG Te with the separately retained EIR Team. Task 1.3: Community Participation and Outreach Plan MIG will develop a comprehensive Community Participation and Out coordination with City staff to identify how best to conduct out members during the project. The initial Plan will include compon key priorities, structure, community involvement and outreach ac identification of key stakeholders and relationships. It will al schedule that illustrates the sequence and timing of project act format. It is likely that the Plan may be updated or revised throughout the course of the project as issues and policies unfold. We have included stakehol community workshops and public hearings throughout this work plan. In addition, the following are some key innovative outreach and engagement tools throughout the project (note: the budget for this task includes following materials): News Media Interviews. MIG, in coordination with City staff, will participate in either a televised interview with a local news station or a phone interview with a local newspaper at the onset of the project. This interview will of the project, why the project is so important to Cupertino, an get involved. Appropriate media (video or newspaper article) will be posted on the project website and will serve as an introduction for people project. Press Releases. MIG will prepare four press releases, one during each major phase of the process. Each press release will include a brief su we are in the process, what has been produced to date, what is c reviewed/prepared, and how people can get involved. MIG will sub releases to City staff for review prior to sending them to news releases will also serve as a means for advertising upcoming com workshops, meetings, and public hearings. City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 2 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 316 Community Group Presentations. In addition to the Stakeholder Group meetings, MIG will prepare materials for and facilitate up to fi community interest groups and citizen committees in Cupertino. T will provide and opportunity for MIG/City staff to present the p input from the groups on the major issues and opportunities, vis and/or the draft General Plan Amendment. MIG will work with City schedule these meetings. Email Updates. City staff will develop and provide MIG a comprehensive list of email addresses for people interested in the project. This list during the course of the project as necessary. MIG will prepare email updates to maintain interest in the project and generate p total). Newsletters. MIG will prepare four project newsletters that include succinct, focused text with clean graphics. The newsletters will be custom phase of the project, but will generally include a summary of wh conducting the project, what the schedule is, why members of the be interested in the process, and how people can get directly in newsletter will also include current information on the project public input opportunities. Each newsletter will be two-sided 11 will be folded once to create a booklet. MIG will post a digital newsletter on the project website, distribute them via email bla hard copies to the City. Project Flyers and Mass Mailings. MIG will prepare four highly-graphical handout flyers that will be used during each major phase to adve and upcoming community workshops and public hearings. The flyers single-sided 11x17 sheets that can be posted by City staff throu bring attention to the project. The flyers could also be mass-ma and businesses throughout Cupertino. The budget assumes that MIG responsible for printing the flyers and the City would be respon the flyers. Task 1.4: Decision Maker and City Staff Retreat At the onset of the project, MIG will hold a half-day retreat wi Planning Commissioners and senior staff to discuss the General P purpose and process. For efficiency, this retreat may coincide w meeting and site tour (e.g., kick-off in the morning, tour in th evening). This retreat will include a discussion on the legal a Citys general plan and zoning ordinance, overview of the commun outreach process, and discussion of how issues will be identifie addressed during the Amendment process. The retreat will provide City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 3 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 317 decision makers to ask questions about the process, and for City better understanding of what the key objectives are for the proj Task 1.5: Stakeholder Group Formation and Interviews MIG will work with City staff to confirm the final list of Stake initial list, which may be expanded, includes: neighborhood grou (Concerned Citizens of Cupertino, Cupertino Against Rezoning); C Legislative Action Committee; local businesses and developers/bu opportunity site ownership groups. Once the list is finalized, M one-on-one or small group stakeholder interviews/meetings. These expected to be informal meetings that last approximately one hou with City staff on a final list of questions, but it should incl individual vision, issues and assets for the project and various will be responsible for contacting the stakeholders and setting meetings. Task 1.6: Project Website Development and Maintenance MIG will create and host a stand-alone web site for the project based tools, TownSquare. The website will contain current infor project, downloadable documents and presentations, and a way to and input to appropriate project staff. The website will include options for an online survey. MIG will provide reporting of site performance as requested by City staff. MIG will work with City team to determine final website features and content, however, w some combination of the following tools: Administrative Center: simple website management tools for City MIG Team; Comment Publisher: this tool can be used for registered users to based comments on the planning documents, as well as on other i Calendar and Event Manager; Document Library; Featured News; Interactive Survey; Integrated Search; Virtual Meeting: Interactive tool to engage community members on the same materials developed for main workshops; Content Management: Site administrators can edit any of the site pages and easily link pages to a library folder or any other sit User, Group, and Folder Permissions Management to allow multiple access for web site administration, City staff and public; and Google Translate toolbar, which will allow users to easily trans into over 60 different languages. City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 4 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 318 Once the project is completed, MIG will send the City electronic materials and content to be reloaded on the Citys website. MIG underlying software and publishing tools. Reporting of site stat performance at the request of City staff but no more frequently Task 1.7: Base Maps and GIS MIG will collect and review GIS data from the City, including ex Plan land use designations, zoning, existing jobs or non-residen parcel, street centerlines and county assessor data. Building fo attributes are also desirable, if available. All information wil and up-to-date. MIG, in coordination with the City, will define existing conditions base maps for the opportunity sites that wil process. MIG will prepare a total of five maps for the opportuni existing general plan, zoning designation, property ownership, a and square feet). We will ensure all maps have a uniform style, the culmination of the project, MIG will provide the City with t associated files developed during the process. All GIS data and the project will be developed consistent with City protocols and easy integration into the Citys information system upon project Task 1.8: Settings and Opportunities Report The MIG Team will conduct an analysis of the existing conditions key opportunity sites. This will include summarizing existing uses, site attributes, mobility characteristics and overall urban design. This analysis will be Settings and Opportunities Report. The report will include key f opportunities associated with each opportunity site, and the bas the previous task. The report will include narrative, synthesis documentation, illustrative examples from comparable communities as appropriate, and will be approximately 50 pages. The report w easy-to-read. As such, it will be created in a PowerPoint format digital accessibility. Task 1.9: Stakeholder Group Meeting MIG will meet with the Stakeholder Group to provide them an upda and discuss the Settings and Opportunities Report. MIG will faci identify additional opportunities or challenges that should be i process. Task 1.10: Planning Commission Study Session City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 5 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 319 MIG will meet with the Planning Commission to provide them an up discuss the Settings and Opportunities Report, and present feedb Stakeholder Group. The Planning Commission will provide their in issues and opportunities to be addressed during the project. Task 1.11: City Council Study Session MIG will meet with the City Council to provide them an update on the Settings and Opportunities Report, and present feedback rece Stakeholder Group and Planning Commission. The City Council will and the MIG Team feedback on the report and other project insigh Task 1 Deliverables # of Hard Item Description Format(s) Copies Kick-Off Meeting Meeting agenda, sign-in sheet, PowerPoint Word/PDF/PPT/ 10 Materials presentation and brief summary. Includes a JPEG photo database from the sites tour Refined Work Plan Refinements to scope, schedule and Word/PDF 0 process, if needed Community Detailed strategy for how MIG and City will Word/PDF 0 Participation and conduct community participation and Outreach Plan outreach, including a process schedule Stakeholder Interview Brief summaries of each stakeholder Word/PDF 10 Summaries interview for City staff and MIG records Newsletters Highly graphical with succinct text. MIG will InDesign/PDF 400 (100 produce four total each series) Project Flyers Highly graphical with succinct text. MIG will InDesign/PDF 200 (50 each produce four total series) Project Website Full, stand-alone project website designed, HTML/CSS/Flash/ 0 hosted and managed by MIG PDF Base Maps Existing conditions maps showing various GIS/Illustrator 0 design and environmental features Settings and Detailed summary of the existing setting, Word/PDF 10 Opportunities Report opportunities and major findings of each of the key opportunity sites Stakeholder Group Meeting agenda, sign-in sheet, PowerPoint Word/PPT 50 (agenda) Meeting Materials presentation and brief summary Planning Commission Meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation Word/PPT 50 (agenda) Study Session Materials and brief summary City Council Study Meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation Word/PPT 50 (agenda) Session Materials and brief summary City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 6 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 320 Phase 2: Visioning and Alternatives Task 2.1: Stakeholder Group Meeting MIG will meet with the Stakeholder Group to develop a future vis sites, including the Vallco Shopping Center site, and the larger This visioning session will be an interactive, facilitated discu discussion on large wall graphic paper in order to work through consensus on the major components of the vision. In order to foc will use existing City Council ideas and direction as a starting discussion. Task 2.2: Community Workshop Visioning MIG will facilitate a community workshop to refine the vision fo sites, including the South Vallco area. The agenda for this work update on the project, summary of materials produced to date, an exercise to refine an overall vision for the key opportunity sit use and circulation goals. We will use current City Council and as the starting point for working with the community to refine t coordination with City staff, will be responsible for developing materials and facilitating each workshop. MIG will provide one f graphic recorder for this workshop. City staff will be responsib locations, printing and mailing announcements, and providing foo Task 2.3: Vision and Transformative Strategies Framework Based on the input received during earlier tasks, and in close c staff, MIG will develop a Vision and Transformative Strategies F General Plan Amendment. This framework will include a vision for revitalization of the key opportunity sites. The vision will be transformative strategies necessary to create positive change on sites and throughout the larger Cupertino community. The transfo then be followed by broad goals and objectives for the general p Vision and Transformative Strategies will be prepared as a one-s MIG will submit a draft for City staff review, and will produce draft that reflects staff edits. Task 2.4: Market Study BAE will prepare a full market feasibility study of retail, hote and its surrounding market trade area in order to inform allocat office, retail and hotel uses. This will include an extensive an City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 7 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 321 employment trends, local real estate market dynamics and trends driving the demand for new types of commercial real estate produ BAE will use information gathered from a variety of sources to c These include previous plans and analyses conducted in Cupertino demographic and economic data from the Census, ABAG, the CA State Department of Finance, and Nielsen (a national vendor of demographic estimates Data on commercial real estate conditions will be obtained from active in the regional market for commercial, office, and hotel/ Baseline retail sales data will be obtained from published State reports, and additional unpublished data provided by the City (w current data than the published reports, and may be able to prov taxable retail sales for the four commercial districts, either i store categories. BAE will also request data from the Board of E detailed categories to get a more detailed picture of specialty recently released 2007 Economic Census should also provide insig other business sectors in Cupertino. In addition to data provide available, BAE and David Greensfelder will also interview key re center owners, and other business community representatives (e.g association staff) to determine the customer base for the existi Office Market The office market analysis will focus in particular on the needs sizes, including large established companies as well as start-up seeking flexible incubator and meeting space. The analysis will office absorption trends in Cupertino and Silicon Valley and wil future supportable office development scenarios to inform the in development allocations within the General Plan Amendment. Hotel Market BAE will prepare a market analysis of existing hotels (including hotel/conference centers) and present key revenue and occupancy Travel Research to assess demand for additional hotel or confere As with the office market analysis, this task will inform alloca the General Plan Amendment. Retail Sales Leakage Analysis The Retail Analysis will include three major steps. First, BAE w Board of Equalization and the City to examine retail sales and u analyze trends by major store category, as well as on a per capi and the larger trade area, and compare these patterns to similar identify the Citys strengths and weaknesses. BAE will also prof conditions, including rental and vacancy rates at Cupertinos ke extent confidential store-by-store data and square footage can b City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 8 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 322 also characterize the performance of existing outlets relative t comparable stores. Task 2.5: Allocation Analysis Report BAE will prepare a comprehensive Allocation Analysis Report that recommendations for the total amount of new development allocati office and hotel) based on land use, urban design and economic d identify new retail opportunities, BAE will complete a supporta analysis. As part of this process, BAE will identify current lea store category, estimate potential additional sales capture, and into supportable square feet. The analysis will focus on the pot community and regional-serving retail, and will consider improve and re-tenanting of any major vacancies. Based on the findings o estimate future potential sales taxes generated by any new retai performance of existing retailers, and/or occupation of major va Task 2.6: Retail Strategy Report Greensfelder Consultants will prepare a comprehensive Retail Str provides a link between market and data analysis, and implementa recommendations that achieve the communitys ultimate goal. Gree approach the retail strategy from the point of view of defining focus how to identify what opportunities exists and can be execu properties or in a larger areas. This approach is differentiated implementation strategies based on market analysis and well rese This analysis will focus on how retail organizes itself in today report will distinguish between commodity and specialty retail, Commodity retail goods and services are those goods and services purchased and consumed on a regular basis from "primary" househo largely without emotional attachment by the consumer, and at ret shopping centers offering the optimal combination of lowest "pri "convenience most responsive to the purchase and need in questi Commodity retailers range from local convenience stores to drug stores, discounters and warehouse stores; and "Commodity Shoppin are those shopping venues whose primary purpose is the delivery goods and services to consumers. Specialty retail goods and services, by contrast, are those good that are purchased on an optional basis by consumers using "disc funds, selected and often consumed during the expenditure of d time. Successful specialty shopping venues, regardless of form unique and attractive combination of tenant mix and the shopping City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 9 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 323 (i.e. a sense of place) to the consumer within the market or tra and lend themselves to extended consumer stays. An emotional co the tenant mix and environment is key, especially for higher end projects. In addition to acknowledging how retail organizes itself, it is multi-channel retail, a term that refers to the many options for merchandise from traditional retail stores to the internet, mobi Omni-channel retail, an extension of multi-channel retail, refer these various retail channels to offer the consumer a seamless e channel approach would apply to commodity retail in that it addr convenience function, while for specialty retail it might focus the built retail environment. Because commodity and specialty retail are so fundamentally diff when making recommendations can be especially helpful. The imple contained in this report will evaluate each of the Citys target each areas suitability as a commodity, a specialty or a hybrid and objective will be articulated once each areas highest and b established. Greensfelder will consider the impact of multiple r appropriate for making specific, targeted recommendations for th Cupertino. The retail strategy will also focus on implementation strategies This portion of the retail strategy report is key since it moves conceptual analysis to identifying ways to revitalize targeted r implementation strategy for each target retail area will focus, following key points, applying the market analysis and summarize BAE to each available/targeted retail site: Evaluation of fundamental real estate attributes such as locatio area, competing and proposed projects, and the long-term viabili competing projects. Evaluation of market economics including the best mix of users, tenants to target, and market rent and vacancy factors. Evaluation of fundamental site attributes such as visibility, ac demand. Site plan recommendations for reconfiguring existing projects ba estate attributes, site attributes, and market factors. Place-making considerations including careful evaluating layout attributes in light of tenant placement, configuration of indoor public gathering areas, light, shade, and protection from the el tenant and way-finding signage, and materials including lighting like. City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 10 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 324 Functionality recommendations such as how to service tenants (i. trash, service areas) while minimizing the impacts of these func project and neighbors. Evaluation of whether to maintain continuity of place, such as r rehabilitating existing facades and materials in an attempt to m authenticity or a familiar or inviting feel for the customer. In summary, the retail strategy report will go beyond merely con analysis and summarizing well researched data; it will provide s strategies for specific target sites and areas with the goal of owners a road map for identifying what entitlement and developme anticipated. This road map will help in prioritizing potential r redevelopment projects, and help focus the general plan for thes will submit an administrative draft report to City staff for rev report that reflects City staff comments. Task 2.7: Concept Alternatives Utilizing the results and input from earlier tasks, MIG will dev with City staff, a range of land use and design Concept Alternat seven opportunity sites, including the Vallco Shopping Center si Alternatives that will be used to show development, use, mobilit the future. Each individual Concept Alterative will be formatted include: site and alternative title; summary text of the alterna the land use changes proposed; and a 3D sketch-up model visually height and site coverage. The budget assumes that MIG will prepa Concept Alternatives as part of this task. City staff will revie each Concept Alternative. MIG will prepare final versions that r Task 2.8: Concept Alternatives Report The MIG Team will work with City staff to evaluate the Concept A how well they achieve urban design, mobility, economic, environm health indicators. Based on the evaluation, MIG will prepare a C Report that evaluates how well each one of the alternatives perf vision and transformative strategies. An underlying objective of communicate technical and policy issues in a straight-forward ma understood by community members and decision makers. Specific to addressed and compared include: land use, urban design, mobility health. In addition, BAE will conduct an economic assessment of concept, including recommendations for development product types incorporate the findings from the Market Study. The EIR Team wil providing circulation, infrastructure and environmental analysis Alternatives Report. The report will be approximately 20 pages i City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 11 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 325 11x17 document. MIG will submit a Draft Concept Alternatives Rep their review, and will prepare a Public Draft that reflects City Task 2.9: Stakeholder Group Meeting MIG will meet with the Stakeholder Group to provide them an upda and discuss the Concept Alternatives Report. MIG will facilitate their feedback on the concepts for each of the seven opportunity Vallco Shopping Center site. Task 2.10: Community Workshop Concept Alternatives MIG will facilitate a community workshop to solicit input on the The agenda for this workshop will include: an update on the proj materials produced to date, and an interactive exercise to revie Concept Alternatives for the seven opportunity sites. The object be to gain direct feedback from the community on which concepts where. This feedback will help inform the selection of a preferr used as the basis for the General Plan Amendment. MIG, in coordi will be responsible for developing content, printing materials a workshop. MIG will provide one facilitator and one graphic recor City staff will be responsible for securing workshop locations, announcements, and providing food. Task 2.11: Planning Commission Study Session MIG will meet with the Planning Commission to provide them an up discuss the Concepts Alternatives Report, and present feedback r Stakeholder Group and during the Community Workshop. MIG will fa with the Planning Commission to identify a preferred concept for opportunity sites, including the Vallco Shopping Center site. Task 2.12: City Council Study Session MIG will meet with the City Council to provide them an update on the Concepts Alternatives Report, present feedback received from Group and during the Community Workshop, and discuss the Plannin preferred concept. MIG will facilitate a discussion with the Cit final preferred concept for each of the seven opportunity sites, Shopping Center site. This preferred concept will be used as the General Plan Amendment. Phase 2 Deliverables City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 12 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 326 # of Hard Item Description Format(s) Copies Vision and Update vision for the opportunity sites and InDesign/PDF 10 Transformative larger Cupertino community, followed by Strategies Framework specific strategies to create positive change Market Study Summary of market demands for Cupertino Word/PDF 10 Allocation Analysis Summary of potential allocation increased Word/PDF 10 Report based on the market demand Retail Strategy Report Summary of the overall strategy for Word/PDF 10 improving economic and retails conditions in Cupertino Concept Alternatives Series of individual diagrams that identifyIllustrator/GIS/ 14 each concept alternatives (14 total) PDF Concept Alternatives Comprehensive report that summarizes and InDesign/PDF 10 Report analyzes all concept alternatives Community Workshop Workshop agendas, sign-in sheets, large InDesign/PDF Various Materials graphic boards and outreach materials Stakeholder Group Meeting agenda, sign-in sheet, PowerPoint Word/PPT 50 (agendas Meeting Materials presentation and brief summary per meeting) Planning Commission Meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation Word/PPT 50 (agenda) Study Session Materials and brief summary City Council Study Meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation Word/PPT 50 (agenda) Session Materials and brief summary Phase 3: Draft General Plan Amendment Task 3.1: Existing General Plan Analysis and Policy Framework Prior to drafting the updated General Plan Amendment, MIG will c framework matrix that identifies new or modified goals, policies programs that are needed to implement the preferred concept. The may identify responsible parties and timeframes for implementati New color maps and graphics may be included as needed to illustr such as increased density, urban design, mobility and economic d The EIR Team will support this evaluation by identifying CEQA-re need to be addressed in the General Plan Amendment. The policy f reviewed by City staff, and MIG will update the framework based direction. Task 3.2: Draft General Plan Amendment The MIG Team will prepare a focused update the Citys existing G addresses the vision, goals, policies, standards and actions dev process. This will include directly editing the Citys existing creating a new General Plan document in Word or another format). Amendment will include revised and updated text, and new maps, f Specific major revisions include: City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 13 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 327 Updating Narrative Text. This includes revising introductory or text throughout the General Plan to reflect the updated concepts during this process. Updating the Land Use and Circulation Diagrams. This includes pr GIS information and final figures that reflect changes in land u as a result of this project. MIG will prepare the updated Land U EIR Team will prepare the updated Circulation Diagram in close c with MIG. Updating Allocation Policy and Standards Table. This includes up appropriate goal and policy text, and updating Table 2.A to refl development allocations. Tentatively, the increases include addi square feet of office allocation, 2 million square feet of comme and 1,0001,500 rooms to the hotel allocation. Updating Height Standards. This includes increasing height limit South Vallco area and other opportunity sites. Identifying Community Benefits. This includes developing new pol identifies development incentives (e.g., increased density or he offered for projects that also provide a direct community benefi would allow the City to ensure that more intense uses also provi benefits to the greater Cupertino community. Updating Additional General Plan Goals, Policies and Actions. Th revising other elements of the General Plan to ensure that it is consistent with the General Plan Amendment and to addresses thro recent changes in State law (AB 32, SB 375, Complete Streets, et not include preparing an integrated Climate Action Plan or a com greenhouse gas reduction strategy, however, that can be prepared optional task. This also does not include revisions to the City completed Housing Element. MIG will prepare all text revisions utilizing the track-change We will make direct edits to the existing General Plan files so makers and the community can clearly identify which parts of the updated and which parts have remained the same. Once drafted, MI the QuarkXPress files and PDF files to City staff for review and update the files and prepare public review drafts that reflect C Optional Task: Fiscal Impact Analysis If desired by the City, BAE can prepare a Fiscal Impact Analysis budget item. The analysis will examine the total revenues and ex be generated by increased office, retail and hotel allocations i result of the General Plan Amendment. Depending on the Citys ne process, this fiscal analysis could either be quite detailed and impacts on the Citys General Fund, or could focus in a more lim City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 14 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 328 revenues to be generated from increased development that would a General Fund, as well as to any other taking entities in Cuperti prepare a fiscal impacts analysis of the preferred alternative a relative net impacts of the mix of uses. BAE will work with the Finance Department to ensure that the estimates for tax revenues, fees and municipal s consistent with City fiscal policies. Task 3.3: Stakeholder Group Meeting MIG will meet with the Stakeholder Group to provide them an upda and discuss the draft General Plan Amendment. MIG will facilitat their feedback on the Amendment. MIG will develop a comment trac be used to organize input received during this meeting. Task 3.4: Planning Commission Study Session MIG will meet with the Planning Commission to provide them an up discuss the draft General Plan Amendment and input received from group. MIG will facilitate a discussion with the Planning Commis feedback on the Amendment. MIG will add their comments into the matrix in order to organize input received during the study sess Task 3.5: City Council Study Session MIG will meet with the City Council to provide them an update on the draft General Plan Amendment, and present the comment tracki facilitate a discussion with the City Council to confirm revisio Amendment. The culmination of this meeting will be direction on a revised General Plan Amendment that will be used as the basis for developing the EIR formal public review and hearing process. Task 3.6: Revised Draft General Plan Amendment MIG will prepare a Revised Draft General Plan Amendment that ref received from the City Council. This may include necessary updat graphics and maps. Task 3.7: Community Open House MIG will facilitate a citywide open house on the draft General P MIG Team will be available to answer questions about the project components of the draft General Plan Amendment. This will provid the public to provide feedback on the draft amendment, including policies and programs. MIG will prepare large boards that summ City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 15 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 329 concepts and major changes from the existing General Plan. MIG, City staff and the project team, will be responsible for develop materials, and facilitating each workshop. MIG will provide two workshop. City staff will be responsible for securing workshop l mailing announcements, and proving food. Phase 3 Deliverables # of Hard Item Description Format(s) Copies Existing General Plan Detailed summary of the needed changes InDesign/PDF 10 Analysis and Policy and revisions to the existing General Plan Framework Draft General Plan Track-changes file with updated graphics QuarkXPress/PDF 10 Amendment and mapping Revised Draft General Track-changes file with updated graphics QuarkXPress/PDF 10 Plan Amendment and mapping Community Open Open House agenda, sign-in sheet, large InDesign/PDF Various House Materials graphic boards and outreach materials Stakeholder Group Meeting agenda, sign-in sheet, PowerPoint Word/PPT 50 (agendas Meeting Materials presentation and brief summary per meeting) Planning Commission Meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation Word/PPT 50 (agenda) Public Hearings and brief summary Materials City Council Public Meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation Word/PPT 50 (agenda) Hearings and Adoption and brief summary Hearing Materials Final Documents Final General Plan Amendment QuarkXPress/ 10 InDesign/PDF Phase 4: Public Hearings and Adoption Task 4.1: Planning Commission Public Hearings The MIG Team will meet with the Planning Commission two times to and receive input/direction on the Draft General Plan Amendment hearings will provide an opportunity for the Planning Commission public comments on the draft documents. Task 4.2: City Council Public Hearings The MIG Team will meet with the City Council two times to presen input/direction on the Draft General Plan Amendment and Draft EI provide an opportunity for the City Council to review Planning C recommendations and formally receive public comments on the draf City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 16 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 330 Task 4.3: City Council Adoption Hearings MIG Team will prepare materials for and facilitate a public adop City Council to review and discuss the final documents. The conc will be the City Councils formal adoption of the General Plan A certification of the EIR. Task 4.4: Final Project Documents MIG will prepare a final General Plan Amendment based on the out Council Hearings. MIG will also submit all project files to the Shapefiles developed during the process. Phase 4 Deliverables # of Hard Item Description Format(s) Copies Stakeholder Group Meeting agenda, sign-in sheet, PowerPoint Word/PPT 50 (agendas Meeting Materials presentation and brief summary per meeting) Planning Commission Meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation Word/PPT 50 (agenda) Public Hearings and brief summary Materials City Council Public Meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation Word/PPT 50 (agenda) Hearings and Adoption and brief summary Hearing Materials Final Documents Final General Plan Amendment Word/QuarkXpress/ 10 InDeisgn/PDF Phase 5: Coordination and Management MIG will be responsible for managing the General Plan Amendment keep the project on schedule and budget. This phase includes int project coordination and management activities, including meetin calls with other agencies, community organizations and the EIR T include internal coordination and management between the City, B Greensfelder Consulting. Task 5.1: Other Agency Coordination The MIG Team will coordinate with other agencies throughout the Amendment process. This task includes up to 5 meetings with othe course of the project, and ongoing phone and email coordination. City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 17 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 331 Task 5.2: Community Organization Coordination MIG will coordinate with local community organizations that have the various opportunity sites, or the larger Cupertino community to 5 meetings with community organizations during the course of ongoing phone and email coordination. Task 5.3: EIR Team Coordination MIG will have ongoing calls, emails and meetings with the EIR Te work with the General Plan Amendment process. This will include substantive work products they will be producing (traffic, infra quality/GHG and environmental analysis) into the planning and de ongoing coordination throughout the CEQA process. This task incl meetings with the EIR Team during the course of the project, ong coordination, and . Task 5.4: Project Management MIG will have a lead role managing the process to ensure the pro and schedule. This task accounts for MIGs project management an (emails, calls, data transfers, etc.) with both City staff and s Phase 5 Deliverables None City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 18 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 332 City of Cupertino South Vallco Specific Plan Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 The following Work Plan outlines a logical series of phases and South Vallco Specific Plan, with information from each step crea the next step. Our approach is to efficiently build from the wor General Plan Amendment project. Similar to that project, this Wo designed to allow City staff, stakeholders, other agencies, EIR Commission, City Council and the community ample opportunity to comment on the information compiled during the project. Our proc extensive, inclusive public participation and outreach program t and proven high tech and high touch tools that will result in ge participation in this important project. This approach ensures t kept well informed and actively engaged in the Specific Plan pro Plan with a higher level of acceptance, user-friendliness and le Scope of Work The MIG Team will prepare a new South Vallco Specific Plan that approximately the same area as the current South Vallco Master P conducting addition Stakeholder Group meetings to focus on speci ideas for this area. Because the technical consultants are inclu contract, it is assumed that the MIG Team will rely on them for air quality, greenhouse gas emission and all other environmental to support the Specific Plan. Phase 1: South Vallco Specific Plan Task 1.1: Stakeholder Group Meetings The MIG Team will meet with the Stakeholder Group three times to the South Vallco area, building upon the outreach and analysis w the General Plan Amendment project. These meetings will include refinement of a final site concept that can be used as the basis Specific Plan. Task 1.2: South Vallco Visioning Workshop MIG will facilitate a community workshop to refine the vision an South Vallco area. The agenda for this workshop will include: an summary of materials produced to date, and an interactive exerci City of Cupertino: South Vallco Specific Plan 1 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 333 overall vision and the site concept. MIG, in coordination with C team, will be responsible for developing content, printing mater workshop. City staff will be responsible for securing workshop l mailing announcements, and providing food. It is anticipated tha and one member of BAE will attend this workshop. Task 1.3: Vallco Strategy Report Greensfelder Consultants will prepare a Vallco Strategy Report s Strategy Report described under Task 2.6 of the General Plan Ame The Vallco Strategy Report, focusing on the South Vallco Specific Plan area, will provide a link between market/data analysis and implementation recommend specific plan area (Vallco Shopping Center in particular). While Vallco Shopping Center occupies one of the citys best loc unsustainable because of how it is presently configured and leas identity, a compelling physical plant, and a definitive commodit Greensfelder will approach the Vallco strategy from the point of retail, and, to that end, discuss the Specific Plan area in ter specialty retail opportunities. This will include identifying wh can be executed for the mall, and developing implementation stra market analysis and well researched data. Repositioning Vallco Mall has been a vexing proposition for a su Vallco Strategy Report will give a brief history of the project, properties that have been successfully repositioned, consider an alternatives for larger spaces (including eating and drinking es shops and apparel), and include a specific implementation strate report will focus on how Vallco might be repositioned from two p mix appealing to Cupertino and extended trade area customers, an factors such as competing projects, and practical and legal limi Specific attention will be given to the following areas: Evaluation of fundamental real estate attributes such as locatio area, competing and proposed projects, and the long-term viabili competing projects; Evaluation of market economics including the best mix of users, tenants to target, and market rent and vacancy factors; Evaluation of fundamental site attributes such as visibility, ac demand; Site plan recommendations for reconfiguring existing projects ba estate attributes, site attributes and market factors; Place-making considerations including careful evaluating layout attributes in light of tenant placement, configuration of indoor City of Cupertino: South Vallco Specific Plan 2 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 334 public gathering areas, light, shade, and protection from the el tenant and way-finding signage, and materials including lighting like; Functionality recommendations such as how to service tenants (i. trash, service areas) while minimizing the impacts of these func project and neighbors; : Evaluation of whether to maintain continuity of place, such as r rehabilitating existing facades and materials in an attempt to m authenticity or a familiar or inviting feel for the customer; Evaluating the implications of terms and restrictions contained documents such as approval rights and use restrictions; and Evaluating Title issues (if any). Finally, the report will include long-term suggestions for integ larger Vallco Shopping District-Main Street including linkages w South Vallco Specific Plan area will be formulated. Task 1.4: Draft South Vallco Specific Plan The MIG Team will prepare a Specific Plan for the South Vallco a 2008 South Vallco Master Plan, 2012 Heart of the City Specific P during previous tasks. The Specific Plan will include area-speci design guidelines and implementation actions. Effectively, the M existing Master Plan content, update it with new concepts and id process, and prepare a full Specific Plan that meets all State c The Specific Plan will include, at a minimum, the following majo Introduction. MIG will prepare an introduction to the Specific Plan that incl an executive summary, description of the Plan Area, relationship General Plan, and summary of the community outreach process. Thi introduction will also include a brief summary of each section o Existing Conditions. The MIG Team will summarize major existing conditions for the Specific Plan area, Including land use, economic, mobility a conditions. The MIG Team will rely on the EIR Team for all exist information related to transportation and infrastructure. The ex section will also include a summary of key findings and major op Vision and Transformative Strategies. MIG will prepare a summary of the long- term vision, objectives and transformative strategies for Specif on the information received from the Visioning Workshop. The tra strategies will act as broad policy statements that define the f Vallco area. City of Cupertino: South Vallco Specific Plan 3 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 335 Land Use and Community Character. MIG will prepare updated policies, allowed uses, height and density standards, sustainability measu efficiency standards for the South Vallco area. This will includ guidelines for the location, layout, design and landscaping of n buildings. The design guidelines will be highly graphical and in renderings and sketches as appropriate. They will also include s and requirement necessary to ensure a consistent, identifiable d throughout the Specific Plan area. The guidelines will not be wr based codes, but rather be a collection of easy to understand gr clearly articulate the vision for the future of South Vallco. Mobility. MIG will compile and format a section describing future mobilit on content received from the EIR Team and the City. MIG will not original information for this section, but will rather rely on t text, graphics, figures (e.g., circulation diagram) and analysis necessary to support the Specific Plan process. The information vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian and transit circulation, as well as Specific Plan area. Infrastructure. MIG will compile and format a section describing future infrastructure systems based on content received from the EIR Te City. MIG will not prepare original information for this section on the EIR Team for all text, graphics, figures (e.g., infrastru analysis related to infrastructure necessary to support the Spec The information will cover electrical, telecommunication, water, drainage systems within the Specific Plan area. Implementation Action Plan. MIG and BAE will prepare a detailed, focused Implementation Action Plan for the South Vallco area. It will be table, and will identify and prioritize public and private imple Each implementation action will have a unique heading and number include specific staff/department responsibilities, timeframes a resources. As part of this section, BAE will prepare a comprehensive Financ Implementation Strategy to support the Specific Plan. This strat on feasibility gaps for identified catalyst, public-private, or as well as cost identified by others for infrastructure, shared public improvements. These could include various types of assess or benefit districts (including Infrastructure Finance Districts Finance Districts), public/private partnerships, grants, and oth review the applicability of each source, and the range of potent on funding needs and targeted uses and projects, the MIG Team wi recommend a funding strategy that outlines targeted funding sour and timing. City of Cupertino: South Vallco Specific Plan 4 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 336 BAE will also prepare a phasing strategy that integrates market feasibility, public-private partnership opportunities, and fundi phase-by-phase basis in order to sequence public improvements an development that will best promote overall Specific Plan goals. phasing strategy will be to focus public improvements and other those sites and areas with the greatest near-term potential, in limited up-front funds and generate maximum momentum for subsequ projects and phases. Glossary. MIG will prepare a glossary of key abbreviations, acronyms and t used in the Specific Plan. The MIG Team anticipates that the Specific Plan will be approxim length and include both text and photos. It will also include ap and three photo simulations/sketch-up models. The Administrative will be in Word format with graphics attached and referenced in provide the MIG Team with one set of consolidated and vetted com The MIG Team will then produce a Screencheck Draft Specific Plan comments. The Screencheck Draft plan will be formatted as a high in InDesign. Staff will review the Screencheck Draft plan and pr one set of consolidated edits. MIG will then prepare a Public Dr reflects City staff comments. Task 1.5: Stakeholder Group Meetings The MIG Team will meet with the Stakeholder Group twice to prese Draft South Vallco Specific Plan. MIG will facilitate a discussi and design consensus, and areas of the Plan that the group would Task 1.6: Planning Commission Study Sessions MIG will meet with the Planning Commission twice to provide them an update on the process, and overview of the Draft South Vallco Specific Plan, a input received from the Stakeholder Group meeting. BAE and David attend one of these meetings as needed. The Planning Commission staff and MIG their recommendations for refinements to the Draft Task 1.7: City Council Study Sessions MIG will meet with the City Council twice to provide them an upd discuss the Draft South Vallco Specific Plan, and discuss feedba received from both the Stakeholder Group and the Planning Commis David Greensfelder will attend one of these meetings as needed. provide final direction to City staff and MIG on revisions to th City of Cupertino: South Vallco Specific Plan 5 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 337 Task 1.8: City Council Adoption Hearings MIG will prepare materials for and facilitate two public adoptio Council to review and discuss the draft final Specific Plan. BAE will attend one of these meetings as needed. The conclusion of these hearings will be the City Councils formal adoption of the South Vallco Specific the EIR. Task 1.9: Final Specific Plan MIG will prepare a Final Vallco Specific Plan based on the direc City Council. This will include updates to document text, images Phase 1 Deliverables # of Hard Item Description Format(s) Copies Admin Draft South Updated text, graphics, mapping and photo Word/Illustrator/ 10 Vallco Specific Plan simulations that reflect the communitys Photoshop vision for the future of the area. Finance and Analysis that outlines funding models and Word/Excel 10 Implementation the recommended funding strategy, with a Strategy sources and uses of funding table that shows how expenditures will be fully funded. Vallco Shopping District Analysis of specific opportunities and Word/Excel 10 Retail Evaluation and implementation strategies for the Vallco Implementation Shopping District Strategy Public Draft South Final document that reflects City staff InDesign/Illustrator/ 10 Vallco Specific Plan comments and includes final layout Photoshop Final South Vallco Final document that reflects City Council InDesign/Illustrator/ 10 Specific Plan direction and includes final layout Photoshop Stakeholder Group Meeting agenda, sign-in sheet, PowerPoint Word/PPT 50 (agendas Meeting Materials presentation and brief summary per meeting) Planning Commission Meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation Word/PPT 50 (agendas Study Session Materials and brief summary per meeting) City Council Study Meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation Word/PPT 50 (agendas Session Materials and brief summary per meeting) City of Cupertino: South Vallco Specific Plan 6 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 338 Phase 2: Coordination and Management Task 2.1: EIR Team Coordination MIG will have ongoing calls, emails and meetings with the EIR Te work with the South Vallco Specific Plan process. This will incl substantive work products they will be producing (traffic, circu noise, air quality/GHG and environmental analysis) into the plan process. Task 2.2: Project Management MIG will have a lead role managing the process to ensure the pro and schedule. This task accounts for MIGs project management an (emails, calls, data transfers, etc.) City staff. Phase 2 Deliverables None City of Cupertino: South Vallco Specific Plan 7 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 339 p r o j e c t b u d g e t | g e n e MIG, Inc.Subconsultants BAE, Inc. Daniel IacofanoChris BeynonAmsdenJamillah JordanMalhotraLaura Shipman MIG Greensfelder CRE Project Totals BAE Totals Subconsultant Totals Principal-in-ChargePolicy PlannerUrban Design Assoc.Outreach AsProject ManagerUrban DesignerProject Admin.PrincipalVice PresidentAssociateAnalyst Totals Hrs@$295Hrs@$195Hrs@$195Hrs@$135Hrs@$100Hrs@$90Hrs@$125 Hrs@$250Hrs@$195Hrs@$110Hrs@$90Hrs@$295 Phase 1: Project Kick-Off and Existing Conditions Analysis Project Kick-Off Meeting and Opportunity Sites Tour 40$6,80016$4,36056$11,160 1.1 8$2,3608$1,5600$08$1,0808$8000$08$1,0008$2,0000$00$00$08$2,0008$2,360 Refined Work Plan 13$2,0750$013$2,075 1.2 1$2954$7800$00$00$00$08$1,0000$00$00$00$00$00$0 Community Participation and Outreach Plan 240$32,3200$0240$32,320 1.3 20$5,90044$8,5800$024$3,24050$5,00090$8,10012$1,5000$00$00$00$00$00$0 Decision Maker and City Staff Retreat 44$6,54016$4,36060$10,900 1.4 6$1,7706$1,1700$010$1,35020$2,0000$02$2508$2,0000$00$00$08$2,0008$2,360 Stakeholder Group Formation and Interviews 78$12,9000$078$12,900 1.5 12$3,54030$5,8500$06$8100$030$2,7000$00$00$00$00$00$00$0 Project Website Development and Maintenance 176$18,7800$0176$18,780 1.6 0$02$3900$024$3,24060$6,00060$5,40030$3,7500$00$00$00$00$00$0 Base Mapping and GIS 32$3,2700$032$3,270 1.7 0$00$00$02$27030$3,0000$00$00$00$00$00$00$00$0 Settings and Opportunities Report 122$15,9800$0122$15,980 1.8 6$1,77018$3,5100$020$2,70070$7,0000$08$1,0000$00$00$00$00$00$0 Stakeholder Group Meeting (1)20$2,9608$1,44028$4,400 1.9 4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$2504$1,0000$04$4400$08$1,4400$0 Planning Commission Study Session (1)20$2,9604$1,00024$3,960 1.10 4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$2504$1,0000$00$00$04$1,0000$0 City Council Study Session (1)20$2,9604$1,00024$3,960 1.11 4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$2504$1,0000$00$00$04$1,0000$0 Subtotal 65$19,175112$21,8400$0112$15,120238$23,800204$18,36074$9,250 805$107,545 28$7,0000$04$4400$032$7,44016$4,720 48$12,160853$119,705 Phase 2: Visioning and Alternatives Stakeholder Group Meeting (1)20$2,96012$2,62032$5,580 2.1 4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$2504$1,0000$04$4400$08$1,4404$1,180 Community Workshop Visioning 86$12,3108$2,00094$14,310 2.2 12$3,54012$2,3400$012$1,62024$2,40024$2,1602$2508$2,0000$00$00$08$2,0000$0 Vision and Transformative Strategies Framework 40$5,8000$040$5,800 2.3 4$1,18012$2,3400$00$012$1,20012$1,0800$00$00$00$00$00$00$0 4$660210$27,500214$28,160 2.4 Market Study 0$02$3900$02$2700$00$00$020$5,00040$7,80060$6,60090$8,100210$27,5000$0 Allocation Analysis Report 4$660178$20,960182$21,620 2.5 0$02$3900$02$2700$00$00$012$3,00020$3,90046$5,060100$9,000178$20,9600$0 4$66046$13,03050$13,690 2.6 Retail Strategy Report 0$02$3900$02$2700$00$00$012$3,0000$00$00$012$3,00034$10,030 Concept Alternatives 164$20,5000$0164$20,500 2.7 8$2,36012$2,34010$1,95010$1,350120$12,0000$04$5000$00$00$00$00$00$0 166$19,89024$3,760190$23,650 2.8 Concept Alternatives Report 6$1,77016$3,1200$020$2,700100$10,00020$1,8004$5008$2,0000$016$1,7600$024$3,7600$0 Stakeholder Group Meeting (1)20$2,9604$1,00024$3,960 2.9 4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$2504$1,0000$00$00$04$1,0000$0 86$12,31016$2,880102$15,190 2.10 Community Workshop Alternatives 12$3,54012$2,3400$012$1,62024$2,40024$2,1602$2508$2,0000$08$8800$016$2,8800$0 Planning Commission Study Session (1)20$2,9604$1,00024$3,960 2.11 4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$2504$1,0000$00$00$04$1,0000$0 20$2,9604$1,00024$3,960 2.12 City Council Study Session (1)4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$2504$1,0000$00$00$04$1,0000$0 Subtotal 58$17,11070$13,65010$1,95084$11,340280$28,000112$10,08020$2,500 634$84,630 84$21,00060$11,700134$14,740190$17,100468$64,54038$11,210 506$75,7501140$160,380 Phase 3: Draft General Plan Amendment 39$5,1250$039$5,125 Existing General Plan Analysis and Policy Framework 1$2952$3900$024$3,24012$1,2000$00$00$00$00$00$00$00$0 3.1 Draft General Plan Amendment 214$26,7706$1,500220$28,270 3.2 4$1,18024$4,6808$1,56050$6,75080$8,00040$3,6008$1,0006$1,5000$00$00$06$1,5000$0 20$2,9608$1,44028$4,400 Stakeholder Group Meeting (1)4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$2504$1,0000$04$4400$08$1,4400$0 3.3 Planning Commission Study Session (1)20$2,9604$1,00024$3,960 3.4 4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$2504$1,0000$00$00$04$1,0000$0 20$2,9604$1,00024$3,960 City Council Study Session (1)4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$2504$1,0000$00$00$04$1,0000$0 3.5 Revised Draft General Plan Amendment 94$11,1900$094$11,190 3.6 4$1,1802$3900$024$3,24048$4,80012$1,0804$5000$00$00$00$00$00$0 86$12,31016$2,880102$15,190 Community Open House 12$3,54012$2,3400$012$1,62024$2,40024$2,1602$2508$2,0000$08$8800$016$2,8800$0 3.7 Subtotal 33$9,73540$7,8008$1,560128$17,280164$16,400100$9,00020$2,500 493$64,275 26$6,5000$012$1,3200$038$7,8200$0 38$7,820531$72,095 Phase 4: Public Hearings and Adoption Planning Commission Public Hearings (2)40$5,9204$1,00044$6,920 8$2,3600$00$012$1,6200$016$1,4404$5004$1,0000$00$00$04$1,0000$0 4.1 40$5,9204$1,00044$6,920 4.2 City Council Public Hearings (2)8$2,3600$00$012$1,6200$016$1,4404$5004$1,0000$00$00$04$1,0000$0 City Council Adoption Hearing (1)36$4,7404$1,00040$5,740 4$1,1800$00$012$1,6200$016$1,4404$5004$1,0000$00$00$04$1,0000$0 4.3 40$4,6600$040$4,660 4.4 Final Project Documents 0$02$3900$012$1,62024$2,4000$02$2500$00$00$00$00$00$0 Subtotal 20$5,9002$3900$048$6,48024$2,40048$4,32014$1,750 156$21,240 12$3,0000$00$00$012$3,0000$0 12$3,000168$24,240 Phase 5: Coordination and Management 90$13,5200$090$13,520 Other Agency Coordination 8$2,36024$4,6800$028$3,7800$030$2,7000$00$00$00$00$00$00$0 5.1 Community Organization Coordination 96$13,6100$096$13,610 5.2 8$2,36012$2,3400$046$6,2100$030$2,7000$00$00$00$00$00$00$0 EIR Team Coordination 88$11,5500$088$11,550 5.3 0$012$2,3400$046$6,21030$3,0000$00$00$00$00$00$00$00$0 Project Management 134$25,03030$6,940164$31,970 5.4 24$7,08060$11,7000$00$00$00$050$6,25010$2,5002$39010$1,1000$020$3,99010$2,950 Subtotal 40$11,800108$21,0600$0120$16,20030$3,00060$5,40050$6,250 408$63,710 10$2,5002$39010$1,1000$020$3,99010$2,950 30$6,940438$70,650 SUBTOTAL FEE216$63,720332$64,74018$3,510492$66,420736$73,600524$47,160178$229064$18,880634$105,6703130$447,070 Direct Costs* $20,500$4,000$1,200$5,200$25,700 SUBTOTAL FEE & DIRECT COSTS $361,900$90,790$20,080$110,870$472,770 Subconsultant Administrative Fee $3,326 FINAL TOTAL $476,096 * Direct costs include mileage associated with travel, delivery b/w printing, and meeting/graphic supplies Additional Per-Item Costs Stakeholder Group Meeting (1)4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$250 20$2,960 4$1,0000$00$00$04$1,0000$0 4$1,00024$3,960 Community Workshop (1)12$3,54012$2,3400$012$1,62024$2,40024$2,1602$250 86$12,310 8$2,0000$00$00$08$2,0000$0 8$2,00094$14,310 Planning Commission Meeting (1)4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$250 20$2,960 4$1,0000$00$00$04$1,0000$0 4$1,00024$3,960 City Council Meeting (1)4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$250 20$2,960 4$1,0000$00$00$04$1,0000$0 4$1,00024$3,960 Updated January 29, 2013 340 MIG, Inc.Cupertino General Plan Amendment 2013 p r o j e c t b u d g e t | s o u ta n MIG, Inc.Subconsultants BAE, Inc. Daniel IacofanoChris BeynonMalhotraAmsdenLaura ShipmanJamillah J MIG Project Totals Greensfelder CRE BAE Totals Subconsultant Totals Principal-in-ChargeUrban Design Assoc.Outreach AssociatePrincipalVice PresidentAssociate Project ManagerUrban DesignerPolicy PlannerProject Admin.Analyst Totals Hrs@$295Hrs@$195Hrs@$195Hrs@$135Hrs@$100Hrs@$90Hrs@$125Hrs@$250Hrs@$195Hrs@$110Hrs@$90Hrs@$295 Phase 1: South Vallco Specific Plan Stakeholder Meetings (3)6$1,77024$4,6800$024$3,2400$024$2,1606$750 84$12,600 12$3,0000$08$8800$020$3,88012$3,540 32$7,420116$20,020 1.1 South Vallco Visioning Workshop 4$1,18012$2,3400$024$3,24012$1,20024$2,1602$250 78$10,370 4$1,0000$00$00$04$1,0004$1,180 8$2,18086$12,550 1.2 Vallco Strategy Report 0$02$3900$04$5400$00$00$0 6$930 0$00$00$00$00$030$8,850 30$8,85036$9,780 1.3 Draft South Vallco Specific Plan 8$2,36026$5,07010$1,95080$10,800140$14,00040$3,60024$3,000 328$40,780 24$6,00016$3,12050$5,50020$1,800110$16,4204$1,180 114$17,600442$58,380 1.4 Stakeholder Meetings (2) 4$1,18016$3,1200$016$2,1600$016$1,4404$500 56$8,400 8$2,0000$08$8800$016$2,8808$2,360 24$5,24080$13,640 1.5 Community Workshop 2$59012$2,3400$016$2,1608$80024$2,1602$250 64$8,300 8$2,0000$08$8800$016$2,8808$2,360 24$5,24088$13,540 1.6 Planning Commission Study Sessions (2)2$5908$1,5600$012$1,6200$016$1,4404$500 42$5,710 4$1,0000$00$00$04$1,0004$1,180 8$2,18050$7,890 1.7 City Council Study Sessions (2) 2$5908$1,5600$012$1,6200$016$1,4404$500 42$5,710 4$1,0000$00$00$04$1,0004$1,180 8$2,18050$7,890 1.8 City Council Adoption Hearings (2)2$5908$1,5600$012$1,6200$016$1,4404$500 42$5,710 4$1,0000$00$00$04$1,0000$0 4$1,00046$6,710 1.9 Final South Vallco Specific Plan 4$1,18012$2,3400$024$3,24070$7,00020$1,80016$2,000 146$17,560 8$2,0008$1,56024$2,6400$040$6,20012$3,540 52$9,740198$27,300 1.10 Subtotal 34$10,030128$24,96010$1,950224$30,240230$23,000196$17,64066$8,250 888$116,070 76$19,00024$4,68098$10,78020$1,800218$36,26086$25,370 304$61,6301192$177,700 Phase 2: Coordination and Management EIR Team Coordination 2$59024$4,6800$050$6,75024$2,4000$00$0 100$14,420 0$00$00$00$00$00$0 0$0100$14,420 2.1 Project Management 4$1,18020$3,9000$040$5,4000$00$036$4,500 100$14,980 0$00$00$00$00$00$0 0$0100$14,980 2.2 Subtotal 6$1,77044$8,5800$090$12,15024$2,4000$036$4,500 200$29,400 0$00$00$00$00$00$0 0$0200$29,400 40$11,800172$33,54010$1,950314$42,390254$25,400196$17,640102$12,5,370304$61,6301392$207,100 SUBTOTAL FEE Direct Costs*$10,500$1,500$1,000$2,500$13,000 SUBTOTAL FEE & DIRECT COSTS $155,970$37,760$26,370$64,130$220,100 Subconsultant Administrative Fee $1,924 FINAL TOTAL $222,024 * Direct costs include mileage associated with travel, delivery b/w printing, and meeting/graphic supplies Additional Per-Item Costs Stakeholder Group Meeting (1)2$5908$1,5600$08$1,0800$08$7202$250 28$4,200 4$1,0000$04$4400$08$1,4408$2,360 16$3,80044$8,000 Community Workshop (1)4$1,18012$2,3400$024$3,24012$1,20024$2,1602$250 78$10,370 4$1,0000$00$00$04$1,0004$1,180 8$2,18086$12,550 Planning Commission Meeting (1)1$2954$7800$06$8100$08$7202$250 21$2,855 4$1,0000$00$00$04$1,0004$1,180 8$2,18029$5,035 City Council Meeting (1)1$2954$7800$06$8100$08$7202$250 21$2,855 4$1,0000$00$00$04$1,0004$1,180 8$2,18029$5,035 Updated January 29, 2013 MIG, Inc.Cupertino General Plan Amendment 2013 341 d e t a i l e d p r o j e c t s c h e d u l e cupertino general plan amendment and south vallco specific plan Updated February 7, 2013 20132014 MarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryMarchFebruaryMay April GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Phase 1: Project Kick-Off and Existing Conditions Analysis 1.1Project Kick-Off Meeting and Opportunity Sites Tour 1.2Refined Work Plan 1.3Community Participation and Outreach Plan 1.4Decision Maker and City Staff Retreat 1.5Stakeholder Group Formation and Interviews 1.6Project Website Development and Maintenance 1.7Base Mapping and GIS 1.8Settings and Opportunities Report 1.9Stakeholder Group Meeting (1) 1.10 Planning Commission Study Session (1) 1.11City Council Study Session (1) Phase 2: Visioning and Alternatives 2.1Stakeholder Group Meeting (1) 2.2Community Workshop Visioning 2.3Vision and Transformative Strategies Framework 2.4Market Study 2.5Allocation Analysis Report 2.6Retail Strategy Report 2.7Concept Alternatives 2.8Concept Alternatives Report 2.9Stakeholder Group Meeting (1) 2.10Community Workshop Alternatives 2.11Planning Commission Study Session (1) 2.12City Council Study Session (1) Phase 3: Draft General Plan Amendment 3.1Existing General Plan Analysis and Policy Framework 3.2Draft General Plan Amendment 3.3Stakeholder Group Meeting (1) 3.4Planning Commission Study Session (1) 3.5City Council Study Session (1) 3.6Revised Draft General Plan Amendment 3.7Community Open House Phase 4: Public Hearings and Adoption 4.1Planning Commission Public Hearings (2) 4.2City Council Public Hearings (2) 4.3City Council Adoption Hearing (1) 4.4Final Project Documents Phase 5: Coordination and Management 5.1Other Agency Coordination 5.2Community Organization Coordination 5.3EIR Team Coordination 5.4Project Management SOUTH VALLCO SPECIFIC PLAN Phase 1: South Vallco Specific Plan 1.1Stakeholder Meetings (3) 1.2South Vallco Visioning Workshop 1.3Vallco Strategy Report 1.4Draft South Vallco Specific Plan 1.5Stakeholder Meetings (2) 1.6Community Workshop 1.7Planning Commission Study Sessions (2) 1.8City Council Study Sessions (2) 1.9Final South Vallco Specific Plan 1.10City Council Adoption Hearings (2) Phase 2: Coordination and Management 2.1EIR Team Coordination 2.2Project Management ENVIRONMENTALREVIEWANDANALYSIS(est.) Environmental Baseline Analysis Project Description, Initial Study and NOP Draft EIR Response to Comments/Final EIR LegendProject (Contract)Stakeholder Group Meeting Total Phase DurationCommunity Workshop/Open House Task/Work Product Production Planning Commission or City Council 342 MIGCost/Schedule per Task General Plan Amendment Phase 1 (Project Kick-Off and Existing Conditions Analysis) Timeframe: 11 weeks Budget: $125,027 Phase 2 (Visioning and Alternatives) Timeframe: 21 weeks Budget: $170,539 Phase 3 (Draft General Plan Amendment) Timeframe: 19 weeks Budget: $80,319 Phase 4 (Public Hearings and Adoption) Timeframe: 11 weeks Budget: $29,561 Phase 5 (Coordination and Management) Timeframe:ongoing (60 weeks) Budget: $70,650 Total contract timeframe: 60 weeks (note: some phases overlap) Total contract budget: $476,096 South Vallco Specific Plan Phase 1 (South Vallco Specific Plan) Timeframe: 48 weeks Budget: $192,624 Phase 2 (Coordination and Management) Timeframe: 48 weeks Budget: $29,400 Total project timeframe: 48 weeks Total project budget: $222,024 343 CHAPTER 1: DETAILED WORK PLAN As requested in the RFP, this chapter contains the following sec Project Management Team Task Descriptions for the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning EI Deliverables Decision-Making Flowchart Schedule For ease of reference, this chapter also includes a summary of meetings to be held for the. PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM For the City of Cupertinos General Plan Amendment and Rezoning n- ter | DC&E will serve as the prime consultant and will oversee all aspcts of the project to ensure its successful and timely completion. Steve Noack will serve as Principal-in-Charge and will over- see the consultant team. Joanna Jansen will serve as Project Manager and will administer all day- to-day aspects of the project. TASK DESCRIPTIONS This section describes the work plan to be completed by The Plan | DC&E team for the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning EIR. Project Initiation Task A. In this task, The Planning Center | DC&E team, working with City staff and the General Plan con- sultant, will begin work and share ideas and concerns regarding the EIR This task will allow The Planning Center | DC&E team to review information needs, discuss expectations for the project process, and begin consultation with interested parties. This task will develop the basis for a focused work program, effective coordination, and a smooth work flow through the project. 1.Kick-Off Meeting During this task, members of The Planning Center | DC&E team will work with City staff to adjust this scope of work. The review of the scope may result in adjustments to the fee and schedule o the project as it is described in this proposal. 1 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 344 CC ITY OF UPERTINO The Planning Center | DC&E and Hexagon staff will attend a kick-off meeting with the City and to review the scope of work, available information, schedule, and work products. We will also dis- cuss: Preliminary identification of key issues for the EIR. Protocols for clear communication between The Planning Center | DC&E, the City, and the General Plan consultant. Concepts for the alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR. 2.Hexagon Work Scope Refinement Hexagon will review all policy documents and previous transportao- posed General Plan Update. These include, but are not limited to, the existing City of Cupertino General Plan, the Cupertino Housing Element and North Vallco Mas Hexagon will coordi- nate with the City of Cupertino and the project team to (1) confirm the study intersections and roadway segments to be included in the traffic analysis of the General Plan amendment and (2) discuss any other pertinent background information or issues. Th up to 40 intersections including 21 CMP intersections within theM and PM commute hours and up to 30 roadway segments for analysis i- tions. 3.Project Description The Planning Center | DC&E will prepare a detailed project description for the EIR using graphics and textual information as appropriate. We will coordinate with the General Plan consultant to clearly define the project, and we will work with the City to draft and refine the project objectives. 4.Notice of Preparation As requested in the RFP, we will prepare all CEQA notices for thGeneral Plan Amendment and Rezoning EIR. The Planning Center | DC&E will submit a Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR to the Governors Office of Planning and Research. 5.Public Scoping Meeting The Planning Center | DC&E Project Manager will attend one scoping meeting to gather input and comments from interested agencies, organization, City officials, 6.General Plan Amendment Existing Conditions Reports The Planning Center | DC&E team will conduct background data review and coordinate with the General Plan Amendment consultant to prepare Existing Conditionsp- aration of both the General Plan Amendment itself and the EIR. utilized for both projects will ensure consistency between the documents and provide a coordinat- ed approach between the EIR team and General Plan consultant. These reports will be limited to: Air Quality Hazards and Hazardous Materials Land Use Population and Housing 2 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 345 CC ITY OF UPERTINO Schools and other Public Services Traffic a.Data Collection and Documentation of Existing Traffic Conditions Hexagon will compile data and information on the existing transpd- ways, transit services, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian ameniescription accompa- nied with maps of the transit service provided in the area, as w pedestrian facilities will be documented. Recent traffic counts locations where recent traffic counts are not available, new intersection counts will be conducted including vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian volumes for the AM a 7:30 to 10:30 a.m. and from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. A copy of these co 7.General Plan Amendment Alternatives Assessment During the preparation of the General Plan Amendment, it is like will want to utilize the EIR team to assess the environmental ana- tive land use alternative scenarios. In this task, we would therefore qualitatively assess up to three General Plan Amendment alternatives in up to seven opportunity areas with regard to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and impacts on schools parks and other community services. This analysis would be presented in a matrix format and would be conducted before work on the EIR commences in earnest. This scope assumes that the Vallco Shopping Center area would be sites analyzed in the EIR, but does not assume preparation or analysis of a ecific Plan. All seven sites, including the Vallco site, would be analyzed at the a.Analysis of Future Traffic Conditions Hexagon will evaluate traffic conditions under the existing General Plan conditions (base condi- tions) and up to three future alternative scenarios. The analysis scenario for buildout of the Citys General Plan is Year 2020. Land use assumptions for the General Plan conditions will be obtained from the Citys existing Land Use and Circulation Elements of the Staff. The General Plan land uses will be entered into VTA's 2020 Land use VTA Travel Demand Model (TFM), incorporate the General Plan land use data and develop the General Plan model forecasts. In addition to the General Pla TFM model and analyze up to three future land use or transportat could include land use changes, alternative roadway improvements, policy changes to influen model split or emphasize alternative transportation modes. The future land use/transportation alternatives will be developed in coordination with The Planning Center | DC&E and City staff based on their review of the base conditions and the capacity of land uses for the alternatives will be distributed to about seven opportunity sites. Transportation system impacts associated with each of the three lternatives will be evaluated. The three future alternatives will be evaluated in terms of: the effect on travel time level of service at study intersections and roadway segments, the potential for cut-through traffic, difficulty of implementation and costs of required mitigation, 3 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 346 CC ITY OF UPERTINO need for right-of-way acquisition, and likelihood of community acceptance. Evaluation of the less "land use intensive" alternatives may be intersections and roadway segments that are projected to operate at LOS D or worse. Level of service impacts and improvements to support each of the future la- tives will be identified and described. These could include new roadways, addition of turn lanes, and/or changes to bike/pedestrian/transit facilities. Hex also calculate the net increase or decrease in Vehicle Miles Tra General Plan and each of the future land use/transportation altebe used for the greenhouse gas emissions calculations in the EIR. Once the preferred alternative is selected as part of the Generaa- gon will develop a detailed description of the necessary transpo along with associated design and construction costs, for the preltation with the project team, led by City staff. b.Trip Generation Trip generation estimates of the land use alternatives will be d the ITE Trip Generation Manual. For land use types that are not SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments) trip generation rae- duction percentages assumed will be reviewed and approved by the prior to proceeding fur- ther with the traffic analysis. Environmental Review Task B. Leveraging our local knowledge and integrating information from General Plan Existing Condi- tions Reports prepared in Task A.5, above, we will: Assess existing environmental conditions; Write standards of significance for the evaluation of impacts, i Evaluate impacts that would result from buildout of the proposed Develop measures necessary to mitigate or limit adverse impacts fied. In keeping with the requirements of CEQA, it is anticipated that be analyzed in the EIR: 1.Aesthetics/Visual Resources The General Plan Amendment and re-zonings would permit higher building heights in the South Vallco area and on additional sites, and will identify development sites. As such, the project has the potential to alter the visual charas throughout the city and affect the character of surrounding areas. The Planning Center | DC&E will apply our in- house urban design expertise to perform a rigorous visual assessment ooject. 2.Air Quality The Planning Center | DC&E will prepare an air quality and a community risk and hazard for the City of Cupertino to support the General Plan Amendment and EIR. The technical analysis 4 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 347 CC ITY OF UPERTINO will be integrated within the EIR and modeling datasheets will be included a The air quality and community risk and hazards impact analysis for the E will be based on the current methodology of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). In accordance with the BAAQMDs CEQA Guidelines, a Plan-Level analysis will be prepared and will include a qualitative analysis of criteria air pollutants generated from buildout of the proposed land use plan and an assessment of major stationary and mobile sources of toxic air cn- halable particulate matter (PM) within the city. 2.5 a.Criteria Air Pollutants The Air Quality section of the EIR will include the current air quality within the San F Area Air Basin (SFBAAB or Air Basin) in the vicinity of the city and a summary of regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing health-based impacts associated with poor air quality. Exist- ing levels of criteria air pollutants available from the nearest incorporated. Buildout of the General Plan Amendment would generate emissions from an in- crease in trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with land uses within the city. The Program-Level air quality analysis will include a consistency evaluation Amendment to the BAAQMDs land use and transportation control measures wit management plan. The SFBAAB is in nonattainment for particulate matter and for ozone. potential increase in VMT generated by an increase in development intensity by Hexagon) will be discussed in relation to the projected populase. The air quality impact analysis will also describe land uses witcity that have the potential to generate nuisance odors. Buffer distances and/or control measures for odor sources listed BAAQMDs guidelines will be incorporated. b.Community Risk and Hazards Under this, task, The Planning Center|DC&E staff will assess air quality compatibility based on guidance within BAAQMDs draft Community Risk Reduction Plans for Toxic Air Contaminants . The community ): Community Development Guidelines (TAC) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 risk and hazards evaluation would include a discussion of potential health risks from TAC and PMin the project vicinity based on BAAQMDs guidance. BAAQMD does not require site-specific 2.5 health risk assessments as part of the Plan-Level evaluation for the General Plan Amendment. However, under this task existing stationary sources, major roadways (defined by BAAQMD a 10,000 vehicles per day), and other sources of TAC will be mapped, including State Route 85 and Interstate 280. Based on a preliminary review of BAAQMD mapping tools, there appear to be over 50 stationary sources and more than 8 roadways with traffic coun Recommended measures specified in the BAAQMDs Guidelines for future sensitive land uses within the areas mapped would be considered. For land uses within areas mapped as having elevated risk, the EIR will detail performance standards for future development projects, including requirements to reduce risk from exposure to significant concentrations of PMand TACs. Rec- 2.5 ommendations to reduce risk associated with placement of new senociated with the General Plan Amendment adjacent to major sources of air pollution would be based on the recommended buffer distances based on BAAQMD screening tools, California Air Resources Board (CARB) guidance, and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Assdance. 5 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 348 CC ITY OF UPERTINO 3.Biological Resources Environmental Collaborative will review existing information on resources occurring in the plan- ning area vicinity and conduct a field reconnaissance survey and special-status species and potential jurisdictional wetlands. Availablee- sources in the vicinity will be reviewed, including environmental documentationl- opment applications in the area; wetlands mapping prepared as pa Inventory; records on occurrences of special-status taxa and sensitive natural communities main- tained by the California Natural Diversity Data Base; and inform-status taxa available from the City and County, the California Departme the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). A one-day field reconnaissance survey will be con- ducted, focusing on the General Plan Amendment areas, which should be suff the potential for any sensitive resources and need for any suppl biological resource section of the EIR will identify vegetation types, wildlife habi special-status species, and any other important biotic features. Possib and likely mitigation requirements will be outlined. 4.Cultural Resources Tom Origer & Associates (TOA) will compile information regarding the City of Cupertino. TOA will examine records at the Northwest Information Center of the Cali- fornia Historical Resources Information System and at the office of TOA to prepare a description of the cultural setting. A request for information will be made to the Native American He Commission and to local tribes and individuals. TOA will also survey up to six (6) potential devel- opment sites and prepare of a technical report identifying any cultural resources on those pr- ties. TOA will evaluate the potential of the General Plan Amendment to impact prehistoric or historical cultural resources, including the potential for buried resources, and will identify mitigation measures for identified impacts. 5.Geology, Soils, and Seismicity The Planning Center | DC&E will analyze potential geological and soil-related impacts. We will apply our rich experience in CEQA review to ensure all geotechnical impacts are addressed. 6.Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Planning Center | DC&E will prepare a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis for The technical analysis will be integrated within the EIR and modncluded as an appendix. The GHG impact analysis for the EIR will be based on the current BAAQMD methodology. Our scope of work is based on an understanding that the project woul intensities on a collection of opportunity sites within the city. The EIR will include a GHG emissions inventory for existing land uses withr- tunity sites and a GHG emissions inventory of proposed land uses within the o buildout of the project in order to estimate the net increase inssions attributable to the project. The GHG emissions inventory will be prepared using a BAAQMD-accepted model (e.g., 6 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 349 CC ITY OF UPERTINO CalEEMod) and will include GHG emissions from transportation soup- ing fuel, architectural coatings, consumer products), energy sources (natural gas consumption, energy use), water and wastewater, and waste. The transportation sector will be tailored based on information provided by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. In addition, the EIR will include a qualitative evaluation of consistency of the project with applicable GHG reductions plans. The Planning Center | DC&E will assess the project as a General Plan Update in accordance with the BAAQMDs CEQA Guidelines. Under this task, a Plan-Level analysis will be prepared and in- clude a quantitative analysis of community GHG emissions generatios: Current defined by BAAQMD as a year between 2005 and 2008 Existing (CEQA Baseline) 2020 (Assembly Bill 32 target year) 2035 (General Plan Update horizon year) The community GHG emissions inventory will be prepared based on the current methodology of BAAQMD and ICLEIs recently adopted Community Protocols (October The EIR will include GHG emissions generated by land uses within the City boundaries for the following sectors: Transportation Energy Waste Water/Wastewater Industrial Other Sources (e.g. construction equipment, landscape equipment, etc.) Existing GHG emissions will be projected based on the anticipated growth in population, housing, and employment anticipated within the city and Sphere for the business-as-usual (BAU) inventory, assuming federal, State, and local GHG emissions reduction measures were not adopte Adjust- ments to the forecast year inventories will be made based on regulations and programs that have been adopted by federal, state, and regional agencies to reduce GHG emissions. Pursuant to the GHG reduction targets of AB 32 and the BAAQMDs analysis will identify a GHG emissions reduction target that meets one of the following options that 1 are based on AB 32s goals (1) Reduce GHG emissions by 15 percent below baseline (2008 or earlier) emissions by 2020; or (2) Meet the plan efficiency thre GHG emissions per service population per year. 7.Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Planning Center | DC&E will address hazards and hazardous materials issues. The P Center | DC&E will describe known hazards on sites subject to the General Plan Amendment and re-zonings and in surrounding areas, developing mitigation measures as required to avoid signifi- cant environmental impacts. 1 Although BAAQMDs CEQA Guidelines identify an additional target to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, this target option is not proposed for the availability of data for the City. 7 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 350 CC ITY OF UPERTINO 8.Hydrology and Water Quality BKF will provide a description of the storm drainage requirement General Plan Amendment areas including the requirements for volume of runoff and stormwater treatment. The information gathered will be documented in a Hydh- nical Report that will be included as an appendix in the Draft E Center | DC&E will evaluate potential impacts to water quality. 9.Land Use and Planning The Planning Center | DC&E will draw on our expertise in land use planning and policy analy conduct a thorough evaluation of potential land use impacts and policy consistency analysis. 10.Noise The Planning Center | DC&E will prepare a noise analysis that will identify the impacts on land uses from the implementation of the project. The EIR will d criteria for noise exposure, including federal, State, and City ordinances, policies, and standards. The Planning Center | DC&E will review the existing noise element of the General Plan, rely on aerial photography, and on the results of ambient noise level mehe existing noise conditions in the city. Ambient noise monitoring will include a combination of short-term and long-term noise measurements to be taken at up to 15 locations in Cup These locations will be selected in coordination with City staff to identify and quantify the major roadway noise sources, including the 85 and 280 Freeways, primarials, rail noise, and aircraft overflights. The focus will be the key sites identified for development opporities and related General Plan and zoning amendments, including the Vallco Shopping District. The analysis will review the key sites in the City for developme- term noise impacts with implementation of the project. Long term noise impacts will include calculating noise contours along key roadway and railway segments to relationship and the comparison of expected noise levels to Stat Noise from vehicular traffic will be assessed using a version of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model; these contours will rely on traffic impact analysis for this project. Noise from railway activity w Transit Administration (FTA) methodologies. Noise impacts from non-transportation sources such as mechanical equipment, air conditioning units, and loading doc will be evaluated qualitatively in terms of potential impacts to nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Construction impacts for the sites to be redeveloped will be eva Future noise and vibration effects from construction activities t- ed standards from the U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Feasible mitigation measures will be identified to minimize future construction-related within the study area. Potential land use conflicts within the City will be identified i- toring and modeling results. The focus of the analyses will be the key sites identifiep- ment opportunities. The results if this analysis will be summarized in the EIR noise calculations will be provided in an Appendix. 8 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 351 CC ITY OF UPERTINO 11.Population and Housing The Planning Center | DC&E will summarize potential impacts related to population and that could result from buildout of the project. Because the majority of land uses under the project will be non-residential, it is not expected that the project will result in significant population and housing impacts. The Planning Center | DC&E will also consider the growth inducing potential of buildout, including indirect growth from increased employment opities. 12.Schools, Other Public Services, and Recreation The Planning Center | DC&E will also assess impacts on other public services and recreation. We will describe existing parks and recreational facilities in Cupertino and evaluate potential impacts associated with buildout of the project. We will contact service providers, including City providers and school districts as well as the Santa Clara County Fire and On the basis of responses from public service providers, The Planning Center | DC&E will analyze potential impacts resulting from the project, and recommend mitigation measures as needed. 13.Transportation and Traffic Hexagon will prepare traffic analysis documentation for use in t that analyzes existing conditions, existing General Plan conditi2020) and three future land use/transportation alternatives. The report will include a methodologies, transportation network (roadways, bike, pedestrial- umes, level of service analysis, and a description of any impacts and mitigations to the roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. AM and PM peak hour turn movements at all study intersections an forecasted by the model. Future intersection turning movement volumes will be adjusted based on the (1) the existing traffic counts, (2) base year model volul- umes. The trip distribution and roadway assignment will be reviewed and ap prior to proceeding with the traffic analysis. Hexagon will conduct existing AM and PM peak hour level of servi study intersections using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual metho Potential growth in traffic volumes on arterials and major collectors, along with their congestion effect on the street system within Cupertino, will be identified. The potential trafficof each alternative will be evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth byupertino and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The City of Cupertino level of service standards will be used tor- sections. Intersection levels of service will be evaluated usingd- ology evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average contro vehicles at the intersection. TRAFFIX also is the CMP-designated intersection level of service meth- odology. The City of Cupertino level of service standard for sigintersections is LOS D or better. Level of service impacts and improvements will be identified and These could include new roadways, widening of existing roadways, addition of turn la bike/pedestrian/transit facilities. Hexagon will also calculate the net increase or decrease in vehicle 9 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 352 CC ITY OF UPERTINO miles traveled (VMT) between the existing General Plan and the General Plan Amendment, which will be used for the greenhouse gas emissions calculations in thEIR. 14.Utilities and Service Systems BKF will prepare an analysis of wastewater, water supply, and gas and electric service that will form the basis for the EIR assessment of these issues and will be included as an appendix in the Draft EIR. BKF will first research the available existing information for the drainage systems in the General Plan Amendment areas with the City. Based on available informat conditions, and capacity of the existing storm drainage system in the areas. This scope assumes that the City will provide utility block maps for the areas and any ul- able and that City staff will highlight any known utility constr information provided and provide a written summary. Based on the available information, the Utilities Technical Report will document the size, condi- tions, and capacity of the existing wastewater and water supply systems, as well as existing gas and electric infrastructure, in the General Plan Amendment areas. BKF will analyze demand under the General Plan Amendment and any upgrades needed to accommodate neemand. BKF will work with the Cupertino Sanitary District to review demands and identify potential wastewater impacts and mitigation measures, and will work with the California Water Service and/or San Jose Water Service for water supply impacts. It is assumed that these Districts will provide any modeling necessary to document potential system impacts. Based on the preferred alternative, BKF will prepare an estimate of the increase in utility demands for storm, sewer and water for review by the City. Based on the City will provide potential system impacts that BKF will document in the final utility The Planning Center | DC&E will document existing solid waste services and facilities stormwater information documented in the Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Report pre- pared by BKF in Task B.8. The Planning Center | DC&E will identify impacts and mitigation measures as needed for these services. 15.Other Environmental Issues CEQA permits the exclusion of environmental issues for which it the project would have no significant adverse impact. Based on our review of the RFP, it is antici- pated that there would be no impact to Agricultural, Forestry, or Mineral Resources. Therefore, these issues would be addressed in summary fashion in the EIR. EIR Alternatives Evaluation Task C. Building from the discussion of alternatives at the kick-off meeting, The Planning Center | DC&E will develop a list of up to four draft alternatives, including the CEQA-required No Project Alterna- tive. We will work with City staff to finalize the list of alternatives. The Planning Center | DC&E team will complete an impact analysis of each alternative for inclusion in the EIR. analysis will be a qualitative discussion and will identify the rnative. 10 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 353 CC ITY OF UPERTINO The alternatives will be designed to avoid potentially significant impacts identified in Task B, and could include reduced building heights or densities, revised land use scenarios for opportunity sites, or transportation alternatives (alternative roadway improvemen modal split, or alternative transportation modes). Administrative Draft EIR Task D. The Planning Center | DC&E will prepare an Administrative Draft EIR (ADEIR) and submit to City staff for review and comment. The impact analysis will be compr requirements. Significance criteria will be identified for each impa of significance identified in Appendix G, Environmental Checklise- lines and identified in the scoping process. Impacts and mitigation measures will be organized and discussed by topic. For each environmental impact, a set of feasible mitigation measures willcommended. The ADEIR will cover the following topics: Executive Summary. The Planning Center | DC&E will create a summary in a form con- sistent with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15123. This summary will r- standing of environmental issues and the actions required to mitigate will include a summary table of impacts, mitigation measures, and levels of significance be- fore and after mitigation. Project Description. The ADEIR will include the project description drafted for the poject as part of Task A.1, Project Description. Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. The existing setting information, impact anal- yses, and mitigation measures developed in Task B will be combined to create chapters de- scribing environmental consequences for each CEQA-required topic. Alternatives Evaluation. The alternatives evaluation completed in Task C will be incorpo- rated into the EIR. This chapter will include a tabular comparimpacts. CEQA Required Assessment Conclusions. The Planning Center | DC&E will prepare as- sessment conclusions to meet CEQA Guidelines for the following mandatory findings: Cumulative Impacts Growth Inducement Unavoidable Significant Effects Significant Irreversible Changes Impacts Found Not to be Significant Report Preparers. This chapter will identify the consultants and staff who preparee EIR. The Planning Center | DC&E will submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the ADEIR to City staff. City staff will act as a clearinghouse foro- vide The Planning Center | DC&E with a single, internally reconciled set of comments. The Plan- ning Center | DC&E will incorporate City comments on the ADEIR and deliver a s 11 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 354 CC ITY OF UPERTINO review by City staff. This scope of work assumes that comments relatively minor and includes 24 hours for revisions. We will provide ten (10) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the second ADEIR to City staff. City staff will provide a single, internally reconciled set of c Planning Center | DC&E will incorporate City comments and deliver a Screencheck Draft EIR for review by City staff. We will submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the Screencheck Draft EIR to City staff. Draft EIR and Public Review Task E. 1.Draft EIR The Planning Center | DC&E will incorporate one consolidated set of comments on the Screencheck Draft EIR from City staff to create the Draft EIR. Screencheck Draft EIR will focus on formatting and editing, not pare a total of ten (10) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the Draft EIR. The Planning Center | DC&E will prepare the Notice of Completion and submit to the State Clr- inghouse along with the requisite number of hardcopies and CDs. Center | DC&E will also prepare the Notice of Availability to be submitted to ssume that the City will be responsible for mailing the Notice of Availabilting the Notice of Availability in public locations. 2.Public Hearings The Planning Center | DC&E and Hexagon will attend up to two public hearings on the Draft EIR with the Planning Commission. We assume that City staff will sc notice, and prepare staff reports. The Planning Center | DC&E will consult with City staff to ensure that noticing for public hearings is consistent with CEQA requir Administrative Response to Comments and Final EIR Task F. Following the mandatory CEQA 45-day review period, The Planning Center | DC&E team will pre- pare an Administrative Response to Comments. We assume that Cit comments received within one working day of the close of the pubThe Planning Center | DC&Eteam has assumed 60 hours of staff labor. If additional time is needed due to an unforeseen volume of comments, we will request a contract modification to cover additional labor costs. We will incorporate the Administrative Response to Comments into the Administrative Final EIR document. This will include both the Response to Comments and additiona to the Draft EIR as necessary. We will prepare a total of ten (10) hard copies and one (1) electron- ic copy of the Administrative Final EIR. 12 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 355 CC ITY OF UPERTINO Final EIR Task G. We will incorporate one consolidated set of City comments on the Administrate- ate the Final EIR. We will provide ten hard copies and one electronic copy of the Final EIR. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Task H. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be assembled by The Planning Cen- ter | DC&E team working in close collaboration with the City, to ensur place so that the EIR mitigation measures are carried out in an appropriate, timely, and v manner. The MMRP will be submitted as a draft document to the C with the Final EIR. We will prepare a total of ten (10) hard copies and one (1) elec each of the draft and final MMRP. Adoption and Certification Task I. The Planning Center | DC&E will attend two certification hearings on the Final EIR. We will also prepare the Notice of Determination to be submitted to the Count DELIVERABLES The following products will be submitted to the City of Cupertino in fulfillment of our proposed scope of work: Task A: Project Initiation Project Description Notice of Preparation General Plan Amendment Existing Conditions Reports General Plan Amendment Alternatives Assessment (optional) Task D: Administrative Draft EIR Two (2) drafts of the Administrative Draft EIR (10 hard copies each) Screencheck Draft EIR (10 hard copies) Task E: Draft EIR and Public Review Draft EIR (10 hard copies) Notices of Completion and Availability Task F: Administrative Response to Comments and Final EIR Administrative Final EIR (10 hard copies) Task G: Final EIR Final EIR (10 hard copies) Task H: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Draft and Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (10 Task I: Adoption and Certification Notice of Determination 13 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 356 CC ITY OF UPERTINO MEETINGS Steve Noack and Joanna Jansen of The Planning Center | DC&E and Gary Black of Hexagon Trans- portation Consultants will attend the kick-off meeting with City staff. Joanna Jansen of The Planning Center | DC&E will attend up to eight (8) community meetings related to the General Plan amendment. Joanna Jansen and the Assistant Project Manager will also participate in up to 30 progress meetings. We assume that these meetings can be done by conference call and will last no more than an average of an hour and a half. Joanna Jansen of The Planning Center | DC&E will attend the scoping meeting for the Draft EIR. Steve Noack and Joanna Jansen of The Planning Center | DC&E will attend the following public meetings and hearings for the project: Public review hearings (2) Adoption and certification hearings (2) Hexagon will attend seven meetings: two community meetings, one scoping meeting, two Planning Commission meetings and two City Council meetings. Hexagon will also prepare graphics, slides, and tables required for the meetings. Attendane- quire written authorization and additional budget. SCHEDULE The Planning Center | DC&Es proposed schedule for completion of the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning EIR is shown in Figure 3. As shown in the schedule, we anticipate that the project can be completed by within a 15-month time period beginning in March 2013, and ending in May 2014. We believe this schedule is in keeping with your needs, but we are happy to revise this schedule if necessary. The Planning Center | DC&E has a strong track record in meeting project schedules and t- ing closely with its clients. Over years of managing projects similar to the General Plan Amend- ment and Rezoning EIR, we have developed a variety of tools to keep projects on sched ensure that staff are well informed at all times: We maintain an up-to-date schedule throughout the project, to ensure that all team mem- bers are aware of upcoming meetings and product due dates. We stay in close, regular contact with staff and our subconsultants and document important decisions about the project in writing, which ensures that decisions are understood by all team members. We schedule project due dates for staff and subconsultants with adequate time for editing and formatting into finished reports. 14 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 357 CC ITY OF UPERTINO F3S IGURE CHEDULE 15 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 358 CC ITY OF UPERTINO 16 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 359 CC ITY OF UPERTINO CHAPTER 2: COST PROPOSAL As shown in Table 1, the estimated cost to complete the scope of work described in this proposal is $393,490. This cost is based on an assumption that the EIR will include ann- eral Plan Amendment and rezonings only, and would not include an analysis of a Vallco Sp Plan. Note that this cost does not include the cost to the City to pur the VTA model, which would be $15,000, payable directly to VTA. The Planning Center | DC&E recommends planning for a 5 percent to 10 percent contingency fund to cover any unforeseen out-of-scope work that might be necessary for the project. We are flexible regarding project costs and hope that you will not eliminate on the basis of cost alone. The billing rates for each team member are included in Table 1, which also shows allocations of hours and personnel, as requested in the RFP. We can provide direct labor rates upon request. Our current overhead rate is 195 percent and the fee is 10 percent. The Planning Center | DC&E bills for its work on a time-and-materials basis with monthly invoices. Additional meeting attendance would be billed on a T&M basis, and would typically cost $800/meeting). ASSUMPTIONS This scope of work and cost estimate assumes that: The Vallco Shopping Center area would be one of the seven opportunity sites analyzed in the EIR, but does not assume preparation or analysis of a Vallco Specific Plan. All seven sites, in- cluding the Vallco site, would be analyzed at the same level of etail. Billing rates for this project are guaranteed through December 31, 2014. Billing rates would be subject to an increase of up to 6 percent on January 1, 2015, and in each subsequent year thereafter. A budget increase would be necessary to cover costs incurred aftJanuary 1, 2015. Our cost estimate includes the meetings listed above. Additional meetings would be billed on a time-and-materials basis. Joanna Jansen will attend all project meetings and hearings. Hexagon Transportation Consultants will attend the kick-off meeting for the project. 17 4. Cost Proposal GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 360 CC ITY OF UPERTINO No more than 80 hours of The Planning Center | DC&E staff time will be required to respond to comments on the Draft EIR. If additional labor is necessary,w- ing additional work will be necessary. All products will be submitted to City of Cupertino in electronic (PDF) format, except for printed copies that are specifically identified in Chapter 2. This is an allowance only, based on the numbers of products and copies shown in Chapter 2. If this allowance is exceeded, Additional printing costs will be billed at The Planning Center | DC&Es actual cost. City of Cupertino staff will be responsible for meeting logistics, including schedule coordina- tion, document production, printing notices, mailing costs, roomoom set-up and take-down, and refreshments. This scope of work includes a printing allowance of $1,200 for large format maps and other presentation materials for public meetings. If this allowance i be billed at The Planning Center|DC&Es actual cost. 18 4. Cost Proposal GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 361 CC ITY OF UPERTINO Table 1 The Planning Center | DC&E General Plan Amendment and Rezoning EIR Cost Estimate Environmental Collaborative The Planning Center | DC&EHexagon Transportation ConsultantsBKF EngineersTom Origer and Associates Associate Senior Project Graphics Graphics/Principal Hours per Task Principal Principal Associate Associate Planner Planner Manager WP Associate Associate Graphics Principal Associate PM Engineer III Engineer II Engineer I Principal Staff #1 Staff #2 Staff #3 Principal A. Project Initiation 2 7 4 5 1 8 8 2 - 1 00 - - 5 4 8 6 - - 8 1 6 4 0 - - 2 - 2 0 2 4 1. Kick-Off Meeting 4 4 8 8 2. Project Description 4 6 8 8 3. Notice of Preparation 1 1 2 2 4. Public Scoping Meeting 8 8 16 6 5. GPA Existing Conditions Reports 8 16 6 24 60 16 2 20 24 6. Parcel Plat Maps and Legal Descriptions (cost TBD) 2 7. General Plan Amendment Alternatives Assessment 2 8 12 24 24 46 70 8 16 40 B. Environmental Review 2 2 5 5 8 8 2 2 44 6 1 6 2 4 4 8 8 4 0 4 0 1 20 3 0 6 6 0 4 9 2 2 C. EIR Alternatives Evaluation 2 9 1 0 2 8 4 1 0 1 4 2 D. Administrative Draft EIR 3 2 8 0 2 9 0 1 80 2 1 2 2 0 4 0 1 6 2 4 4 E. Draft EIR and Public Review 1 0 2 4 - 2 2 - 4 0 - 8 5 1 6 8 2 4 4 - - - - - - 1. Draft EIR 2 12 22 32 8 5 16 8 2 4 4 2. Public Hearings 8 12 8 F. Administrative Response to Comments and Final EIR 4 8 8 8 4 4 8 2 1 4 4 3 G. Final EIR 8 2 4 1 0 4 0 4 4 1 1 2 1 H. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2 8 8 1 2 I. Adoption and Certification 8 1 2 8 Project Management 4 0 8 0 2 0 Progress Meetings 1 5 4 5 4 5 Workshops and Hearings - 3 0 2 0 Total Hours1704204640744684840116219241262641603066242952 Hourly Rate$190 $175 $165 $135 $105 $85 $115 $80 $195 $145 $95 $220 $173 $140 $123 $107 $100 $80 $60 $55 $125 Labor Cost$32,300 $73,500 $7,590 $54,945 $4,620 $58,140 $920 $3,200 $22,620 $31,755 $2,280 $2,640 $10,726 $8,960 $19,680 $3,210 $600 $4,960 $240 $1,595 $6,500 Total Firm Labor Cost $235,215 $56,655 $45,216 $7,395 $6,500 EXPENSES Mileage (@ $0.555 per mile) 1,232 110 50 Subconsultant Management (10%) 13,513 Office Expenses (Phone, Fax, Copies, etc. @ 2% of Labor) 4,704 1,800 Traffic Counts 17,000 Report Printing 1,750 200 Presentation Materials/Large Format Maps 1,200 Instrumentation and Data Fees 750 200 Total Expenses$23,149 $17,000 $2,000 $310 $50 Total Each Firm$258,364 $73,655 $47,216 $7,705 $6,550 GPA EIR Total$393,490 2/8/2013 362 19 5. References GPA&REIR ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 363 CC ITY OF UPERTINO Table 2 The Planning Center | DC&E General Plan Amendment and Rezoning EIR Cost Estimate Labor Cost per Expenses per TOTAL COST Hours per TaskTask Task PER TASK A. Project Initiation 71,349 21,646 92,995 B. Environmental Review 101,680 5,857 107,537 C. EIR Alternatives Evaluation 10,235 590 10,825 D. Administrative Draft EIR 61,962 6,069 68,031 E. Draft EIR and Public Review 18,857 2,012 20,869 F. Administrative Response to Comments and Final EIR 13,347 1,144 14,491 G. Final EIR 17,321 1,373 18,694 H. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3,880 223 4,103 I. Adoption and Certification 4,300 424 4,724 Project Management 24,300 1,100 25,400 Progress Meetings 16,800 968 17,768 Workshops and Hearings 6,950 1,104 8,054 Totals$350,981 $42,509 $393,490 GPA EIR Total$393,490 2/8/2013 364 CHAPTER 1: DETAILED WORK PLAN This chapter contains the following sections: Project Management Team Task Descriptions for the Vallco Specific Plan EIR Deliverables Decision-Making Flowchart Schedule For ease of reference, this chapter also includes a summary of mtings to be held for the project. PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM For the City of Cupertinos Vallco Specific Plan EIR, The Planning Center | DC&E will serve as the prime consultant and will oversee all aspects of the project to completion. Steve Noack will serve as Principal-in-Charge and will oversee the consultant team. Joanna Jansen will serve as Project Manager and will administer all day-to-day aspects of the pro- ject. TASK DESCRIPTIONS This section describes the work plan to be completed by The Planning Center | DC&E team for the Vallco Specific Plan EIR. A summary of the work program is presented in Table 1. Project Initiation Task A. In this task, The Planning Center | DC&E team, working with City staff and the Specific Plan con- sultant, will begin work and share ideas and concerns regarding allow The Planning Center | DC&E team to review information needs, discuss expectations for project process, and begin consultation with interested parties. This task will develop the basis for a focused work program, effective coordination, and a smooth work flow through the project. 1.Kick-Off Meeting During this task, members of The Planning Center | DC&E team will work with City staff to adjust this scope of work. The review of the scope may result in adjustments the project as it is described in this proposal. 1 4. Cost Proposal VSPEIR ALLCO PECIFIC LAN 365 CC ITY OF UPERTINO The Planning Center | DC&E and Hexagon staff will attend a kick-off meeting with the City and to review the scope of work, available information, schedule, and work products. Wes- cuss: Preliminary identification of key issues for the EIR. Protocols for clear communication between The Planning Center | DC&E, the City, and the General Plan consultant. Concepts for the alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR. 2.Hexagon Work Scope Refinement Hexagon will review all policy documents and previous transportao- posed Specific Plan. Hexagon will coordinate with the City of Cupertino and the project team to (1) confirm the study intersections and roadway segments to be included in the traffic analysis of the Specific Plan and (2) discuss any other pertinent background information scope assumes that no additional intersections would be analyzed for the Specific Plan beyond the up to 40 intersections already being analyzed for the General Plan Amendment EIR. 3.Project Description The Planning Center | DC&E will prepare a detailed project description for the EIR usiphics and textual information as appropriate. We will coordinate with the Specific Plan consultant to clearly define the project, and we will work with the City to draft and refine the project objectives. 4.Notice of Preparation As requested in the RFP, we will prepare all CEQA notices for the Vallco Specific Plan EIR. The Planning Center | DC&E will submit a Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR to the Governors Office of Planning and Research. 5.Public Scoping Meeting The Planning Center | DC&E Project Manager will attend one scoping meeting to gather input and comments from interested agencies, organization, City officials, 6.Vallco Specific Plan ExistingConditions Reports The Planning Center | DC&E team will conduct background data review and coordinate with the Vallco Specific Plan consultant to prepare Existing Conditions reports that will suppparation of both the Vallco Specific Plan itself and the EIR. The fact that these reports will be utilize both projects will ensure consistency between the documents and provide a coorpproach between the EIR team and Vallco Specific Plan consultant. These reports will be limited to: Air Quality Hazards and Hazardous Materials Land Use Population and Housing Schools and other Public Services Traffic 2 4. Cost Proposal VSPEIR ALLCOPECIFIC LAN 366 CC ITY OF UPERTINO a.Data Collection and Documentation of Existing Traffic Conditions Hexagon will compile data and information on the existing transpd- ways, transit services, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian amenities. A detailed description accompa- nied with maps of the transit service provided in the area, as w pedestrian facilities will be documented. Recent traffic counts locations where recent traffic counts are not available, new intersection counts will be co including vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian volumes for the AM a 7:30 to 10:30 a.m. and from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. A copy of these coe submitted to the City. 7.Vallco Specific Plan Alternatives Assessment During the preparation of the Vallco Specific Plan, it is likely that the planning consultant will want to utilize the EIR team to assess the environmental and service ral alternative land use alternative scenarios. In this task, we would therefore qualitatively assess up to three Specific Plan alternatives with regard to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and impacts on schools parks and other community services. This analysis would be presented in a matrix format and would be conducted before work on the EIR commences in earnest. a.Analysis of Future Traffic Conditions Hexagon will evaluate traffic conditions under the existing Genee condi- tions) and up to three future alternative scenarios. The analysifuture scenarios is Year 2020. Land use assumptions for the existing conditions will be obtained from the Citys exist- ing Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan and input from City Staff. The General Plan land uses will be entered into VTA's 2020 Land Use data fil Demand Model (TFM) , incorporate the General Plan land use data model forecasts. In addition to the General Plan conditions, Hexagon will use the TFM model and analyze up to three future land use or transportation alternativ on the Vallco Specific Plan site. The future land use/transportation alternatives will be developewith The Plan- ning Center | DC&E and City staff based on their review of the base conditions and the the transportation system. Transportation system impacts associated with each of the three rnatives will be evaluated. The three future alternatives will be evaluated in terms of: the effect on travel time level of service at study intersections and roadway segments, the potential for cut-through traffic, difficulty of implementation and costs of required mitigation, need for right-of-way acquisition, and likelihood of community acceptance. Evaluation of the less "land use intensive" alternatives may be intersections and roadway segments that are projected to operate service impacts and improvements to support each of the future la- tives will be identified and described. These could include new roadways, addition of turn lanes, and/or changes to bike/pedestr/transit facilities. Hexagon will also calculate the net increase or decrease in Vehicle Miles Tra 3 4. Cost Proposal VSPEIR ALLCO PECIFIC LAN 367 CC ITY OF UPERTINO General Plan and each of the future land use/transportation alte greenhouse gas emissions calculations in the EIR. Once the preferred alternative is selected as part of the Vallco Specific Plan process, Hexagon will develop a detailed description of the necessary transportation sements, along with associated design and construction costs, for the preferred alternative in consultation with the project team, led by City staff. b.Trip Generation Trip generation estimates of the land use alternatives will be d the ITE Trip Generation Manual. For land use types that are not available in the ITE Manual, SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments) trip generation rae- duction percentages assumed will be reviewed and approved by ther- ther with the traffic analysis. Environmental Review Task B. Leveraging our local knowledge and integrating information from Existing Conditions Reports prepared in Task A.5, above, we will: Assess existing environmental conditions; Write standards of significance for the evaluation of impacts, in coordination with City staff; Evaluate impacts that would result from buildout of the proposed Develop measures necessary to mitigate or limit adverse impacts In keeping with the requirements of CEQA, it is anticipated that the following impact categories will be analyzed in the EIR: 1.Aesthetics/Visual Resources A Vallco Shopping District Master Plan will guide the districts redevelopment as a vibrant shopping destination. As such, the project has the potential to alter the visual character of the sites through- out the city and affect the character of surrounding areas. Thenter | DC&E will apply our in-house urban design expertise to perform a rigorous visual assessment o project. 2.Air Quality The Planning Center | DC&E will prepare an air quality and a community risk and hazard for the City of Cupertino to support the Vallco Specific Plan EIR. The technical analysis will be integrated within the EIR and modeling datasheets will be included as an appendix. The air quality and community risk and hazards impact analysis for the EIR will d- ology of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMDs CEQA Guidelines, a Plan-Level analysis will be prepared and will include a qualitative analysis of criteria air pollutants generated from buildout of t assessment of major stationary and mobile sources of toxic air cnd fine in- halable particulate matter (PM) within the city. 2.5 4 4. Cost Proposal VSPEIR ALLCOPECIFIC LAN 368 CC ITY OF UPERTINO a.Criteria Air Pollutants The Air Quality section of the EIR will include the current air Area Air Basin (SFBAAB or Air Basin) in the vicinity of the city a summary of regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing health-based impacts associated with poor air quality. Exist- ing levels of criteria air pollutants available from the nearest incorporated. Buildout of the Vallco Specific Plan would generate emissions from an increase in trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with land uses- Level air quality analysis will include a consistency evaluationSpecific Plan to the BAAQMDs land use and transportation control measures within the air qual SFBAAB is in nonattainment for particulate matter and for ozone. generated by an increase in development intensity in the City (provided by Hexagon) will be dis- cussed in relation to the projected population and employment increase. The air quality impact analysis will also describe land uses within the city that have odors. Buffer distances and/or control measures for odor sources listed in the BAAQMDs guie- lines will be incorporated. b.Community Risk and Hazards Under this, task, The Planning Center|DC&E staff will assess air quality compatibility based on guidance within BAAQMDs draft Community Risk Reduction Plans for Toxic Air Contaminants . The community ): Community Development Guidelines (TAC) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 risk and hazards evaluation would include a discussion of potential health risks from TAC and PMin the project vicinity based on BAAQMDs guidance. BAAQMD does not require site-specific 2.5 health risk assessments as part of the Plan-Level evaluation for the Vallco Specific Plan. However, under this task existing stationary sources, major roadways (defined by BAAQMD as over 10,000 vehicles per day), and other sources of TAC will be mapped, including State Route 85 and Inter- state 280. Recommended measures specified in the BAAQMDs Guide land uses within the areas mapped would be considered. For land uses within areas mapped as having elevated risk, the EIR will detail performance standards for future development projects, including requirements to reduce risk from exposure to significant con and 2.5 TACs. Recommendations to reduce risk associated with placement of new sensitive land uses associated with the General Plan Amendment adjacent to major sources of air pollution would be based on the recommended buffer distances based on BAAQMD screen Resources Board (CARB) guidance, and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Ass guidance. 3.Biological Resources Environmental Collaborative will review existing information on resources occurring in the Vallco Specific Plan vicinity and conduct a field reconnaissance survey and habitat suitability analys special-status species and potential jurisdictional wetlands. Availablee- sources in the vicinity will be reviewed, including environmentaific devel- opment applications in the area; wetlands mapping prepared as paational Wetland Inventory; records on occurrences of special-status taxa and sensitive natural communities main- tained by the California Natural Diversity Data Base; and information on sensitive or special-status taxa available from the City and County, the California Departme the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). A one-day field reconnaissance survey will be con- ducted, focusing on the Specific Plan area, which should be sufficient to determine the potential 5 4. Cost Proposal VSPEIR ALLCO PECIFIC LAN 369 CC ITY OF UPERTINO for any sensitive resources and need for any supplemental detaile- source section of the EIR will identify vegetation types, wildli special-status species, and any other important biotic features. Possible perma- tion requirements will be outlined. 4.Cultural Resources Tom Origer & Associates (TOA) will compile information regarding history of the City of Cupertino. TOA will examine records at the Northwesi- fornia Historical Resources Information System and at the office of the cultural setting. A request for information will be made to the Native American Heritage Commission and to local tribes and individuals. TOA will also sthe Specific Plan area and prepare a technical report identifying any cultural resources onrties. TOA will evaluate the potential of the Vallco Specific Plan to impact prehistoric or historical cultural resources, including the potential for buried resources, and wil identified impacts. 5.Geology, Soils, and Seismicity The Planning Center | DC&E will analyze potential geological and soil-related impacts in the Specif- ic Plan area. We will apply our rich experience in CEQA review to ensure almpacts are addressed. 6.Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Planning Center | DC&E will prepare a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis for the EIR. The technical analysis will be integrated within the EIR and modncluded as an appendix. The GHG impact analysis for the EIR will be based on the currentOur scope of work is based on an understanding that the project woul intensities on a collection of opportunity sites within the cityThe GHG analysis will be prepared based on BAAQMDs Project-Level thresholds and methodology, in accordance with current BAAQMD guidance. The EIR will include a GHG emissions inventory for existing landSpecific Plan site and a GHG emissions inventory of proposed land uses within the site at buildout of the project in order to estimate the net increase in GHG emissions attributable to the proj The GHG emis- sions inventory will be prepared using a BAAQMD-accepted model (e.g., CalEEMod) and will in- clude GHG emissions from transportation sources, area sources (lchitectural coatings, consumer products), energy sources (natural gas consum wastewater, and waste. The transportation sector will be tailored based on information provided by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. In addition, the EIR will include a qualitative evaluation of consistency of the project with applicable GHG reductions plans. 6 4. Cost Proposal VSPEIR ALLCOPECIFIC LAN 370 CC ITY OF UPERTINO 7.Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Planning Center | DC&E will address hazards and hazardous materials issues. The P Center | DC&E will describe known hazards on the Vallco Specific Plan site and in surrounding areas, developing mitigation measures as required to avoid signiironmental impacts. 8.Hydrology and Water Quality BKF will provide a description of the storm drainage requirements for new development in the Vallco Specific Plan area, including the requirements for volume of runoff and stormwater tt- ment. The information gathered will be documented in a Hydrologhnical Report that will be included as an appendix in the Draft EIR. The Planning Center | DC&E will evaluate potential impacts to water quality. 9.Land Use and Planning The Planning Center | DC&E will draw on our expertise in land use planning and policy analy conduct a thorough evaluation of potential land use impacts and policy consistency an 10.Noise The Planning Center | DC&E will prepare a noise analysis that will identify the impacts on land uses from the implementation of the project. The EIR will dant standards and criteria for noise exposure, including federal, State, and City ordinances, policies, and standards. The Planning Center | DC&E will review the existing noise element of the General Plan, rely on aerial photography, and on the results of ambient noise level measurements to document the existing noise conditions in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area. Ambient noise monitoring will include a combination of short-term and long-term noise measurements to be taken at up to 8 locations in and near the Specific Plan area. These locations will be selected in coordination with City staff to identify and quantify the major roadway noise source Freeways, primary City arterials, rail noise, and aircraft overflights. The analysis will identify long-term noise impacts with implementation of the project. Long term noise impacts will include calculating noise contours along key roadway and railway segments to show the distance/contour relationship and the comparison of expected noise levels to State and City standards. Noise from vehicular traffic will be assessed using a version of Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model; these contour provided in the traffic impact analysis for this project. Noise from railway activity will be asse using U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) methodologies. Noise impacts from non- transportation sources such as mechanical equipment, air conditidocks will be evaluated qualitatively in terms of potential impacts torby noise-sensitive receptors. Construction impacts will be evaluated at a programmatic level. Future noise and vib from construction activities will be discussed in terms of accepted standards from the U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Feasible mitigation measures will be identified to minimize futu construction-related impacts within the study area. 7 4. Cost Proposal VSPEIR ALLCO PECIFIC LAN 371 CC ITY OF UPERTINO Potential land use conflicts will be identified based on the results of the noise monitoring and modeling results. The results if this analysis will be summarizu- lations will be provided in an Appendix. 11.Population and Housing The Planning Center | DC&E will summarize potential impacts related to population and housing that could result from buildout of the Vallco Specific Plan. The Planning Center | DC&E will also consider the growth inducing potential of buildout, including indirect growth from im- ployment opportunities. 12.Schools, Other Public Services, and Recreation The Planning Center | DC&E will also assess impacts on other public services and recreation. We will describe existing parks and recreational facilities in Cupertino associated with buildout of the project. We will contact service providers, including City providers and school districts as well as the Santa Clara County Fire and On the basis of responses from public service providers, The Planning Center | DC&E will analyze potential impacts resulting from the project, and recommend mitigation measures as needed. 13.Transportation and Traffic Hexagon will prepare traffic analysis documentation for use in tVallco Specific Plan EIR that analyzes existing conditions, existing General Plan conditions (Year 2020) a use/transportation alternatives. The report will include a descrh- odologies, transportation network (roadways, bike, pedestrian, toadway traffic volumes, level of service analysis, and a description of any impacts and pedestrian, and transit facilities. This scope assumes that the Specific Plan analysis will draw on the analysis that will be separately performed for the General Plan Amendment EIR. AM and PM peak hour turn movements at all study intersections and roadway segments will be forecasted by the model. Future intersection turning movement lumes will be adjusted based on the (1) the existing traffic counts, (2) base year model volumes and (3) yeal- umes. The trip distribution and roadway assignment will be reviewed and ap prior to proceeding with the traffic analysis. Hexagon will conduct existing AM and PM peak hour level of service (LOS) calculations for all study intersections using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual metho traffic volumes on arterials and major collectors, along with thstion effect on the street system within Cupertino, will be identified. The potential trafficof each alternative will be evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth byupertino and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The City of Cupertino level of service standards will be used to evaluater- sections. Intersection levels of service will be evaluated usingd- ology evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. TRAFFIX also is the CMP-designated intersection level of service meth- odology. The City of Cupertino level of service standard for sig better. 8 4. Cost Proposal VSPEIR ALLCOPECIFIC LAN 372 CC ITY OF UPERTINO Level of service impacts and improvements will be identified and described. T new roadways, widening of existing roadways, addition of turn la bike/pedestrian/transit facilities. Hexagon will also calculate the net increase or decrease in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) between the existing conditions and the proposed Specific Plan, which will be used for the greenhouse gas emissions calculations in the EIR 14.Utilities and Service Systems BKF will prepare an analysis of wastewater, water supply, and gas and electric service that will form the basis for the EIR assessment of these issues and will be included as an appendix in the Draft EIR. BKF will first research the available existing information for tSpecific Plan area. Based on available information, BKF will document the size, capacity of the existing storm drainage system. This scope assumes that the City will provide utility block maps for the Specific Plan area and any utility master plans that are available and that City staff will highlight any known utility constraints. BKF will document the nformation provided and provide a written summary. Based on the available information, the Utilities Technical Repoent the size, condi- tions, and capacity of the existing wastewater and water supply ting gas and electric infrastructure, that serve the Specific Plan area. BKF will analyze demand under the pro- posed Vallco Specific Plan and any upgrades needed to accommodate new demand. BKF will work with the Cupertino Sanitary District to review demands and identify potential wa impacts and mitigation measures, and will work with the Californ Water Service for water supply impacts. It is assumed that these Districts will necessary to document potential system impacts. Based on the preferred alternative, BKF will prepare an estimateemands for storm, sewer and water for review by the City. Based on the increase in utility emands, the City will provide potential system impacts that BKF will document in the final utility The Planning Center | DC&E will document existing solid waste services and facilities and existing stormwater information documented in the Hydrology and Water Quae- pared by BKF in Task B.8. The Planning Center | DC&E will identify impacts and mitigation measures as needed for these services. 15.Other Environmental Issues CEQA permits the exclusion of environmental issues for which it the project would have no significant adverse impact. Based on i- pated that there would be no impact to Agricultural, Forestry, or Mineral Resources. Therefore, these issues would be addressed in summary fashion in the EIR. 9 4. Cost Proposal VSPEIR ALLCO PECIFIC LAN 373 CC ITY OF UPERTINO EIR Alternatives Evaluation Task C. Building from the discussion of alternatives at the kick-off meeting, The Planning Center | DC&E will develop a list of up to four draft alternatives, including the CEQA-required No Project Alterna- tive. We will work with City staff to finalize the list of alternatives. The Planning Center | DC&E team will complete an impact analysis of each alternative for inclusion in the EIR. The alternatives analysis will be a qualitative discussion and will identify the rnative. The alternatives will be designed to avoid potentially significa, and could include reduced building heights or densities, revised land use scenarios for opportunity sites, or transportation alternatives (alternative roadway improvemen modal split, or alternative transportation modes). Administrative Draft EIR Task D. The Planning Center | DC&E will prepare an Administrative Draft EIR (ADEIR) and submit to C staff for review and comment. The impact analysis will be compr requirements. Significance criteria will be identified for each iic based upon thresholds of significance identified in Appendix G, Environmental Checklise- lines and identified in the scoping process. Impacts and mitigation measures will be organized and discussed fied environmental impact, a set of feasible mitigation measures willcommended. The ADEIR will cover the following topics: Executive Summary. The Planning Center | DC&E will create a summary in a form con- sistent with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15123. This summary will facilitate a quick under- standing of environmental issues and the actions required to mitigate will include a summary table of impacts, mitigation measures, ane- fore and after mitigation. Project Description. The ADEIR will include the project description drafted for the poject as part of Task A.1, Project Description. Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. The existing setting information, impact anal- yses, and mitigation measures developed in Task B will be combined to create chapters de- scribing environmental consequences for each CEQA-required topic. Alternatives Evaluation. The alternatives evaluation completed in Task C will be incorpo- rated into the EIR. This chapter will include a tabular comparison of the alternatives impacts. CEQA Required Assessment Conclusions. The Planning Center | DC&E will prepare as- sessment conclusions to meet CEQA Guidelines for the following m Cumulative Impacts Growth Inducement Unavoidable Significant Effects Significant Irreversible Changes Impacts Found Not to be Significant 10 4. Cost Proposal VSPEIR ALLCOPECIFIC LAN 374 CC ITY OF UPERTINO Report Preparers. This chapter will identify the consultants and staff who prepare The Planning Center | DC&E will submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the ADEIR to City staff. City staff will act as a clearinghouse foro- vide The Planning Center | DC&E with a single, internally reconciled set of comments. The n- ning Center | DC&E will incorporate City comments on the ADEIR and deliver a second ADEIR fo review by City staff. This scope of work assumes that comments relatively minor and includes 24 hours for revisions. We will provide ten (10) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the second ADEIR to City staff. City staff will provide a single, internally reconciled set of c Planning Center | DC&E will incorporate City comments and deliver a Screencheck Draft EIR for review by City staff. We will submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the Screencheck Draft EIR to City staff. Draft EIR and Public Review Task E. 1.Draft EIR The Planning Center | DC&E will incorporate one consolidated set of comments on the Screencheck Draft EIR from City staff to create the Draft EIR. We Screencheck Draft EIR will focus on formatting and editing, not a total of ten (10) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the Draft EIR. The Planning Center | DC&E will prepare the Notice of Completion and submit to the State Clr- inghouse along with the requisite number of hardcopies and CDs. nter | DC&E will also prepare the Notice of Availability to be submitted to the County Clerk. We assume that the City will be responsible for mailing the Notice of Availabilting the Notice of Availability in public locations. 2.Public Hearings The Planning Center | DC&E and Hexagon will attend up to two public hearings on the Draft EIR with the Planning Commission. We assume that City staff will scblic notice, and prepare staff reports. The Planning Center | DC&E will consult with City staff to ensure that noticing for public hearings is consistent with CEQA requirements. Administrative Response to Comments and Final EIR Task F. Following the mandatory CEQA 45-day review period, The Planning Center | DC&E team will pre- pare an Administrative Response to Comments. We assume that City staff will forward all public comments received within one working day of the close of the pubThe Planning Center | DC&E team has assumed 60 hours of staff labor. If additional time is needed due to an unforeseen volume of comments, we will request a contract modification to cover additional labor costs. 11 4. Cost Proposal VSPEIR ALLCO PECIFIC LAN 375 CC ITY OF UPERTINO We will incorporate the Administrative Response to Comments into document. This will include both the Response to Comments and aalysis or revisions to the Draft EIR as necessary. We will prepare a total of ten (10) hard copies and one (1) elecn- ic copy of the Administrative Final EIR. Final EIR Task G. We will incorporate one consolidated set of City comments on thenal EIR to cre- ate the Final EIR. We will provide ten hard copies and one electronic copy of the Final EIR. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Task H. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be assn- ter | DC&E team working in close collaboration with the City, to ensure that place so that the EIR mitigation measures are carried out in an appropriate, timely, and v manner. The MMRP will be submitted as a draft document to the Cnd revised for publication with the Final EIR. We will prepare a total of ten (10) hard copies and one (1) elec each of the draft and final MMRP. Adoption and Certification Task I. The Planning Center | DC&E will attend two certification hearings on the Final EIR. We will also prepare the Notice of Determination to be submitted to the Count DELIVERABLES The following products will be submitted to the City of Cupertino in fulfillment of our proposed scope of work: Task A: Project Initiation Project Description Notice of Preparation Vallco Specific Plan Existing Conditions Reports Vallco Specific Plan Alternatives Assessment (optional) Task D: Administrative Draft EIR Two (2) drafts of the Administrative Draft EIR (10 hard copies each) Screencheck Draft EIR (10 hard copies) Task E: Draft EIR and Public Review Draft EIR (10 hard copies) Notices of Completion and Availability Task F: Administrative Response to Comments and Final EIR Administrative Final EIR (10 hard copies) Task G: Final EIR Final EIR (10 hard copies) 12 4. Cost Proposal VSPEIR ALLCOPECIFIC LAN 376 CC ITY OF UPERTINO Task H: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Draft and Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (10 Task I: Adoption and Certification Notice of Determination MEETINGS Steve Noack and Joanna Jansen of The Planning Center | DC&E and Gary Black of Hexagon Trans- portation Consultants, will attend the kick-off meeting with City staff. Joanna Jansen of The Planning Center | DC&E will attend up to five (5) community meetings relat- ed to the General Plan amendment. Joanna Jansen and the Assistant Project Manager will also participate in up to 30 progress meetings. We assume that these meetings can be done by con- ference call and will last no more than an average of an hour and a half. Hexagon staff will attend up to two community meetings and one scoping meeting. Hexagon staff will also participate in up to seven progress meetings via conference call. Joanna Jansen of The Planning Center | DC&E will attend the scoping meeting for the Draft EIR. Steve Noack and Joanna Jansen of The Planning Center | DC&E will attend the following public meetings and hearings for the project: Public review hearings (2) Adoption and certification hearings (2) SCHEDULE We anticipate that the Vallco Specific Plan EIR can be completed by within a 12-month time peri- od. We believe this schedule is in keeping with your needs, but w schedule if necessary. The Planning Center | DC&E has a strong track record in meeting project schedules and t- ing closely with its clients. Over years of managing projects sVallco Specific Plan EIR, we have developed a variety of tools to keep projects on schedul informed at all times: We maintain an up-to-date schedule throughout the project, to ensure that all team mem- bers are aware of upcoming meetings and product due dates. We stay in close, regular contact with staff and our subconsulta decisions about the project in writing, which ensures that decisions are understood by all team members. We schedule project due dates for staff and subconsultants with time for editing and formatting into finished reports. 13 4. Cost Proposal VSPEIR ALLCO PECIFIC LAN 377 CC ITY OF UPERTINO CHAPTER 2: COST PROPOSAL As shown in Table 3, the estimated cost to complete the scope of work described in this proposal is $210,164. Note that this cost does not include the cost to the City to pur be $15,000, payable directly to VTA, and which we assume would occur in order to support the analysis necessary for the General Plan Amendment EIR. The Planning Center | DC&E recommends planning for a 5 percent to 10 percent contingen to cover any unforeseen out-of-scope work that might be necessary for the project. We are flexible regarding project costs and hope that you will not eliminate us from consideration on the basis of cost alone. The billing rates for each team member are included in Table 3, which also shows allocations of hours and personnel, as requested in the RFP. We can provide direct labor rates upon request. Our current overhead rate is 195 percent and the fee is 10 perce The Planning Center | DC&E bills for its work on a time-and-materials basis with monthly invoices. ASSUMPTIONS This scope of work and cost estimate assumes that: The Planning Center | DC&E will perform this work under the same Plan Amendment EIR. Billing rates for this project are guaranteed through December 3 be subject to an increase of up to 6 percent on January 1, 2015, and in each subsequent year thereafter. A budget increase would be necessary to cover costs 2015. Our cost estimate includes the meetings shown in Chapter 2. Additional meetings would be billed on a time-and-materials basis. Hexagon Transportation Consultants will attend the kick- off meeting for the project. The Vallco Specific Plan EIR will substantially rely on data and Plan Amendment EIR. If data from the General Plan Amendment EIR becomes outdated, or is otherwise unable to be used, and additional new research and anai- cation to this scope and cost estimate will be required. 14 4. Cost Proposal VSPEIR ALLCOPECIFIC LAN 378 CC ITY OF UPERTINO No more than 80 hours of The Planning Center | DC&E staff time will be required to respond to comments on the Draft EIR. If additional labor is necessary,w- ing additional work will be necessary. All products will be submitted to City of Cupertino in electronic (PDF) format, except for printed copies that are specifically identified in Chapter 2. This is an allowance only, based on the numbers of products and copies shown in Chapter 2. If this allowance is exceeded, Additional printing costs will be billed at The Planning Center | DC&Es actual cost. City of Cupertino staff will be responsible for meeting logistics, including schedule coordina- tion, document production, printing notices, mailing costs, roomoom set-up and take-down, and refreshments. This scope of work includes a printing allowance of $1,200 for large format maps and other presentation materials for public meetings. If this allowance i be billed at The Planning Center | DC&Es actual cost. 15 4. Cost Proposal VSPEIR ALLCO PECIFIC LAN 379 CC ITY OF UPERTINO Table 3 The Planning Center | DC&E Vallco District Specific Plan Environmental Review Cost Estimate The Planning Center | DC&EHexagon Transportation ConsultantsBKF Engineers Associate Senior Project Graphics Graphics/ Principal Hours per Task Principal Principal Associate Associate Planner Planner Manager WP Associate Associate Graphics Principal Associate PM Engineer III Engineer II Engineer I A. Project Initiation 6 2 0 5 4 2 4 1 04 3 8 - 1 6 4 4 8 8 - 4 2 8 2 0 7 6 - 1. Kick-Off Meeting 8 4 2. Project Description 1 2 8 8 3. Notice of Preparation 4. Public Scoping Meetings 5. Plan Area Existing Conditions Reports 2 8 6 16 40 30 8 24 8 30 6. Alternatives Assessment 1 8 40 40 8 24 48 4 6 7. Preferred Alternative 2 2 8 24 8 4 16 4 12 20 40 B. Environmental Review 4 1 6 2 4 4 0 8 0 6 8 8 4 0 C. EIR Alternatives Evaluation 1 4 8 1 6 4 4 8 D. Administrative Draft EIR - - - - - - - 1 1 2 4 4 E. Draft EIR and Public Review - 1 - - - - - - 4 8 - - 6 6 - 1. Draft EIR 4 8 6 6 2. Public Hearings 1 F. Administrative Response to Comments and Final EIR 4 8 8 8 4 4 8 4 8 2 2 G. Final EIR 8 2 4 1 0 4 0 4 4 H. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2 8 8 1 2 I. Adoption and Certification 8 1 2 8 Project Management 4 0 8 0 2 0 Progress Meetings 1 5 4 5 4 5 Workshops and Hearings - 3 0 2 0 Total Hours882489619314822662865153064032760 Hourly Rate$190 $175 $165 $135 $105 $85 $115 $80 $195 $145 $95 $220 $173 $140 $123 $107 Labor Cost$16,720 $43,400 $15,840 $26,055 $15,540 $19,210 $690 $2,240 $12,675 $22,185 $0 $1,320 $6,920 $4,480 $9,348 $0 Total Firm Labor Cost $139,695 $34,860 $22,068 EXPENSES Mileage (@ $0.555 per mile) 988 Subconsultant Management (10%) 5,809 Office Expenses (Phone, Fax, Copies, etc. @ 2% of Labor) 2,794 800 Traffic Counts - ASSUME USE SAME COUNTS FROM GPA Report Printing 1,750 200 Presentation Materials/Large Format Maps 1,200 Total Expenses$12,541 $0 $1,000 Total Each Firm$152,236 $34,860 $23,068 Grand Total for Separate EIR$210,164 2/8/2013 380 Vallco Specific PlanEIR 381 CC ITY OF UPERTINO Table 3A The Planning Center | DC&E Vallco District Specific Plan Environmental Review Costs By Task Labor Cost per Expenses per TOTAL cost Hours per TaskTask Task per task A. Project Initiation 71,432 3,669 75,101 - B. Environmental Review 28,410 1,388 29,798 C. EIR Alternatives Evaluation 5,590 273 5,863 D. Administrative Draft EIR 2,032 1,849 3,881 E. Draft EIR and Public Review 3,993 1,125 5,118 F. Administrative Response to Comments and Final EIR 12,426 982 13,408 G. Final EIR 16,510 1,182 17,692 H. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3,880 189 4,069 I. Adoption and Certification 4,300 390 4,690 Project Management 24,300 885 25,185 Progress Meetings 16,800 820 17,620 Workshops and Hearings 6,950 789 7,739 Totals$196,623 $13,541 $210,164 Grand Total for Separate EIR$210,164 2/8/2013 382 CHAPTER 1: DETAILED WORK PLAN As requested in the RFP, this chapter contains the following sec Project Management Team Task Descriptions for the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning EI Deliverables Decision-Making Flowchart Schedule For ease of reference, this chapter also includes a summary of meetings to be held for the. PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM For the City of Cupertinos General Plan Amendment and Rezoning n- ter | DC&E will serve as the prime consultant and will oversee all aspcts of the project to ensure its successful and timely completion. Steve Noack will serve as Principal-in-Charge and will over- see the consultant team. Joanna Jansen will serve as Project Manager and will administer all day- to-day aspects of the project. TASK DESCRIPTIONS This section describes the work plan to be completed by The Plan | DC&E team for the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning EIR. Project Initiation Task A. In this task, The Planning Center | DC&E team, working with City staff and the General Plan con- sultant, will begin work and share ideas and concerns regarding the EIR This task will allow The Planning Center | DC&E team to review information needs, discuss expectations for the project process, and begin consultation with interested parties. This task will develop the basis for a focused work program, effective coordination, and a smooth work flow through the project. 1.Kick-Off Meeting During this task, members of The Planning Center | DC&E team will work with City staff to adjust this scope of work. The review of the scope may result in adjustments to the fee and schedule o the project as it is described in this proposal. 1 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 383 CC ITY OF UPERTINO The Planning Center | DC&E and Hexagon staff will attend a kick-off meeting with the City and to review the scope of work, available information, schedule, and work products. We will also dis- cuss: Preliminary identification of key issues for the EIR. Protocols for clear communication between The Planning Center | DC&E, the City, and the General Plan consultant. Concepts for the alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR. 2.Hexagon Work Scope Refinement Hexagon will review all policy documents and previous transportao- posed General Plan Update. These include, but are not limited to, the existing City of Cupertino General Plan, the Cupertino Housing Element and North Vallco Mas Hexagon will coordi- nate with the City of Cupertino and the project team to (1) confirm the study intersections and roadway segments to be included in the traffic analysis of the General Plan amendment and (2) discuss any other pertinent background information or issues. Th up to 40 intersections including 21 CMP intersections within theM and PM commute hours and up to 30 roadway segments for analysis i- tions. 3.Project Description The Planning Center | DC&E will prepare a detailed project description for the EIR using graphics and textual information as appropriate. We will coordinate with the General Plan consultant to clearly define the project, and we will work with the City to draft and refine the project objectives. The Project Description will include the Vallco Specific Plan / Master Plan. 4.Notice of Preparation As requested in the RFP, we will prepare all CEQA notices for th Rezoning EIR. The Planning Center | DC&E will submit a Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR to the Governors Office of Planning and Research. 5.Public Scoping Meeting The Planning Center | DC&E Project Manager will attend one scoping meeting to gather input and comments from interested agencies, organization, City officials, 6.General Plan Amendment Existing Conditions Reports The Planning Center | DC&E team will conduct background data review and coordinate wit General Plan Amendment consultant to prepare Existing Conditionsp- aration of both the General Plan Amendment itself and the EIR. fact that these reports will be utilized for both projects will ensure consistency between the dt- ed approach between the EIR team and General Plan consultant. These reports will be limited to: Air Quality Hazards and Hazardous Materials 2 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 384 CC ITY OF UPERTINO Land Use Population and Housing Schools and other Public Services Traffic a.Data Collection and Documentation of Existing Traffic Conditions Hexagon will compile data and information on the existing transpd- ways, transit services, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian amenitiesa- nied with maps of the transit service provided in the area, as w pedestrian facilities will be documented. Recent traffic counts will be obtained from the City. For locations where recent traffic counts are not available, new intersection counts will be co including vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian volumes for the AM a 7:30 to 10:30 a.m. and from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. A copy of these counts will be submitted 7.General Plan Amendment Alternatives Assessment During the preparation of the General Plan Amendment, it is like will want to utilize the EIR team to assess the environmental and service impacts of several altera- tive land use alternative scenarios. In this task, we would thequalitatively assess up to three General Plan Amendment alternatives in up to seven opportunity areas with regard to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and impacts on schools parks and other community services. This analysis would be presented in a matrix format and would be conducted before work on the EIR commences in earnest. a.Analysis of Future Traffic Conditions Hexagon will evaluate traffic conditions under the existing Genei- tions) and up to three future alternative scenarios. The analysis scenario for buildout of the Citys General Plan is Year 2020. Land use assumptions for the General Plan conditions will be obtained from the Citys existing Land Use and Circulation Elements of th Staff. The General Plan land uses will be entered into VTA's 2020 Land use VTA Travel Demand Model (TFM), incorporate the General Plan land use data and develop the General Plan model forecasts. In addition to the General Pla TFM model and analyze up to three future land use or transportatves. The alternatives could include land use changes, alternative roadway improvements model split or emphasize alternative transportation modes. The future land use/transportation alternatives will be developed in coordination with The Planning Center | DC&E and City staff based on their review of the base conditions and the capacity of land uses for the alternatives will be distributed to about seven opportunity sites. Transportation system impacts associated with each of the three proposed alternatives wil evaluated. The three future alternatives will be evaluated in terms of: the effect on travel time level of service at study intersections and roadway segments, the potential for cut-through traffic, difficulty of implementation and costs of required mitigation, need for right-of-way acquisition, and likelihood of community acceptance. 3 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 385 CC ITY OF UPERTINO Evaluation of the less "land use intensive" alternatives may be intersections and roadway segments that are projected to operate at L service impacts and improvements to support each of the future la- tives will be identified and described. These could include new widening of existing roadways, addition of turn lanes, and/or changes to bike/pedestr also calculate the net increase or decrease in Vehicle Miles Tra General Plan and each of the future land use/transportation alternatives, which will be used for the greenhouse gas emissions calculations in the EIR. Once the preferred alternative is selected as part of the Generaa- gon will develop a detailed description of the necessary transportation system improvements, along with associated design and construction costs, for the preltation with the project team, led by City staff. b.Trip Generation Trip generation estimates of the land use alternatives will be determined using the 9th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. For land use types that are not SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments) trip generation rae- duction percentages assumed will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to procer- ther with the traffic analysis. Environmental Review Task B. Leveraging our local knowledge and integrating information from General Plan Existing Condi- tions Reports prepared in Task A.5, above, we will: Assess existing environmental conditions; Write standards of significance for the evaluation of impacts, i Evaluate impacts that would result from buildout of the proposed Develop measures necessary to mitigate or limit adverse impacts identified. Each impact evaluation section will include, first, a sub-section addressing potential impacts and mitigation measures for the General Plan Amendment, followed by -section address- ing potential impacts and mitigation measures for the Vallco Specific Pla In keeping with the requirements of CEQA, it is anticipated that be analyzed in the EIR: 1.Aesthetics/Visual Resources The General Plan Amendment and re-zonings would permit higher building heights in the South Vallco area and on additional sites, and will identify developme sites. In addition, a Vallco Shopping District Master Plan will guide the districts redevelopment as a vibrant shopping destination. As such, the project has the potential to alter the visual chara of the sites throughout the city and affect the character of surrounding areas. The Planning Cen- ter | DC&E will apply our in-house urban design expertise to perform a rigorous visual assessment of the proposed project. 4 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 386 CC ITY OF UPERTINO 2.Air Quality The Planning Center | DC&E will prepare an air quality and a community risk and hazard for the City of Cupertino to support the General Plan Amendment and EIR. The technical analysis will be integrated within the EIR and modeling datasheets will be included a The air quality and community risk and hazards impact analysis for the E methodology of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). In accordance with the BAAQMDs CEQA Guidelines, a Plan-Level analysis will be prepared and will include a qualitative analysis of criteria air pollutants generated from buildout of t assessment of major stationary and mobile sources of toxic air contamin- halable particulate matter (PM) within the city. 2.5 a.Criteria Air Pollutants The Air Quality section of the EIR will include the current air cisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB or Air Basin) in the vicinity of the city and a summary of regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing health-based impacts associated with poor air quality. Exist- ing levels of criteria air pollutants available from the nearest air quality monitoring station will be incorporated. Buildout of the General Plan Amendment would generate emissions from an in- crease in trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with land uses within the city. The Program-Level air quality analysis will include a consistency evaluation of the Gener Amendment to the BAAQMDs land use and transportation control measures wit management plan. The SFBAAB is in nonattainment for particulate matter and for oz potential increase in VMT generated by an increase in development intensity by Hexagon) will be discussed in relation to the projected popul The air quality impact analysis will also describe land uses within the city that have the potential to generate nuisance odors. Buffer distances and/or control measures for odor sources listed BAAQMDs guidelines will be incorporated. b.Community Risk and Hazards Under this, task, The Planning Center|DC&E staff will assess air quality compatibility based on guidance within BAAQMDs draft Community Risk Reduction Plans for Toxic Air Contaminants . The community ): Community Development Guidelines (TAC) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 risk and hazards evaluation would include a discussion of potential health risks from TAC and PMin the project vicinity based on BAAQMDs guidance. BAAQMD does not require site-specific 2.5 health risk assessments as part of the Plan-Level evaluation for the General Plan Amendment. However, under this task existing stationary sources, major roadways (defined by BAAQMD a 10,000 vehicles per day), and other sources of TAC will be mapped, including State Route 85 and Interstate 280. Based on a preliminary review of BAAQMD mapping tools, there appear to be over 50 stationary sources and more than 8 roadways with traffic coun Recommended measures specified in the BAAQMDs Guidelines for fu within the areas mapped would be considered. For land uses within areas mapped as having elevated risk, the EIR will detail performance standards for future development projects, including requirements to reduce risk from exposure to significant concentand TACs. Rec- 2.5 ommendations to reduce risk associated with placement of new senociated with the General Plan Amendment adjacent to major sources of air pollution would be based on 5 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 387 CC ITY OF UPERTINO the recommended buffer distances based on BAAQMD screening toolsCalifornia Air Resources Board (CARB) guidance, and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Assdance. 3.Biological Resources Environmental Collaborative will review existing information on resources occurring in the plan- ning area vicinity and conduct a field reconnaissance survey and habitat suitability special-status species and potential jurisdictional wetlands. Availablee- sources in the vicinity will be reviewed, including environmentar specific devel- opment applications in the area; wetlands mapping prepared as pa Inventory; records on occurrences of special-status taxa and sensitive natural communities main- tained by the California Natural Diversity Data Base; and information on sensitive or special-status taxa available from the City and County, the California Departme the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). A one-day field reconnaissance survey will be con- ducted, focusing on the General Plan Amendment areas, which should be sufficient to the potential for any sensitive resources and need for any suppl biological resource section of the EIR will identify vegetation t, potential for special-status species, and any other important biotic features. Possib and likely mitigation requirements will be outlined. 4.Cultural Resources Tom Origer & Associates (TOA) will compile information regardinge prehistory and history of the City of Cupertino. TOA will examine records at the Northwest Information Center of the Cali- fornia Historical Resources Information System and at the office of the cultural setting. A request for information will be made to the Native American Heritage Commission and to local tribes and individuals. TOA will also survey up to six (6) potential devel- opment sites and prepare of a technical report identifying any cultural resources on thosper- ties. TOA will evaluate the potential of the General Plan Amendment to impact prehistoric or historical cultural resources, including the potential for buried resources, and will identify mitigation measures for identified impacts. 5.Geology, Soils, and Seismicity The Planning Center | DC&E will analyze potential geological and soil-related impacts. We will apply our rich experience in CEQA review to ensure all geotechnical impacts are addressed. 6.Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Planning Center | DC&E will prepare a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis for the EIR The technical analysis will be integrated within the EIR and modncluded as an appendix. The GHG impact analysis for the EIR will be based on the currentBAAQMD methodology. Our scope of work is based on an understanding that the project woul intensities on a collection of opportunity sites within the city. 6 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 388 CC ITY OF UPERTINO The EIR will include a GHG emissions inventory for existing landthe individual oppor- tunity sites and a GHG emissions inventory of proposed land uses within the o buildout of the project in order to estimate the net increase in project. The GHG emissions inventory will be prepared using a BAAQMD-accepted model (e.g., CalEEMod) and will include GHG emissions from transportation soup- ing fuel, architectural coatings, consumer products), energy sou energy use), water and wastewater, and waste. The transportation sector will be tailored based on information provided by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. In addition, the EIR will include a qualitative evaluation of consistency of the project with appliceductions plans. The Planning Center | DC&E will assess the project as a General Plan Update in accordance with the BAAQMDs CEQA Guidelines. Under this task, a Plan-Level analysis will be prepared and in- clude a quantitative analysis of community GHG emissions generated for the following scenarios: Current defined by BAAQMD as a year between 2005 and 2008 Existing (CEQA Baseline) 2020 (Assembly Bill 32 target year) 2035 (General Plan Update horizon year) The community GHG emissions inventory will be prepared based on the current methodology of BAAQMD and ICLEIs recently adopted Community Protocols (October The EIR will include GHG emissions generated by land uses within the City boundaries ctors: Transportation Energy Waste Water/Wastewater Industrial Other Sources (e.g. construction equipment, landscape equipment, etc.) Existing GHG emissions will be projected based on the anticipated growth in population, hous and employment anticipated within the city and Sphere for the business-as-usual (BAU) inventory, assuming federal, State, and local GHG emissions reduction measures were not adopte Adjust- ments to the forecast year inventories will be made based on regulations and programs that have been adopted by federal, state, and regional agencies to reduce GHG emissions. Pursuant to the GHG reduction targets of AB 32 and the BAAQMDs analysis will identify a GHG emissions reduction target that meets one of the 1 are based on AB 32s goals (1) Reduce GHG emissions by 15 percent below baseline (2008 or earlier) emissions by 2020; or (2) Meet the plan efficiency thre GHG emissions per service population per year. 1 Although BAAQMDs CEQA Guidelines identify an additional target 1990 levels by 2020, this target option is not proposed for the availability of data for the City. 7 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 389 CC ITY OF UPERTINO 7.Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Planning Center | DC&E will address hazards and hazardous materials issues. The P Center | DC&E will describe known hazards on sites subject to the General Plan Amendment and re-zonings and in surrounding areas, developing mitigation measures as required to avoid signifi- cant environmental impacts. 8.Hydrology and Water Quality BKF will provide a description of the storm drainage requirement General Plan Amendment areas including the requirements for volume of runoff and stormwater treatment. The information gathered will be documented in a Hydh- nical Report that will be included as an appendix in the Draft E | DC&E will evaluate potential impacts to water quality. 9.Land Use and Planning The Planning Center | DC&E will draw on our expertise in land use planning and policy analy conduct a thorough evaluation of potential land use impacts and policy consistency analysis. 10.Noise The Planning Center | DC&E will prepare a noise analysis that will identify the impacts on sensitiv land uses from the implementation of the project. The EIR will d criteria for noise exposure, including federal, State, and City ordinances, policies, and standards. The Planning Center | DC&E will review the existing noise element of the General Plan, rely on aerial photography, and on the results of ambient noise level me existing noise conditions in the city. Ambient noise monitoring will include a combination of short-term and long-term noise measurements to be taken at up to 15 locations in Cup These locations will be selected in coordination with City staff to identify and quantify the major roadway noise sources, including the 85 and 280 Freeways, primary City arterials, rail noise, and aircraft overflights. The focus will be the key sites identified for development opporities and related General Plan and zoning amendments, such as the Vallco Shopping District. The analysis will review the key sites in the City for development o- term noise impacts with implementation of the project. Long term noise impacts will include calculating noise contours along key roadway and railway segments to show the distance/contour relationship and the comparison of expected noise levels to Stat Noise from vehicular traffic will be assessed using a version of the U.S. F (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model; these contours will rely on traffic forecasts provided in the traffic impact analysis for this project. Noise from railway activity w Transit Administration (FTA) methodologies. Noise impacts from non-transportation sources such as mechanical equipment, air conditioning units, and loading doc will be evaluated qualitatively in terms of potential impacts to nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Construction impacts for the sites to be redeveloped will be evaluated at a programmatic level. Future noise and vibration effects from construction activities t- ed standards from the U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Feasible mitigation measures will be identified to minimize future construction-related within the study area. 8 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 390 CC ITY OF UPERTINO Potential land use conflicts within the City will be identified i- toring and modeling results. The focus of the analyses will be develop- ment opportunities. The results if this analysis will be summarized in the EIR noise calculations will be provided in an Appendix. 11.Population and Housing The Planning Center | DC&E will summarize potential impacts related to population and housing that could result from buildout of the project. Because the majority of land uses under the project will be non-residential, it is not expected that the project will result in housing impacts. The Planning Center | DC&E will also consider the growth inducing potential of buildout, including indirect growth from increased employment opities. 12.Schools, Other Public Services, and Recreation The Planning Center | DC&E will also assess impacts on other public services and recreation. We will describe existing parks and recreational facilities in Cupertino and evaluate potential impacts associated with buildout of the project. We will contact service providers, including City providers and school districts as well as the Santa Clara County Fire and Sheriffs Departments. On the basis of responses from public service providers, The Planning Center | DC&E will analyze potential impacts resulting from the project, and recommend mitigation measures as needed. 13.Transportation and Traffic Hexagon will prepare traffic analysis documentation for use in t that analyzes existing conditions, existing General Plan conditi land use/transportation alternatives. The report will include a description of the scope of work, methodologies, transportation network (roadways, bike, pedestrial- umes, level of service analysis, and a description of any impact bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. AM and PM peak hour turn movements at all study intersections an forecasted by the model. Future intersection turning movement on the (1) the existing traffic counts, (2) base year model volumes and (3) year 2020 model vol- umes. The trip distribution and roadway assignment will be reviewed and ap prior to proceeding with the traffic analysis. Hexagon will conduct existing AM and PM peak hour level of service (LOS) calculations for all study intersections using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual metho Potential growth in traffic volumes on arterials and major collectors, along with th system within Cupertino, will be identified. The potential traffic impacts of each alternative will be evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth byupertino and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The City of Cupertino level of service standards will be used to evaluate the signalized stur- sections. Intersection levels of service will be evaluated usingd- ology evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis ay time for all vehicles at the intersection. TRAFFIX also is the CMP-designated intersection level of service meth- 9 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 391 CC ITY OF UPERTINO odology. The City of Cupertino level of service standard for sig better. Level of service impacts and improvements will be identified and described. These could include new roadways, widening of existing roadways, addition of turn la bike/pedestrian/transit facilities. Hexagon will also calculate the net increase or decrease in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) between the existing General Plan and the General Plan Amendment, which will be used for the greenhouse gas emissions calculations in thEIR. 14.Utilities and Service Systems BKF will prepare an analysis of wastewater, water supply, and gas and electric service that will form the basis for the EIR assessment of these issues and will be included as an appendix in the Draft EIR. BKF will first research the available existing information for the drainage sys Plan Amendment areas with the City. Based on available information, BKF wi conditions, and capacity of the existing storm drainage system in the areas. This scope assumes that the City will provide utility block maps for the areas and ty master plans that are avail- able and that City staff will highlight any known utility constr information provided and provide a written summary. Based on the available information, the Utilities Technical Report will document the size, condi- tions, and capacity of the existing wastewater and water supply systems, as well as existing gas and electric infrastructure, in the General Plan Amendment areas. BKF will analyze demand under the General Plan Amendment and any upgrades needed to accommodate new demand. BKF will work with the Cupertino Sanitary District to review demands and identify potential wastewater impacts and mitigation measures, and will work with the California Water Service and/or San Jose Water Service for water supply impacts. It is assumed that these Districts will provide any modeling necessary to document potential system impacts. Based on the preferred alternative, BKF will prepare an estimate for storm, sewer and water for review by the City. Based on the increase in utilit City will provide potential system impacts that BKF will document in the final utility The Planning Center | DC&E will document existing solid waste services and facilities and existing stormwater information documented in the Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Report pre- pared by BKF in Task B.8. The Planning Center | DC&E will identify impacts and mitigation measures as needed for these services. 15.Other Environmental Issues CEQA permits the exclusion of environmental issues for which it the project would have no significant adverse impact. Based on our review of the RFP, it is antici- pated that there would be no impact to Agricultural, Forestry, or Mineral Resources. Therefore, these issues would be addressed in summary fashion in the EIR. 10 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 392 CC ITY OF UPERTINO EIR Alternatives Evaluation Task C. Building from the discussion of alternatives at the kick-off meeting, The Planning Center | DC&E will develop a list of up to four draft alternatives, including the CEQA-required No Project Alterna- tive. We will work with City staff to finalize the list of alternatives. The Planning Center | DC&E team will complete an impact analysis of each alternative for inclusion in the EIR. The alternatives analysis will be a qualitative discussion and will identify the rnative. The alternatives will be designed to avoid potentially significaTask B, and could include reduced building heights or densities, revised land use scenarios for opportunity sites, or transportation alternatives (alternative roadway improvemen modal split, or alternative transportation modes). Administrative Draft EIR Task D. The Planning Center | DC&E will prepare an Administrative Draft EIR (ADEIR) and submit to City staff for review and comment. The impact analysis will be compr requirements. Significance criteria will be identified for each ipic based upon thresholds of significance identified in Appendix G, Environmental Checklise- lines and identified in the scoping process. Impacts and mitigation measures will be organized and discussed ified environmental impact, a set of feasible mitigation measures willcommended. The ADEIR will cover the following topics: Executive Summary. The Planning Center | DC&E will create a summary in a form con- sistent with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15123. This summary will facilitate a quick under- standing of environmental issues and the actions required to mitigate will include a summary table of impacts, mitigation measures, ane- fore and after mitigation. Project Description. The ADEIR will include the project description drafted for the poject as part of Task A.1, Project Description. Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. The existing setting information, impact anal- yses, and mitigation measures developed in Task B will be combined to create chapters de- scribing environmental consequences for each CEQA-required topic. Alternatives Evaluation. The alternatives evaluation completed in Task C will be incorpo- rated into the EIR. This chapter will include a tabular comparison of the alternatives impacts. CEQA Required Assessment Conclusions. The Planning Center | DC&E will prepare as- sessment conclusions to meet CEQA Guidelines for the following m Cumulative Impacts Growth Inducement Unavoidable Significant Effects Significant Irreversible Changes Impacts Found Not to be Significant 11 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 393 CC ITY OF UPERTINO Report Preparers. This chapter will identify the consultants and staff who prepare The Planning Center | DC&E will submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the ADEIR to City staff. City staff will act as a clearinghouse foro- vide The Planning Center | DC&E with a single, internally reconciled set of comments. The n- ning Center | DC&E will incorporate City comments on the ADEIR and deliver a second ADEIR f review by City staff. This scope of work assumes that comments relatively minor and includes 24 hours for revisions. We will provide ten (10) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the second ADEIR to City staff. City staff will provide a single, internally reconciled set of c Planning Center | DC&E will incorporate City comments and deliver a Screencheck Draft EIR for review by City staff. We will submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the Screencheck Draft EIR to City staff. Draft EIR and Public Review Task E. 1.Draft EIR The Planning Center | DC&E will incorporate one consolidated set of comments on the Screencheck Draft EIR from City staff to create the Draft EIR. We Screencheck Draft EIR will focus on formatting and editing, not a total of ten (10) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the Draft EIR. The Planning Center | DC&E will prepare the Notice of Completion and submit to the State Clr- inghouse along with the requisite number of hardcopies and CDs. | DC&E will also prepare the Notice of Availability to be submitted to the County Clerk. We assume that the City will be responsible for mailing the Notice of Availabilting the Notice of Availability in public locations. 2.Public Hearings The Planning Center | DC&E and Hexagon will attend up to two public hearings on the Draft EIR with the Planning Commission. We assume that City staff will sc notice, and prepare staff reports. The Planning Center | DC&E will consult with City staff to ensure that noticing for public hearings is consistent with CEQA requirements. Administrative Response to Comments and Final EIR Task F. Following the mandatory CEQA 45-day review period, The Planning Center | DC&E team will pre- pare an Administrative Response to Comments. We assume that City staff will forward all public comments received within one working day of the close of the pubThe Planning Center | DC&E team has assumed 60 hours of staff labor. If additional time is needed due to an unforeseen volume of comments, we will request a contract modification to cover additional labor costs. 12 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 394 CC ITY OF UPERTINO We will incorporate the Administrative Response to Comments into the Administrative Final EIR document. This will include both the Response to Comments and additionanalysis or revisions to the Draft EIR as necessary. We will prepare a total of ten (10) hard copies and one (1) electron- ic copy of the Administrative Final EIR. Final EIR Task G. We will incorporate one consolidated set of City comments on theinal EIR to cre- ate the Final EIR. We will provide ten hard copies and one electronic copy of the Final EIR. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Task H. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be assn- ter | DC&E team working in close collaboration with the City, to ensure tha place so that the EIR mitigation measures are carried out in an appropriate, timely, and v manner. The MMRP will be submitted as a draft document to the Cand revised for publication with the Final EIR. We will prepare a total of ten (10) hard copies and one (1) elec each of the draft and final MMRP. Adoption and Certification Task I. The Planning Center | DC&E will attend two certification hearings on the Final EIR. We will also prepare the Notice of Determination to be submitted to the Count DELIVERABLES The following products will be submitted to the City of Cupertino in fulfillment of our proposed scope of work: Task A: Project Initiation Project Description Notice of Preparation General Plan Amendment Existing Conditions Reports General Plan Amendment Alternatives Assessment (optional) Task D: Administrative Draft EIR Two (2) drafts of the Administrative Draft EIR (10 hard copies each) Screencheck Draft EIR (10 hard copies) Task E: Draft EIR and Public Review Draft EIR (10 hard copies) Notices of Completion and Availability Task F: Administrative Response to Comments and Final EIR Administrative Final EIR (10 hard copies) Task G: Final EIR Final EIR (10 hard copies) 13 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 395 CC ITY OF UPERTINO Task H: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Draft and Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (10 Task I: Adoption and Certification Notice of Determination MEETINGS Steve Noack and Joanna Jansen of The Planning Center | DC&E and Gary Black of Hexagon Trans- portation Consultants will attend the kick-off meeting with City staff. Joanna Jansen of The Planning Center | DC&E will attend up to eight (8) community meetings related to the General Plan amendment. Joanna Jansen and the Assistant Project Manager will also participate in up to 30 progress meetings. We assume that these meetings can be done by conference call and will last no more than an average of an hour and a half. Hexagon staff will attend up to two community meetings and one scoping meeting. Hexagon staff will also participate in up to seven progress meetings via conference call. Joanna Jansen of The Planning Center | DC&E will attend the scoping meeting for the Draft EIR. Steve Noack and Joanna Jansen of The Planning Center | DC&E will attend the following public meetings and hearings for the project: Public review hearings (2) Adoption and certification hearings (2) Hexagon will attend seven meetings: two community meetings, one EIR scoping meeting, two Planning Commission meetings and two City Council meetings. Hexagon will also prepare graphics, slides, and tables required for the meetings. Attendane- quire written authorization and additional budget. SCHEDULE The Planning Center | DC&Es proposed schedule for completion of the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning EIR is shown in Figure 3. As shown in the schedule, we anticipate that the project can be completed by within a 15-month time period beginning in January 2013, and ending in March 2014. We believe this schedule is in keeping with your needs, but w this schedule if necessary. The Planning Center | DC&E has a strong track record in meeting project schedules and coordinat- ing closely with its clients. Over years of managing projects similar to the General Plan Amend- ment and Rezoning EIR, we have developed a variety of tools to keep projects on sched ensure that staff are well informed at all times: 14 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 396 CC ITY OF UPERTINO We maintain an up-to-date schedule throughout the project, to ensure that all team mem- bers are aware of upcoming meetings and product due dates. We stay in close, regular contact with staff and our subconsultants and document important decisions about the project in writing, which ensures that decisions are understood by all team members. We schedule project due dates for staff and subconsultants with time for editing and formatting into finished reports. 15 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 397 CC ITY OF UPERTINO F3S IGURE CHEDULE 16 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 398 CC ITY OF UPERTINO 17 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 399 CC ITY OF UPERTINO CHAPTER 2: COST PROPOSAL As shown in Table 2, the estimated cost to complete the scope of work described in this proposal is $509,839. This cost is based on an assumption that the EIR will include an General Plan Amendment and the Vallco Specific Plan. The cost for the General Plan Amendment component is $393,490. The cost for the Vallco Specific Plan com, as shown in Table 2A. Note that this cost does not include the cost to the City to purchase th be $15,000, payable directly to VTA. The Planning Center | DC&E recommends planning for a 5 percent to 10 percent contingency fund to cover any unforeseen out-of-scope work that might be necessary for the project. We are flexible regarding project costs and hope that you will n on the basis of cost alone. The billing rates for each team member are included in Table 2, which also shows allocations of hours and personnel, as requested in the RFP. We can provide direct labor rates upon request. Our current overhead rate is 195 percent and the fee is 10 percent. The Planning Center | DC&E bills for its work on a time-and-materials basis with monthly invoices. Additional meeting attendance would be billed on a T&M basis, an $800/meeting). ASSUMPTIONS This scope of work and cost estimate assumes that: Billing rates for this project are guaranteed through December 31, 2014. Billing rates would be subject to an increase of up to 6 percent on January 1, 2015, and in each subsequent year thereafter. A budget increase would be necessary to cover costs incurred aftJanuary 1, 2015. Our cost estimate includes the meetings listed above. Additional meetings would be billed on a time-and-materials basis. Joanna Jansen will attend all project meetings and hearings. Hexagon Transportation Consultants will attend the kick-off meeting for the project. No more than 80 hours of The Planning Center | DC&E staff time will be required to respond to comments on the Draft EIR. If additional labor is necessary,w- ing additional work will be necessary. 18 4. Cost Proposal GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 400 CC ITY OF UPERTINO All products will be submitted to City of Cupertino in electronic (PDF) format, except for printed copies that are specifically identified in Chapter 2. This is an allowance only, based on the numbers of products and copies shown in Chapter 2. If this allowance is exceeded, Additional printing costs will be billed at The Planning Center | DC&Es actual cost. City of Cupertino staff will be responsible for meeting logistics, including schedule coordina- tion, document production, printing notices, mailing costs, roomoom set-up and take-down, and refreshments. This scope of work includes a printing allowance of $1,200 for large format maps and other presentation materials for public meetings. If this allowance i be billed at The Planning Center|DC&Es actual cost. 19 4. Cost Proposal GPA&REIR ENERAL LAN MENDMENT EZONING 401 CC ITY OF UPERTINO 402 Table 2 The Planning Center | DC&E General Plan Amendment and Rezoning EIR Cost Estimate Environmental Collaborative The Planning Center | DC&EHexagon Transportation ConsultantsBKF EngineersTom Origer and Associates Associate Senior Project Graphics Graphics/Principal Hours per Task Principal Principal Associate Associate Planner Planner Manager WP Associate Associate Graphics Principal Associate PM Engineer III Engineer II Engineer I Principal Staff #1 Staff #2 Staff #3 Principal A. Project Initiation 3 3 6 5 7 2 1 06 1 04 1 38 - 1 6 9 8 1 74 - 4 3 6 3 6 1 16 - - 2 - 2 0 24 1. Kick-Off Meeting 4 4 8 16 4 2. Project Description 5 8 16 16 3. Notice of Preparation 1 1 2 2 4. Public Scoping Meeting 8 8 16 6 5. GPA Existing Conditions Reports 10 24 12 40 40 90 8 40 8 30 2 20 24 6. Parcel Plat Maps and Legal Descriptions (cost TBD) 2 7. General Plan Amendment Alternatives Assessment 5 18 60 24 64 24 16 74 134 4 24 36 86 B. Environmental Review 2 6 7 1 3 2 1 22 3 24 1 2 2 4 3 2 8 8 8 4 0 4 0 1 20 3 0 6 6 0 4 9 2 2 C. EIR Alternatives Evaluation 3 1 3 1 8 4 4 8 1 4 2 2 2 D. Administrative Draft EIR 3 2 8 0 2 9 0 1 80 2 1 2 2 1 4 1 1 6 4 8 8 E. Draft EIR and Public Review 1 0 2 5 - 2 2 - 4 0 - 8 5 1 6 8 2 8 8 - - - - - - 1. Draft EIR 2 12 22 32 8 5 16 8 2 8 8 2. Public Hearings 8 13 8 F. Administrative Response to Comments and Final EIR 4 8 8 8 4 4 8 2 1 4 4 3 G. Final EIR 8 2 4 1 0 4 0 4 4 1 1 2 1 H. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2 8 8 1 2 I. Adoption and Certification 8 1 2 8 Project Management 4 0 8 0 2 0 Progress Meetings 1 5 4 5 4 5 Workshops and Hearings - 3 0 2 0 Totals1814611244791488181468173356241898922363066242952 Hourly Rate$190 $175 $165 $135 $105 $85 $115 $80 $195 $145 $95 $220 $173 $140 $123 $107 $100 $80 $60 $55 $125 Labor Cost$34,390 $80,675 $20,460 $64,665 $15,540 $69,530 $1,610 $5,440 $33,735 $51,620 $2,280 $3,960 $16,954 $12,880 $29,028 $3,210 $600 $4,960 $240 $1,595 $6,500 Total Firm Labor Cost $292,310 $87,635 $66,032 $7,395 $6,500 EXPENSES Mileage (@ $0.555 per mile) 1,232 110 50 Subconsultant Management (10%) 18,792 Office Expenses (Phone, Fax, Copies, etc. @ 2% of Labor) 5,846 1,800 Traffic Counts 17,000 Deliveries 800 Report Printing 1,750 400 Presentation Materials/Large Format Maps 1,200 Instrumentation and Data Fees 787 200 Total Expenses$29,607 $17,000 $3,000 $310 $50 Total Each Firm$321,917 $104,635 $69,032 $7,705 $6,550 GRAND TOTAL$509,839 2/8/2013 403 Table 2A The Planning Center | DC&E Vallco District Specific Plan Environmental Review Combined with General Plan Amendement EIR Cost Estimate The Planning Center | DC&EHexagon Transportation ConsultantsBKF Engineers Associate Senior Project GraphicsGraphics/ Principal Hours per Task Principal Principal Associate Associate Planner Planner Manager WP Associate Associate Graphics Principal Associate PM Engineer III Engineer II Engineer I A. Project Initiation 6 2 0 5 4 2 4 1 04 3 8 - 1 6 44 8 8 - 4 2 8 2 0 7 6 - 1. Kick-Off Meeting 8 4 2. Project Description 1 2 8 8 3. Notice of Preparation 4. Public Scoping Meetings 5. Plan Area Existing Conditions Reports 2 8 6 16 40 30 8 24 8 30 6. Alternatives Development 1 8 40 40 8 24 48 4 6 7. Preferred Alternative 2 2 8 24 8 4 16 4 12 20 40 B. Environmental Review 4 16 2 4 40 8 0 6 8 8 40 C. EIR Alternatives Evaluation 1 4 8 1 6 4 4 8 D. Administrative Draft EIR - - - - - - - 1 1 2 4 4 E. Draft EIR and Public Review - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 4 4 - 1. Draft EIR 4 4 2. Public Hearings 1 F. Administrative Response to Comments and Final EIRRemaining tasks would be folded into overall General Plan Amendm G. Final EIR H. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program I. Adoption and Certification Project Management Progress Meetings Workshops and Hearings Total Hours1141787210413462857137063628760 Hourly Rate$190 $175 $165 $135 $105 $85 $115 $80 $195 $145 $95 $220 $173 $140 $123 $107 Labor Cost$2,090 $7,175 $12,870 $9,720 $10,920 $11,390 $690 $2,240 $11,115 $19,865 $0 $1,320 $6,228 $3,920 $9,348 $0 Total Firm Labor Cost $57,095 $30,980 $20,816 EXPENSES Mileage (@ $0.555 per mile) Per diem travel expenses (___@ $__ per night) Subconsultant Management (10%) 5,316 Office Expenses (Phone, Fax, Copies, etc. @ 2% of Labor) 1,142 Traffic Counts Deliveries 800 Report Printing 200 Presentation Materials/Large Format Maps Instrumentation and Data Fees Total Expenses$6,458 $0 $1,000 Total Each Firm$63,553 $30,980 $21,816 Grand Total for Vallco Specific Plan in Combined EIR$116,349 2/8/2013 404 Table 2B The Planning Center | DC&E Combined General Plan Amendment and Vallco Specific Plan EIR Costs By Task TOTAL Labor Cost per Expenses per COST PER Hours per TaskTask Task TASK A. Project Initiation 142,781 26,118 168,899 B. Environmental Review 130,090 7,819 137,909 C. EIR Alternatives Evaluation 15,825 951 16,776 D. Administrative Draft EIR 63,994 6,384 70,378 E. Draft EIR and Public Review 20,284 2,145 22,429 F. Administrative Response to Comments and Final EIR 13,347 1,177 14,524 G. Final EIR 17,321 1,417 18,738 H. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3,880 232 4,112 I. Adoption and Certification 4,300 436 4,736 Project Management 24,300 1,158 25,458 Progress Meetings 16,800 1,009 17,809 Workshops and Hearings 6,950 1,121 8,071 Totals$459,872 $49,967 $509,839 GRAND TOTAL$509,839 2/8/2013 405 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND MIG, Inc FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT THIS AGREEMENT, for reference dated <<date>>,is by and between CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and MIG,Inc, a California corporation, whose address is 800 Hearst Avenue, Berkeley, California 94710(hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A.City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the Constitution and the statutes of the State of California and the Cupertino Municipal Code. B.Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement; and C.City and Consultant desire to enter into an agreement for$476,096upon the terms and conditions herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: TERM 1.: The term of this Agreement shall commence on <<date>>,and shall terminate on <<date>>,unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED 2.: Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit"A" and, if authorized,Exhibit“A-1,”according to the project schedule set forth in Exhibit B, which exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, in accordance with the terms and conditionsset forth in this agreement. Consultant’s Project Manager to represent consultant during the day-to-day work on the Project is Dan Amsden, AICP.Consultant’s Project Manager shall have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the City. Consultant, at City’s request, also agrees to promptly remove personnel who City finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT 3.: Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this 406 Agreement in the amountsset forth in Exhibits"C"and, if authorized,Exhibit“C-1” which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Payment shall be made by checks drawn on the treasury of the City, to be taken from the 110-2211fund. Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to the City in accordance with the provisions set forth in Exhibits“C”and “C-1.” TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: 4. Consultant and City agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this Agreement. STANDARD OF CARE 5.: Consultant agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the City nor have any contractual relationship with City. INDEPENDENT PARTIES 6.: City and Consultant intend that the relationship between them created by this Agreement is that of employer-independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Agreement. No civil service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Consultant's services. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees, including but not limited to, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation plans, vacation and sick leave are available from City to Consultant, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer-employee relationship from any fees due Consultant. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Consultant. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA): 6. Consultant assumes any and all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of his/her employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Consultant shall indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by Consultant. NON-DISCRIMINATION: 7. Consistent with City's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable employer/employee conduct, Consultant agrees that harassment or discrimination directed toward a job applicant, a City employee, or a citizen by Consultant or Consultant's employee or subcontractor on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, marital status, pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated. Consultant agrees that any and all violations of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. HOLD HARMLESS 8.: Consultant shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law, with respect to all services 407 performed in connection with the Agreement, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers from and against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against any of them, including any injury to or death of any person or damage to property or other liability of any nature, whether physical, emotional, consequential or otherwise, arising out, pertaining to, or related to the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or Consultant’s employees, officers, officials, agents or independent contractors.Such costs and expenses shall include reasonable attorneys’ fees of counsel of City’s choice, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation. INSURANCE 9.: On or before the commencement of the term of thisAgreement, Consultant shall furnish City with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with paragraphs 9A, B, C, D and E. Such certificates, which do not limit Consultant's indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement: "Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the City of Cupertino by certified mail, Attention: City Manager." It is agreed that Consultant shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Agreement all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Agreement with an insurance company that is acceptable to City and licensed to do insurance business in the State of California. Endorsements naming the City as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates. COVERAGE A.: Consultant shall maintain the following insurance coverage: Workers' Compensation (1): Statutory coverage as required by the State of California. Liability (2): Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 aggregate -all other Property Damage:$100,000 each occurrence $250,000 aggregate If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amounts of $1,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above. Automotive (3): Comprehensive automotive liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury:$500,000 each occurrence Property Damage:$100,000 each occurrence or 408 Combined Single Limit: $500,000 each occurrence Professional Liability (4): Professional liability insurance which includes coverage for the professional acts, errors and omissions of Consultant in the amount of at least $1,000,000. SUBROGATION WAIVER B.: Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which he/she has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Consultant shall look solely to his/her insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to City, on behalf of any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Consultant or City with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. FAILURE TO SECURE C.: If Consultant at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the Consultant's name or as an agent of the Consultant and shall be compensated by the Consultant for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid. ADDITIONAL INSURED D.: City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, employees and volunteers shall be named as an additional insured under all insurance coverages, except any professional liability insurance, required by this Agreement. The naming of an additional insured shall not affect any recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured. An additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium, deductible portion of any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by theinsurance provided by this policy. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE E.: The insurance limits required by City are not represented as being sufficient to protect Consultant. Consultant is advised to confer with Consultant's insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for Consultant. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: 10. Consultant warrants that it is not a conflict of interest for Consultant to perform the services required by this Agreement. Consultant may be required to fill out a conflict of interest form if the services provided under this Agreement require Consultant to make certain governmental decisions or serve in a staff capacity as defined in Title 2, Division 6, Section 18700 of the California Code of Regulations. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS 11.: Consultant shallnot assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, andany assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money by Consultant from City under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust 409 company or other financial institution without prior written consent. Written notice of such assignment shall be promptly furnished to City by Consultant. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant, if Consultant is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50%) or more of the voting power of the corporation. SUBCONTRACTOR APPROVAL 12.: Unless prior written consent from City is obtained, only those people and subcontractors whose names and resumes are attached to this Agreement shall be used in the performance of this Agreement.Consultant may change or add subcontractors only with the prior written approval of City. In the event that Consultant employs subcontractors, such subcontractorsshall be required to furnish proof of workers' compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Consultant. In addition, any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be subject to each provision of this Agreement. PERMITS AND LICENSES: 13. Consultant, at his/her sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses including, but not limited to, a City Business License, that may be required in connection with the performance of services hereunder. REPORTS 14.: A.Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Report", reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement, shall be the exclusive property of City. Consultant shall not copyright any Report required by this Agreement and shall execute appropriate documents to assign to City the copyright to Reports created pursuant to this Agreement. Any Report, information and data acquired or required by this Agreement shall become the property of City, and all publication rights are reserved to City. Consultant may retain a copy of any report furnished to the City pursuant to this Agreement. B.All Reports prepared by Consultant may be used by City in execution or implementation of: (1)The original Project for which Consultant was hired; (2)Completion of the original Project by others; (3)Subsequent additions to the original project; and/or (4)Other City projects as appropriate. C.Consultant shall, at such time and in such form as City may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement. D.All Reports required to be provided by this Agreement shall be printed on recycled paper. All Reports shall be copied on both sides of the paper except for one original, which shall be single sided. E.No Report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available to any individual or 410 organization by Consultant without prior approval by City. RECORDS: 15. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detailto permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to such books and records to the representatives of City or its designees at all proper times, and gives City the right to examine and audit same, and to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. If supplemental examination or audit of the records is necessary due to concerns raised by City's preliminary examination or audit of records, and the City's supplemental examination or audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other breachof contract or failure to act in good faith, then Consultant shall reimburse City for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit. NOTICES: 16. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the second business day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at: City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino CA 95014 Attention: Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: MIG, Inc. 800Hearst Avenue Berkeley, California 94710 Attention: Daniel Iacofano, FASLA, FAICP TERMINATION: 17. In the event Consultant fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within within the time specified after receipt by Consultant from City of written noticeof default, specifying the 411 nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, City may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the Consultant written notice thereof. City shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon termination of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the other party that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. COMPLIANCES: 18. Consultant shall comply with all state or federal laws and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by City. CONFLICT OF LAW: 19. This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of California excepting any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, andregulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the successors of those authorities.) Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of the County of Santa Clara, State of California. ADVERTISEMENT: 20. Consultant shall not post, exhibit, display or allow to be posted, exhibited, displayed any signs, advertising, show bills, lithographs, posters or cards of any kind pertaining to the services performed under this Agreement unless prior written approval has been secured from City to do otherwise. WAIVER: 21. A waiver by City of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. INTEGRATED CONTRACT: 22. This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and Consultant. INSERTED PROVISIONS 22.: Each provision and clause required by law to be inserted into the Agreement shall be deemed to be enacted herein, and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as though each were included herein. If through mistake or otherwise, any such provision is not inserted or is not correctly inserted, the Agreement shall be amended to make such insertion on application by either party. 412 CAPTIONS: 23. The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the Agreement and in no way affect, limit or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed. CONSULTANTCITY OF CUPERTINO A Municipal Corporation MIG By ByGary Chao TitleTitleCity Planner Date___________________Date RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By TitleDirector of Community Development APPROVED AS TO FORM: By City Attorney ATTEST: By City Clerk 413 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 414 City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 The following Work Plan outlines a logical series of phases and General Plan Amendment, with information from each step creating the next step. Our approach allows City staff, stakeholders, oth Planning Commission, City Council and the community ample opport comment on the information compiled during each phase. Our proce extensive, inclusive public participation and outreach program t and proven high tech and high touch tools that will result in ge participation in this important project. This approach ensures t kept well informed and actively engaged in the General Plan Amen which will result an updated General Plan with a higher level of friendliness and legal compliance. Phase 1: Project Kick-Off and Existing Conditions Analysis Task 1.1: Project Kick-Off Meeting and Opportunity Sites Tour At the beginning of the project, the MIG Team will attend a proj City staff and tour the seven opportunity sites that will be a p will be responsible for all meeting and tour logistics (e.g., sc facilities, van for City tour, etc.). This all day event will ha 1.Meeting with City Project Manager. The MIG Team and the Citys Project Manager will meet to discuss the overall project and develop pro management, communication, invoicing and billing protocols. The meeting will provide an opportunity for the MIG Team to collabor City to finalize the project framework and refine the customized approach. 2.Opportunity sites tour. City staff will lead the MIG Team on a tour of seven opportunity sites, including the South Vallco area , that will c this General Plan Amendment project. This will include discussin opportunities for each opportunity site. MIG will photo-document use in subsequent presentations and work products. 3.Meetings with individual departments. The MIG Team will meet individually with City departments for their respective topic areas. During t MIG Team will discuss major goals of the project and collect har files of existing data, reports, entitlement and zoning document City staff. City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 1 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 415 4.Identification of key issues and opportunities. The MIG Team, working with City staff, will develop a preliminary list of major issues and each opportunity site. Task 1.2: Refined Work Plan MIG will work with City staff to determine the final overall wor will include refining the work program, preparing a detailed pro developing a management structure that will be critical componen deadlines are met and the update is completed on-time and on-bud provide an opportunity to refine the approach for how the MIG Te with the separately retained EIR Team. Task 1.3: Community Participation and Outreach Plan MIG will develop a comprehensive Community Participation and Out coordination with City staff to identify how best to conduct out members during the project. The initial Plan will include compon key priorities, structure, community involvement and outreach ac identification of key stakeholders and relationships. It will al schedule that illustrates the sequence and timing of project act format. It is likely that the Plan may be updated or revised throughout the course of the project as issues and policies unfold. We have included stakehol community workshops and public hearings throughout this work plan. In addition, the following are some key innovative outreach and engagement tools throughout the project (note: the budget for this task includes following materials): News Media Interviews. MIG, in coordination with City staff, will participate in either a televised interview with a local news station or a phone interview with a local newspaper at the onset of the project. This interview will of the project, why the project is so important to Cupertino, an get involved. Appropriate media (video or newspaper article) will be posted on the project website and will serve as an introduction for people project. Press Releases. MIG will prepare four press releases, one during each major phase of the process. Each press release will include a brief su we are in the process, what has been produced to date, what is c reviewed/prepared, and how people can get involved. MIG will sub releases to City staff for review prior to sending them to news releases will also serve as a means for advertising upcoming com workshops, meetings, and public hearings. City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 2 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 416 Community Group Presentations. In addition to the Stakeholder Group meetings, MIG will prepare materials for and facilitate up to fi community interest groups and citizen committees in Cupertino. T will provide and opportunity for MIG/City staff to present the p input from the groups on the major issues and opportunities, vis and/or the draft General Plan Amendment. MIG will work with City schedule these meetings. Email Updates. City staff will develop and provide MIG a comprehensive list of email addresses for people interested in the project. This list during the course of the project as necessary. MIG will prepare email updates to maintain interest in the project and generate p total). Newsletters. MIG will prepare four project newsletters that include succinct, focused text with clean graphics. The newsletters will be custom phase of the project, but will generally include a summary of wh conducting the project, what the schedule is, why members of the be interested in the process, and how people can get directly in newsletter will also include current information on the project public input opportunities. Each newsletter will be two-sided 11 will be folded once to create a booklet. MIG will post a digital newsletter on the project website, distribute them via email bla hard copies to the City. Project Flyers and Mass Mailings. MIG will prepare four highly-graphical handout flyers that will be used during each major phase to adve and upcoming community workshops and public hearings. The flyers single-sided 11x17 sheets that can be posted by City staff throu bring attention to the project. The flyers could also be mass-ma and businesses throughout Cupertino. The budget assumes that MIG responsible for printing the flyers and the City would be respon the flyers. Task 1.4: Decision Maker and City Staff Retreat At the onset of the project, MIG will hold a half-day retreat wi Planning Commissioners and senior staff to discuss the General P purpose and process. For efficiency, this retreat may coincide w meeting and site tour (e.g., kick-off in the morning, tour in th evening). This retreat will include a discussion on the legal a Citys general plan and zoning ordinance, overview of the commun outreach process, and discussion of how issues will be identifie addressed during the Amendment process. The retreat will provide City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 3 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 417 decision makers to ask questions about the process, and for City better understanding of what the key objectives are for the proj Task 1.5: Stakeholder Group Formation and Interviews MIG will work with City staff to confirm the final list of Stake initial list, which may be expanded, includes: neighborhood grou (Concerned Citizens of Cupertino, Cupertino Against Rezoning); C Legislative Action Committee; local businesses and developers/bu opportunity site ownership groups. Once the list is finalized, M one-on-one or small group stakeholder interviews/meetings. These expected to be informal meetings that last approximately one hou with City staff on a final list of questions, but it should incl individual vision, issues and assets for the project and various will be responsible for contacting the stakeholders and setting meetings. Task 1.6: Project Website Development and Maintenance MIG will create and host a stand-alone web site for the project based tools, TownSquare. The website will contain current infor project, downloadable documents and presentations, and a way to and input to appropriate project staff. The website will include options for an online survey. MIG will provide reporting of site performance as requested by City staff. MIG will work with City team to determine final website features and content, however, w some combination of the following tools: Administrative Center: simple website management tools for City MIG Team; Comment Publisher: this tool can be used for registered users to based comments on the planning documents, as well as on other i Calendar and Event Manager; Document Library; Featured News; Interactive Survey; Integrated Search; Virtual Meeting: Interactive tool to engage community members on the same materials developed for main workshops; Content Management: Site administrators can edit any of the site pages and easily link pages to a library folder or any other sit User, Group, and Folder Permissions Management to allow multiple access for web site administration, City staff and public; and Google Translate toolbar, which will allow users to easily trans into over 60 different languages. City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 4 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 418 Once the project is completed, MIG will send the City electronic materials and content to be reloaded on the Citys website. MIG underlying software and publishing tools. Reporting of site stat performance at the request of City staff but no more frequently Task 1.7: Base Maps and GIS MIG will collect and review GIS data from the City, including ex Plan land use designations, zoning, existing jobs or non-residen parcel, street centerlines and county assessor data. Building fo attributes are also desirable, if available. All information wil and up-to-date. MIG, in coordination with the City, will define existing conditions base maps for the opportunity sites that wil process. MIG will prepare a total of five maps for the opportuni existing general plan, zoning designation, property ownership, a and square feet). We will ensure all maps have a uniform style, the culmination of the project, MIG will provide the City with t associated files developed during the process. All GIS data and the project will be developed consistent with City protocols and easy integration into the Citys information system upon project Task 1.8: Settings and Opportunities Report The MIG Team will conduct an analysis of the existing conditions key opportunity sites. This will include summarizing existing uses, site attributes, mobility characteristics and overall urban design. This analysis will be Settings and Opportunities Report. The report will include key f opportunities associated with each opportunity site, and the bas the previous task. The report will include narrative, synthesis documentation, illustrative examples from comparable communities as appropriate, and will be approximately 50 pages. The report w easy-to-read. As such, it will be created in a PowerPoint format digital accessibility. Task 1.9: Stakeholder Group Meeting MIG will meet with the Stakeholder Group to provide them an upda and discuss the Settings and Opportunities Report. MIG will faci identify additional opportunities or challenges that should be i process. Task 1.10: Planning Commission Study Session City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 5 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 419 MIG will meet with the Planning Commission to provide them an up discuss the Settings and Opportunities Report, and present feedb Stakeholder Group. The Planning Commission will provide their in issues and opportunities to be addressed during the project. Task 1.11: City Council Study Session MIG will meet with the City Council to provide them an update on the Settings and Opportunities Report, and present feedback rece Stakeholder Group and Planning Commission. The City Council will and the MIG Team feedback on the report and other project insigh Task 1 Deliverables # of Hard Item Description Format(s) Copies Kick-Off Meeting Meeting agenda, sign-in sheet, PowerPoint Word/PDF/PPT/ 10 Materials presentation and brief summary. Includes a JPEG photo database from the sites tour Refined Work Plan Refinements to scope, schedule and Word/PDF 0 process, if needed Community Detailed strategy for how MIG and City will Word/PDF 0 Participation and conduct community participation and Outreach Plan outreach, including a process schedule Stakeholder Interview Brief summaries of each stakeholder Word/PDF 10 Summaries interview for City staff and MIG records Newsletters Highly graphical with succinct text. MIG will InDesign/PDF 400 (100 produce four total each series) Project Flyers Highly graphical with succinct text. MIG will InDesign/PDF 200 (50 each produce four total series) Project Website Full, stand-alone project website designed, HTML/CSS/Flash/ 0 hosted and managed by MIG PDF Base Maps Existing conditions maps showing various GIS/Illustrator 0 design and environmental features Settings and Detailed summary of the existing setting, Word/PDF 10 Opportunities Report opportunities and major findings of each of the key opportunity sites Stakeholder Group Meeting agenda, sign-in sheet, PowerPoint Word/PPT 50 (agenda) Meeting Materials presentation and brief summary Planning Commission Meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation Word/PPT 50 (agenda) Study Session Materials and brief summary City Council Study Meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation Word/PPT 50 (agenda) Session Materials and brief summary City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 6 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 420 Phase 2: Visioning and Alternatives Task 2.1: Stakeholder Group Meeting MIG will meet with the Stakeholder Group to develop a future vis sites, including the Vallco Shopping Center site, and the larger This visioning session will be an interactive, facilitated discu discussion on large wall graphic paper in order to work through consensus on the major components of the vision. In order to foc will use existing City Council ideas and direction as a starting discussion. Task 2.2: Community Workshop Visioning MIG will facilitate a community workshop to refine the vision fo sites, including the South Vallco area. The agenda for this work update on the project, summary of materials produced to date, an exercise to refine an overall vision for the key opportunity sit use and circulation goals. We will use current City Council and as the starting point for working with the community to refine t coordination with City staff, will be responsible for developing materials and facilitating each workshop. MIG will provide one f graphic recorder for this workshop. City staff will be responsib locations, printing and mailing announcements, and providing foo Task 2.3: Vision and Transformative Strategies Framework Based on the input received during earlier tasks, and in close c staff, MIG will develop a Vision and Transformative Strategies F General Plan Amendment. This framework will include a vision for revitalization of the key opportunity sites. The vision will be transformative strategies necessary to create positive change on sites and throughout the larger Cupertino community. The transfo then be followed by broad goals and objectives for the general p Vision and Transformative Strategies will be prepared as a one-s MIG will submit a draft for City staff review, and will produce draft that reflects staff edits. Task 2.4: Market Study BAE will prepare a full market feasibility study of retail, hote and its surrounding market trade area in order to inform allocat office, retail and hotel uses. This will include an extensive an City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 7 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 421 employment trends, local real estate market dynamics and trends driving the demand for new types of commercial real estate produ BAE will use information gathered from a variety of sources to c These include previous plans and analyses conducted in Cupertino demographic and economic data from the Census, ABAG, the CA State Department of Finance, and Nielsen (a national vendor of demographic estimates Data on commercial real estate conditions will be obtained from active in the regional market for commercial, office, and hotel/ Baseline retail sales data will be obtained from published State reports, and additional unpublished data provided by the City (w current data than the published reports, and may be able to prov taxable retail sales for the four commercial districts, either i store categories. BAE will also request data from the Board of E detailed categories to get a more detailed picture of specialty recently released 2007 Economic Census should also provide insig other business sectors in Cupertino. In addition to data provide available, BAE and David Greensfelder will also interview key re center owners, and other business community representatives (e.g association staff) to determine the customer base for the existi Office Market The office market analysis will focus in particular on the needs sizes, including large established companies as well as start-up seeking flexible incubator and meeting space. The analysis will office absorption trends in Cupertino and Silicon Valley and wil future supportable office development scenarios to inform the in development allocations within the General Plan Amendment. Hotel Market BAE will prepare a market analysis of existing hotels (including hotel/conference centers) and present key revenue and occupancy Travel Research to assess demand for additional hotel or confere As with the office market analysis, this task will inform alloca the General Plan Amendment. Retail Sales Leakage Analysis The Retail Analysis will include three major steps. First, BAE w Board of Equalization and the City to examine retail sales and u analyze trends by major store category, as well as on a per capi and the larger trade area, and compare these patterns to similar identify the Citys strengths and weaknesses. BAE will also prof conditions, including rental and vacancy rates at Cupertinos ke extent confidential store-by-store data and square footage can b City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 8 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 422 also characterize the performance of existing outlets relative t comparable stores. Task 2.5: Allocation Analysis Report BAE will prepare a comprehensive Allocation Analysis Report that recommendations for the total amount of new development allocati office and hotel) based on land use, urban design and economic d identify new retail opportunities, BAE will complete a supporta analysis. As part of this process, BAE will identify current lea store category, estimate potential additional sales capture, and into supportable square feet. The analysis will focus on the pot community and regional-serving retail, and will consider improve and re-tenanting of any major vacancies. Based on the findings o estimate future potential sales taxes generated by any new retai performance of existing retailers, and/or occupation of major va Task 2.6: Retail Strategy Report Greensfelder Consultants will prepare a comprehensive Retail Str provides a link between market and data analysis, and implementa recommendations that achieve the communitys ultimate goal. Gree approach the retail strategy from the point of view of defining focus how to identify what opportunities exists and can be execu properties or in a larger areas. This approach is differentiated implementation strategies based on market analysis and well rese This analysis will focus on how retail organizes itself in today report will distinguish between commodity and specialty retail, Commodity retail goods and services are those goods and services purchased and consumed on a regular basis from "primary" househo largely without emotional attachment by the consumer, and at ret shopping centers offering the optimal combination of lowest "pri "convenience most responsive to the purchase and need in questi Commodity retailers range from local convenience stores to drug stores, discounters and warehouse stores; and "Commodity Shoppin are those shopping venues whose primary purpose is the delivery goods and services to consumers. Specialty retail goods and services, by contrast, are those good that are purchased on an optional basis by consumers using "disc funds, selected and often consumed during the expenditure of d time. Successful specialty shopping venues, regardless of form unique and attractive combination of tenant mix and the shopping City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 9 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 423 (i.e. a sense of place) to the consumer within the market or tra and lend themselves to extended consumer stays. An emotional co the tenant mix and environment is key, especially for higher end projects. In addition to acknowledging how retail organizes itself, it is multi-channel retail, a term that refers to the many options for merchandise from traditional retail stores to the internet, mobi Omni-channel retail, an extension of multi-channel retail, refer these various retail channels to offer the consumer a seamless e channel approach would apply to commodity retail in that it addr convenience function, while for specialty retail it might focus the built retail environment. Because commodity and specialty retail are so fundamentally diff when making recommendations can be especially helpful. The imple contained in this report will evaluate each of the Citys target each areas suitability as a commodity, a specialty or a hybrid and objective will be articulated once each areas highest and b established. Greensfelder will consider the impact of multiple r appropriate for making specific, targeted recommendations for th Cupertino. The retail strategy will also focus on implementation strategies This portion of the retail strategy report is key since it moves conceptual analysis to identifying ways to revitalize targeted r implementation strategy for each target retail area will focus, following key points, applying the market analysis and summarize BAE to each available/targeted retail site: Evaluation of fundamental real estate attributes such as locatio area, competing and proposed projects, and the long-term viabili competing projects. Evaluation of market economics including the best mix of users, tenants to target, and market rent and vacancy factors. Evaluation of fundamental site attributes such as visibility, ac demand. Site plan recommendations for reconfiguring existing projects ba estate attributes, site attributes, and market factors. Place-making considerations including careful evaluating layout attributes in light of tenant placement, configuration of indoor public gathering areas, light, shade, and protection from the el tenant and way-finding signage, and materials including lighting like. City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 10 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 424 Functionality recommendations such as how to service tenants (i. trash, service areas) while minimizing the impacts of these func project and neighbors. Evaluation of whether to maintain continuity of place, such as r rehabilitating existing facades and materials in an attempt to m authenticity or a familiar or inviting feel for the customer. In summary, the retail strategy report will go beyond merely con analysis and summarizing well researched data; it will provide s strategies for specific target sites and areas with the goal of owners a road map for identifying what entitlement and developme anticipated. This road map will help in prioritizing potential r redevelopment projects, and help focus the general plan for thes will submit an administrative draft report to City staff for rev report that reflects City staff comments. Task 2.7: Concept Alternatives Utilizing the results and input from earlier tasks, MIG will dev with City staff, a range of land use and design Concept Alternat seven opportunity sites, including the Vallco Shopping Center si Alternatives that will be used to show development, use, mobilit the future. Each individual Concept Alterative will be formatted include: site and alternative title; summary text of the alterna the land use changes proposed; and a 3D sketch-up model visually height and site coverage. The budget assumes that MIG will prepa Concept Alternatives as part of this task. City staff will revie each Concept Alternative. MIG will prepare final versions that r Task 2.8: Concept Alternatives Report The MIG Team will work with City staff to evaluate the Concept A how well they achieve urban design, mobility, economic, environm health indicators. Based on the evaluation, MIG will prepare a C Report that evaluates how well each one of the alternatives perf vision and transformative strategies. An underlying objective of communicate technical and policy issues in a straight-forward ma understood by community members and decision makers. Specific to addressed and compared include: land use, urban design, mobility health. In addition, BAE will conduct an economic assessment of concept, including recommendations for development product types incorporate the findings from the Market Study. The EIR Team wil providing circulation, infrastructure and environmental analysis Alternatives Report. The report will be approximately 20 pages i City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 11 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 425 11x17 document. MIG will submit a Draft Concept Alternatives Rep their review, and will prepare a Public Draft that reflects City Task 2.9: Stakeholder Group Meeting MIG will meet with the Stakeholder Group to provide them an upda and discuss the Concept Alternatives Report. MIG will facilitate their feedback on the concepts for each of the seven opportunity Vallco Shopping Center site. Task 2.10: Community Workshop Concept Alternatives MIG will facilitate a community workshop to solicit input on the The agenda for this workshop will include: an update on the proj materials produced to date, and an interactive exercise to revie Concept Alternatives for the seven opportunity sites. The object be to gain direct feedback from the community on which concepts where. This feedback will help inform the selection of a preferr used as the basis for the General Plan Amendment. MIG, in coordi will be responsible for developing content, printing materials a workshop. MIG will provide one facilitator and one graphic recor City staff will be responsible for securing workshop locations, announcements, and providing food. Task 2.11: Planning Commission Study Session MIG will meet with the Planning Commission to provide them an up discuss the Concepts Alternatives Report, and present feedback r Stakeholder Group and during the Community Workshop. MIG will fa with the Planning Commission to identify a preferred concept for opportunity sites, including the Vallco Shopping Center site. Task 2.12: City Council Study Session MIG will meet with the City Council to provide them an update on the Concepts Alternatives Report, present feedback received from Group and during the Community Workshop, and discuss the Plannin preferred concept. MIG will facilitate a discussion with the Cit final preferred concept for each of the seven opportunity sites, Shopping Center site. This preferred concept will be used as the General Plan Amendment. Phase 2 Deliverables City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 12 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 426 # of Hard Item Description Format(s) Copies Vision and Update vision for the opportunity sites and InDesign/PDF 10 Transformative larger Cupertino community, followed by Strategies Framework specific strategies to create positive change Market Study Summary of market demands for Cupertino Word/PDF 10 Allocation Analysis Summary of potential allocation increased Word/PDF 10 Report based on the market demand Retail Strategy Report Summary of the overall strategy for Word/PDF 10 improving economic and retails conditions in Cupertino Concept Alternatives Series of individual diagrams that identifyIllustrator/GIS/ 14 each concept alternatives (14 total) PDF Concept Alternatives Comprehensive report that summarizes and InDesign/PDF 10 Report analyzes all concept alternatives Community Workshop Workshop agendas, sign-in sheets, large InDesign/PDF Various Materials graphic boards and outreach materials Stakeholder Group Meeting agenda, sign-in sheet, PowerPoint Word/PPT 50 (agendas Meeting Materials presentation and brief summary per meeting) Planning Commission Meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation Word/PPT 50 (agenda) Study Session Materials and brief summary City Council Study Meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation Word/PPT 50 (agenda) Session Materials and brief summary Phase 3: Draft General Plan Amendment Task 3.1: Existing General Plan Analysis and Policy Framework Prior to drafting the updated General Plan Amendment, MIG will c framework matrix that identifies new or modified goals, policies programs that are needed to implement the preferred concept. The may identify responsible parties and timeframes for implementati New color maps and graphics may be included as needed to illustr such as increased density, urban design, mobility and economic d The EIR Team will support this evaluation by identifying CEQA-re need to be addressed in the General Plan Amendment. The policy f reviewed by City staff, and MIG will update the framework based direction. Task 3.2: Draft General Plan Amendment The MIG Team will prepare a focused update the Citys existing G addresses the vision, goals, policies, standards and actions dev process. This will include directly editing the Citys existing creating a new General Plan document in Word or another format). Amendment will include revised and updated text, and new maps, f Specific major revisions include: City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 13 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 427 Updating Narrative Text. This includes revising introductory or text throughout the General Plan to reflect the updated concepts during this process. Updating the Land Use and Circulation Diagrams. This includes pr GIS information and final figures that reflect changes in land u as a result of this project. MIG will prepare the updated Land U EIR Team will prepare the updated Circulation Diagram in close c with MIG. Updating Allocation Policy and Standards Table. This includes up appropriate goal and policy text, and updating Table 2.A to refl development allocations. Tentatively, the increases include addi square feet of office allocation, 2 million square feet of comme and 1,0001,500 rooms to the hotel allocation. Updating Height Standards. This includes increasing height limit South Vallco area and other opportunity sites. Identifying Community Benefits. This includes developing new pol identifies development incentives (e.g., increased density or he offered for projects that also provide a direct community benefi would allow the City to ensure that more intense uses also provi benefits to the greater Cupertino community. Updating Additional General Plan Goals, Policies and Actions. Th revising other elements of the General Plan to ensure that it is consistent with the General Plan Amendment and to addresses thro recent changes in State law (AB 32, SB 375, Complete Streets, et not include preparing an integrated Climate Action Plan or a com greenhouse gas reduction strategy, however, that can be prepared optional task. This also does not include revisions to the City completed Housing Element. MIG will prepare all text revisions utilizing the track-change We will make direct edits to the existing General Plan files so makers and the community can clearly identify which parts of the updated and which parts have remained the same. Once drafted, MI the QuarkXPress files and PDF files to City staff for review and update the files and prepare public review drafts that reflect C Optional Task: Fiscal Impact Analysis If desired by the City, BAE can prepare a Fiscal Impact Analysis budget item. The analysis will examine the total revenues and ex be generated by increased office, retail and hotel allocations i result of the General Plan Amendment. Depending on the Citys ne process, this fiscal analysis could either be quite detailed and impacts on the Citys General Fund, or could focus in a more lim City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 14 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 428 revenues to be generated from increased development that would a General Fund, as well as to any other taking entities in Cuperti prepare a fiscal impacts analysis of the preferred alternative a relative net impacts of the mix of uses. BAE will work with the Finance Department to ensure that the estimates for tax revenues, fees and municipal s consistent with City fiscal policies. Task 3.3: Stakeholder Group Meeting MIG will meet with the Stakeholder Group to provide them an upda and discuss the draft General Plan Amendment. MIG will facilitat their feedback on the Amendment. MIG will develop a comment trac be used to organize input received during this meeting. Task 3.4: Planning Commission Study Session MIG will meet with the Planning Commission to provide them an up discuss the draft General Plan Amendment and input received from group. MIG will facilitate a discussion with the Planning Commis feedback on the Amendment. MIG will add their comments into the matrix in order to organize input received during the study sess Task 3.5: City Council Study Session MIG will meet with the City Council to provide them an update on the draft General Plan Amendment, and present the comment tracki facilitate a discussion with the City Council to confirm revisio Amendment. The culmination of this meeting will be direction on a revised General Plan Amendment that will be used as the basis for developing the EIR formal public review and hearing process. Task 3.6: Revised Draft General Plan Amendment MIG will prepare a Revised Draft General Plan Amendment that ref received from the City Council. This may include necessary updat graphics and maps. Task 3.7: Community Open House MIG will facilitate a citywide open house on the draft General P MIG Team will be available to answer questions about the project components of the draft General Plan Amendment. This will provid the public to provide feedback on the draft amendment, including policies and programs. MIG will prepare large boards that summ City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 15 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 429 concepts and major changes from the existing General Plan. MIG, City staff and the project team, will be responsible for develop materials, and facilitating each workshop. MIG will provide two workshop. City staff will be responsible for securing workshop l mailing announcements, and proving food. Phase 3 Deliverables # of Hard Item Description Format(s) Copies Existing General Plan Detailed summary of the needed changes InDesign/PDF 10 Analysis and Policy and revisions to the existing General Plan Framework Draft General Plan Track-changes file with updated graphics QuarkXPress/PDF 10 Amendment and mapping Revised Draft General Track-changes file with updated graphics QuarkXPress/PDF 10 Plan Amendment and mapping Community Open Open House agenda, sign-in sheet, large InDesign/PDF Various House Materials graphic boards and outreach materials Stakeholder Group Meeting agenda, sign-in sheet, PowerPoint Word/PPT 50 (agendas Meeting Materials presentation and brief summary per meeting) Planning Commission Meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation Word/PPT 50 (agenda) Public Hearings and brief summary Materials City Council Public Meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation Word/PPT 50 (agenda) Hearings and Adoption and brief summary Hearing Materials Final Documents Final General Plan Amendment QuarkXPress/ 10 InDesign/PDF Phase 4: Public Hearings and Adoption Task 4.1: Planning Commission Public Hearings The MIG Team will meet with the Planning Commission two times to and receive input/direction on the Draft General Plan Amendment hearings will provide an opportunity for the Planning Commission public comments on the draft documents. Task 4.2: City Council Public Hearings The MIG Team will meet with the City Council two times to presen input/direction on the Draft General Plan Amendment and Draft EI provide an opportunity for the City Council to review Planning C recommendations and formally receive public comments on the draf City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 16 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 430 Task 4.3: City Council Adoption Hearings MIG Team will prepare materials for and facilitate a public adop City Council to review and discuss the final documents. The conc will be the City Councils formal adoption of the General Plan A certification of the EIR. Task 4.4: Final Project Documents MIG will prepare a final General Plan Amendment based on the out Council Hearings. MIG will also submit all project files to the Shapefiles developed during the process. Phase 4 Deliverables # of Hard Item Description Format(s) Copies Stakeholder Group Meeting agenda, sign-in sheet, PowerPoint Word/PPT 50 (agendas Meeting Materials presentation and brief summary per meeting) Planning Commission Meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation Word/PPT 50 (agenda) Public Hearings and brief summary Materials City Council Public Meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation Word/PPT 50 (agenda) Hearings and Adoption and brief summary Hearing Materials Final Documents Final General Plan Amendment Word/QuarkXpress/ 10 InDeisgn/PDF Phase 5: Coordination and Management MIG will be responsible for managing the General Plan Amendment keep the project on schedule and budget. This phase includes int project coordination and management activities, including meetin calls with other agencies, community organizations and the EIR T include internal coordination and management between the City, B Greensfelder Consulting. Task 5.1: Other Agency Coordination The MIG Team will coordinate with other agencies throughout the Amendment process. This task includes up to 5 meetings with othe course of the project, and ongoing phone and email coordination. City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 17 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 431 Task 5.2: Community Organization Coordination MIG will coordinate with local community organizations that have the various opportunity sites, or the larger Cupertino community to 5 meetings with community organizations during the course of ongoing phone and email coordination. Task 5.3: EIR Team Coordination MIG will have ongoing calls, emails and meetings with the EIR Te work with the General Plan Amendment process. This will include substantive work products they will be producing (traffic, infra quality/GHG and environmental analysis) into the planning and de ongoing coordination throughout the CEQA process. This task incl meetings with the EIR Team during the course of the project, ong coordination, and . Task 5.4: Project Management MIG will have a lead role managing the process to ensure the pro and schedule. This task accounts for MIGs project management an (emails, calls, data transfers, etc.) with both City staff and s Phase 5 Deliverables None City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment 18 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 432 EXHIBIT A-1 SCOPE OF SERVICES SOUTH VALLCO SPECIFIC PLAN During the term of this contract and until<<date>>, City retains the option torequest that Consultant complete a specific plan for the South Vallco area of the City (the “Vallco Specific Plan”).Upon written authorization to Consultant to proceedwith the Vallco Specific Plan,Consultant shall complete a plan that includes the phases and tasks described in this Exhibit. 433 City of Cupertino South Vallco Specific Plan Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 The following Work Plan outlines a logical series of phases and South Vallco Specific Plan, with information from each step crea the next step. Our approach is to efficiently build from the wor General Plan Amendment project. Similar to that project, this Wo designed to allow City staff, stakeholders, other agencies, EIR Commission, City Council and the community ample opportunity to comment on the information compiled during the project. Our proc extensive, inclusive public participation and outreach program t and proven high tech and high touch tools that will result in ge participation in this important project. This approach ensures t kept well informed and actively engaged in the Specific Plan pro Plan with a higher level of acceptance, user-friendliness and le Scope of Work The MIG Team will prepare a new South Vallco Specific Plan that approximately the same area as the current South Vallco Master P conducting addition Stakeholder Group meetings to focus on speci ideas for this area. Because the technical consultants are inclu contract, it is assumed that the MIG Team will rely on them for air quality, greenhouse gas emission and all other environmental to support the Specific Plan. Phase 1: South Vallco Specific Plan Task 1.1: Stakeholder Group Meetings The MIG Team will meet with the Stakeholder Group three times to the South Vallco area, building upon the outreach and analysis w the General Plan Amendment project. These meetings will include refinement of a final site concept that can be used as the basis Specific Plan. Task 1.2: South Vallco Visioning Workshop MIG will facilitate a community workshop to refine the vision an South Vallco area. The agenda for this workshop will include: an summary of materials produced to date, and an interactive exerci City of Cupertino: South Vallco Specific Plan 1 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 434 overall vision and the site concept. MIG, in coordination with C team, will be responsible for developing content, printing mater workshop. City staff will be responsible for securing workshop l mailing announcements, and providing food. It is anticipated tha and one member of BAE will attend this workshop. Task 1.3: Vallco Strategy Report Greensfelder Consultants will prepare a Vallco Strategy Report s Strategy Report described under Task 2.6 of the General Plan Ame The Vallco Strategy Report, focusing on the South Vallco Specific Plan area, will provide a link between market/data analysis and implementation recommend specific plan area (Vallco Shopping Center in particular). While Vallco Shopping Center occupies one of the citys best loc unsustainable because of how it is presently configured and leas identity, a compelling physical plant, and a definitive commodit Greensfelder will approach the Vallco strategy from the point of retail, and, to that end, discuss the Specific Plan area in ter specialty retail opportunities. This will include identifying wh can be executed for the mall, and developing implementation stra market analysis and well researched data. Repositioning Vallco Mall has been a vexing proposition for a su Vallco Strategy Report will give a brief history of the project, properties that have been successfully repositioned, consider an alternatives for larger spaces (including eating and drinking es shops and apparel), and include a specific implementation strate report will focus on how Vallco might be repositioned from two p mix appealing to Cupertino and extended trade area customers, an factors such as competing projects, and practical and legal limi Specific attention will be given to the following areas: Evaluation of fundamental real estate attributes such as locatio area, competing and proposed projects, and the long-term viabili competing projects; Evaluation of market economics including the best mix of users, tenants to target, and market rent and vacancy factors; Evaluation of fundamental site attributes such as visibility, ac demand; Site plan recommendations for reconfiguring existing projects ba estate attributes, site attributes and market factors; Place-making considerations including careful evaluating layout attributes in light of tenant placement, configuration of indoor City of Cupertino: South Vallco Specific Plan 2 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 435 public gathering areas, light, shade, and protection from the el tenant and way-finding signage, and materials including lighting like; Functionality recommendations such as how to service tenants (i. trash, service areas) while minimizing the impacts of these func project and neighbors; : Evaluation of whether to maintain continuity of place, such as r rehabilitating existing facades and materials in an attempt to m authenticity or a familiar or inviting feel for the customer; Evaluating the implications of terms and restrictions contained documents such as approval rights and use restrictions; and Evaluating Title issues (if any). Finally, the report will include long-term suggestions for integ larger Vallco Shopping District-Main Street including linkages w South Vallco Specific Plan area will be formulated. Task 1.4: Draft South Vallco Specific Plan The MIG Team will prepare a Specific Plan for the South Vallco a 2008 South Vallco Master Plan, 2012 Heart of the City Specific P during previous tasks. The Specific Plan will include area-speci design guidelines and implementation actions. Effectively, the M existing Master Plan content, update it with new concepts and id process, and prepare a full Specific Plan that meets all State c The Specific Plan will include, at a minimum, the following majo Introduction. MIG will prepare an introduction to the Specific Plan that incl an executive summary, description of the Plan Area, relationship General Plan, and summary of the community outreach process. Thi introduction will also include a brief summary of each section o Existing Conditions. The MIG Team will summarize major existing conditions for the Specific Plan area, Including land use, economic, mobility a conditions. The MIG Team will rely on the EIR Team for all exist information related to transportation and infrastructure. The ex section will also include a summary of key findings and major op Vision and Transformative Strategies. MIG will prepare a summary of the long- term vision, objectives and transformative strategies for Specif on the information received from the Visioning Workshop. The tra strategies will act as broad policy statements that define the f Vallco area. City of Cupertino: South Vallco Specific Plan 3 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 436 Land Use and Community Character. MIG will prepare updated policies, allowed uses, height and density standards, sustainability measu efficiency standards for the South Vallco area. This will includ guidelines for the location, layout, design and landscaping of n buildings. The design guidelines will be highly graphical and in renderings and sketches as appropriate. They will also include s and requirement necessary to ensure a consistent, identifiable d throughout the Specific Plan area. The guidelines will not be wr based codes, but rather be a collection of easy to understand gr clearly articulate the vision for the future of South Vallco. Mobility. MIG will compile and format a section describing future mobilit on content received from the EIR Team and the City. MIG will not original information for this section, but will rather rely on t text, graphics, figures (e.g., circulation diagram) and analysis necessary to support the Specific Plan process. The information vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian and transit circulation, as well as Specific Plan area. Infrastructure. MIG will compile and format a section describing future infrastructure systems based on content received from the EIR Te City. MIG will not prepare original information for this section on the EIR Team for all text, graphics, figures (e.g., infrastru analysis related to infrastructure necessary to support the Spec The information will cover electrical, telecommunication, water, drainage systems within the Specific Plan area. Implementation Action Plan. MIG and BAE will prepare a detailed, focused Implementation Action Plan for the South Vallco area. It will be table, and will identify and prioritize public and private imple Each implementation action will have a unique heading and number include specific staff/department responsibilities, timeframes a resources. As part of this section, BAE will prepare a comprehensive Financ Implementation Strategy to support the Specific Plan. This strat on feasibility gaps for identified catalyst, public-private, or as well as cost identified by others for infrastructure, shared public improvements. These could include various types of assess or benefit districts (including Infrastructure Finance Districts Finance Districts), public/private partnerships, grants, and oth review the applicability of each source, and the range of potent on funding needs and targeted uses and projects, the MIG Team wi recommend a funding strategy that outlines targeted funding sour and timing. City of Cupertino: South Vallco Specific Plan 4 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 437 BAE will also prepare a phasing strategy that integrates market feasibility, public-private partnership opportunities, and fundi phase-by-phase basis in order to sequence public improvements an development that will best promote overall Specific Plan goals. phasing strategy will be to focus public improvements and other those sites and areas with the greatest near-term potential, in limited up-front funds and generate maximum momentum for subsequ projects and phases. Glossary. MIG will prepare a glossary of key abbreviations, acronyms and t used in the Specific Plan. The MIG Team anticipates that the Specific Plan will be approxim length and include both text and photos. It will also include ap and three photo simulations/sketch-up models. The Administrative will be in Word format with graphics attached and referenced in provide the MIG Team with one set of consolidated and vetted com The MIG Team will then produce a Screencheck Draft Specific Plan comments. The Screencheck Draft plan will be formatted as a high in InDesign. Staff will review the Screencheck Draft plan and pr one set of consolidated edits. MIG will then prepare a Public Dr reflects City staff comments. Task 1.5: Stakeholder Group Meetings The MIG Team will meet with the Stakeholder Group twice to prese Draft South Vallco Specific Plan. MIG will facilitate a discussi and design consensus, and areas of the Plan that the group would Task 1.6: Planning Commission Study Sessions MIG will meet with the Planning Commission twice to provide them an update on the process, and overview of the Draft South Vallco Specific Plan, a input received from the Stakeholder Group meeting. BAE and David attend one of these meetings as needed. The Planning Commission staff and MIG their recommendations for refinements to the Draft Task 1.7: City Council Study Sessions MIG will meet with the City Council twice to provide them an upd discuss the Draft South Vallco Specific Plan, and discuss feedba received from both the Stakeholder Group and the Planning Commis David Greensfelder will attend one of these meetings as needed. provide final direction to City staff and MIG on revisions to th City of Cupertino: South Vallco Specific Plan 5 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 438 Task 1.8: City Council Adoption Hearings MIG will prepare materials for and facilitate two public adoptio Council to review and discuss the draft final Specific Plan. BAE will attend one of these meetings as needed. The conclusion of these hearings will be the City Councils formal adoption of the South Vallco Specific the EIR. Task 1.9: Final Specific Plan MIG will prepare a Final Vallco Specific Plan based on the direc City Council. This will include updates to document text, images Phase 1 Deliverables # of Hard Item Description Format(s) Copies Admin Draft South Updated text, graphics, mapping and photo Word/Illustrator/ 10 Vallco Specific Plan simulations that reflect the communitys Photoshop vision for the future of the area. Finance and Analysis that outlines funding models and Word/Excel 10 Implementation the recommended funding strategy, with a Strategy sources and uses of funding table that shows how expenditures will be fully funded. Vallco Shopping District Analysis of specific opportunities and Word/Excel 10 Retail Evaluation and implementation strategies for the Vallco Implementation Shopping District Strategy Public Draft South Final document that reflects City staff InDesign/Illustrator/ 10 Vallco Specific Plan comments and includes final layout Photoshop Final South Vallco Final document that reflects City Council InDesign/Illustrator/ 10 Specific Plan direction and includes final layout Photoshop Stakeholder Group Meeting agenda, sign-in sheet, PowerPoint Word/PPT 50 (agendas Meeting Materials presentation and brief summary per meeting) Planning Commission Meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation Word/PPT 50 (agendas Study Session Materials and brief summary per meeting) City Council Study Meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation Word/PPT 50 (agendas Session Materials and brief summary per meeting) City of Cupertino: South Vallco Specific Plan 6 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 439 Phase 2: Coordination and Management Task 2.1: EIR Team Coordination MIG will have ongoing calls, emails and meetings with the EIR Te work with the South Vallco Specific Plan process. This will incl substantive work products they will be producing (traffic, circu noise, air quality/GHG and environmental analysis) into the plan process. Task 2.2: Project Management MIG will have a lead role managing the process to ensure the pro and schedule. This task accounts for MIGs project management an (emails, calls, data transfers, etc.) City staff. Phase 2 Deliverables None City of Cupertino: South Vallco Specific Plan 7 Revised Work Plan Updated January 29, 2013 440 EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE Consultant shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for Consultant and City so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. Consultantshall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receiptof the notice to proceed. General Plan Amendment South Vallco Specific Plan: If City exercises its option to proceed with this plan, project schedule to be mutually determined in writing within reasonable time following notice from City to proceed. 441 MIGCost/Schedule per Task General Plan Amendment Phase 1 (Project Kick-Off and Existing Conditions Analysis) Timeframe: 11 weeks Budget: $125,027 Phase 2 (Visioning and Alternatives) Timeframe: 21 weeks Budget: $170,539 Phase 3 (Draft General Plan Amendment) Timeframe: 19 weeks Budget: $80,319 Phase 4 (Public Hearings and Adoption) Timeframe: 11 weeks Budget: $29,561 Phase 5 (Coordination and Management) Timeframe:ongoing (60 weeks) Budget: $70,650 Total contract timeframe: 60 weeks (note: some phases overlap) Total contract budget: $476,096 South Vallco Specific Plan Phase 1 (South Vallco Specific Plan) Timeframe: 48 weeks Budget: $192,624 Phase 2 (Coordination and Management) Timeframe: 48 weeks Budget: $29,400 Total project timeframe: 48 weeks Total project budget: $222,024 442 EXHIBIT C COMPENSATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT City shall compensate Consultant for professional services performed for the General Plan Amendment in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the rates and compensation schedule setforth below.Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rates set forth below up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to Consultant under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed the amounts set forth below, for a total amount for the services described in Exhibit A not to exceed $476,096. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the City. TaskNot-to-exceed Amount Phase 1$125,027 Phase 2$170,539 Phase 3$80,319 Phase 4$29,561 Phase 5$70,650 Total Not to Exceed Amount$476,096 Rates Principal-in-Charge:$295 per hour Project Manager: $195 per hour Urban Designer: $195 per hour Policy Planner: $135 per hour Urban Design Assoc:$100 per hour Outreach Associate:$90 per hour Project Admin:$125 per hour Invoices In order to request payment, Consultantshall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including anidentification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, task(s) for which work was performed, hourly rates, andreimbursable expenses), based upon Consultant’s billing rates. Additional Services Consultant shall provide additional services outside of the services identified in Exhibit A only by advance written authorization from the City’s Project Manager prior to 443 commencement of any additional services. Consultant shall submit, at the Project Manager’s request, a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of additional services, schedule, and proposed maximum compensation. 444 EXHIBIT C-1 COMPENSATION VALLCO SPECIFIC PLAN If City chooses to exercise its option to have Consultant perform the Services set forth in Exhibit A-1 (Scope, South Vallco Specific Plan), City shall compensateConsultant for such services in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the rates and compensation schedule set forth below. The compensation to be paid to Consultant under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A-1” and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed the amounts set forth below, for a total amount for the services described in Exhibit A-1 not to exceed $222,024. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the City. TaskNot-to-exceed Amount Phase 1$192,624 Phase 2$29,400 Total Not to Exceed Amount$222,024 Rates Principal-in-Charge:$295 per hour Project Manager: $195 per hour Urban Designer: $195 per hour Policy Planner: $135 per hour Urban Design Assoc:$100 per hour Outreach Associate:$90 per hour Project Admin:$125 per hour Invoices Inorder to request payment, Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including anidentification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, task(s) for which work was performed, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon Consultant’s billing rates. Additional Services Consultant shall provide additional services outside of the services identified in Exhibit A only by advance written authorization from the City’sProject Manager prior to commencement of any additional services. Consultant shall submit, at the Project Manager’s request, a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of additional services, schedule, and proposed maximum compensation. 445 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND THE PLANNING CENTER/DC&E FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW THIS AGREEMENT, for reference dated <<date>>,is by and between CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as"City"), and The Planning Center/DC&E, a California corporation,whose address is 1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300, Berkeley, California 94709 (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A.City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the Constitution and the statutes of the State of California and the Cupertino Municipal Code. B.Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement; and C.City and Consultant desire to enter into an agreement for$upon the terms and conditions herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: TERM 1.: The term of this Agreement shall commence on<<date>>,and shall terminate on <<date>>,unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED 2.: Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit"A" and, if authorized,Exhibit“A-1,”according to the project schedule set forth in Exhibit B, which exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this agreement. Consultant’s Project Manager to represent consultant during the day-to-day work on the Project is Joanna Jansen, AICP, Leed AP, Associate Principal. Consultant’s Project Manager shall havesupervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the City. Consultant, at City’s request, also agrees to promptly remove personnel who City finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner. 446 COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT 3.: Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement in the amountsset forth in Exhibits"C"and, if authorized,Exhibit“C-1” which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Payment shall be made by checks drawn on the treasury of the City, to be taken from the 110-2211fund. Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to the City in accordance with the provisions set forth in Exhibits“C”and “C-1.” TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: 4. Consultant and City agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this Agreement. STANDARD OF CARE 5.: Consultant agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the City nor have any contractual relationship with City. INDEPENDENT PARTIES 6.: City and Consultant intend that the relationship between them created by this Agreement is that of employer-independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation andthe express terms of this Agreement. No civil service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Consultant's services. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees, including but not limited to, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation plans, vacation and sick leave are available from City to Consultant, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer-employee relationship from any fees due Consultant. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Consultant. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA): 6. Consultant assumes any and all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of his/her employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Consultant shall indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by Consultant. NON-DISCRIMINATION: 7. Consistent with City's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable employer/employee conduct, Consultant agrees that harassment or discrimination directed toward a job applicant, a City employee, or a citizen by Consultant or Consultant's employee or subcontractor on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, marital status, pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated. Consultant agrees that any and all violations of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. 447 HOLD HARMLESS 8.: Consultant shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law, with respect to all services performed in connection with the Agreement, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers from and against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against any of them, including any injury to or death of any person or damage to property or other liability of any nature, whether physical, emotional, consequential or otherwise, arising out, pertaining to, or related to the performance ofthis Agreement by Consultant or Consultant’s employees, officers, officials, agents or independent contractors.Such costs and expenses shall include reasonable attorneys’ fees of counsel of City’s choice, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation. INSURANCE 9.: On or before the commencement of the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish City with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with paragraphs 9A, B, C, D and E. Such certificates, which do not limit Consultant's indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement: "Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the City of Cupertino by certified mail, Attention: City Manager." It is agreed that Consultant shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Agreement all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Agreement with an insurance company that is acceptable to City and licensed to do insurance business in the State of California. Endorsements naming the City as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates. COVERAGE A.: Consultant shall maintain the following insurance coverage: Workers' Compensation (1): Statutory coverage as required by the State of California. Liability (2): Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 aggregate -all other Property Damage:$100,000 each occurrence $250,000 aggregate If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amounts of $1,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above. Automotive (3): Comprehensive automotive liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury:$500,000 each occurrence 448 Property Damage:$100,000 each occurrence or Combined Single Limit: $500,000 each occurrence Professional Liability (4): Professional liability insurance which includes coverage for the professional acts, errors and omissions of Consultant in the amount of at least $1,000,000. SUBROGATION WAIVER B.: Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which he/she has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Consultant shall look solely to his/her insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to City, on behalf of any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Consultant or City with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. FAILURE TO SECURE C.: If Consultant at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure ormaintain the foregoing insurance, City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the Consultant's name or as an agent of the Consultant and shall be compensated by the Consultant for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid. ADDITIONAL INSURED D.: City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, employees and volunteers shall be named as an additional insured under all insurance coverages, except any professional liability insurance, required by this Agreement. The naming of an additional insured shall not affect any recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured. An additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium, deductible portion of any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by the insurance provided by this policy. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE E.: The insurance limits required by City are not represented as being sufficient to protect Consultant. Consultant is advised to confer with Consultant's insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for Consultant. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: 10. Consultant warrants that it is not a conflict of interest for Consultant to perform the services required by this Agreement. Consultantmay be required to fill out a conflict of interest form if the services provided under this Agreement require Consultant to make certain governmental decisions or serve in a staff capacity as defined in Title 2, Division 6, Section 18700 of the CaliforniaCode of Regulations. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS 11.: Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by 449 reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money by Consultant from City under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent. Written notice of such assignment shall be promptly furnished to City by Consultant. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant, if Consultant is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50%) or more of the voting power of the corporation. SUBCONTRACTOR APPROVAL 12.: Unless prior written consent from City is obtained, only those people and subcontractors whose names and resumes are attached to this Agreement shall be used in the performance of this Agreement.Consultant may change or add subcontractors only with the prior written approval of City. Inthe event that Consultant employs subcontractors, such subcontractors shall be required to furnish proof of workers' compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Consultant. In addition, any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be subject to each provision of this Agreement. PERMITS AND LICENSES: 13. Consultant, at his/her sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses including, but not limited to, a City Business License, that may be required in connection with the performance of services hereunder. REPORTS 14.: A.Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Report", reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement, shall be the exclusive property of City. Consultant shall not copyright any Report required by this Agreement and shall execute appropriate documents to assign to City the copyright to Reports created pursuant to this Agreement. Any Report, information and data acquired or required by this Agreement shall become the property of City, and all publication rights are reserved to City. Consultant may retain a copy of any report furnished to the City pursuant to this Agreement. B.All Reports prepared by Consultant may be used by City in execution or implementation of: (1)The original Project for which Consultant was hired; (2)Completion of the original Project by others; (3)Subsequent additions to the original project; and/or (4)Other City projects as appropriate. C.Consultant shall, at such time and in suchform as City may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement. D.All Reports required to be provided by this Agreement shall be printed on recycled paper. All Reports shall be copied on both sides of the paperexcept for one original, which shall be single sided. 450 E.No Report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available to any individual or organization by Consultant without prior approval by City. RECORDS: 15. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to such books and records to the representatives of City or its designees at all proper times, and gives City the right to examine and audit same, and to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. If supplemental examination or audit of the records is necessary due to concerns raised by City's preliminary examination or audit of records, and the City's supplemental examination or audit of the records discloses a failureto adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other breach of contract or failure to act in good faith, then Consultant shall reimburse City for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit. NOTICES: 16. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the second business day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at: City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino CA 95014 Attention:Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: The Planning Center/DC&E 1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, California 94709 Attention: David Early, AICP, LEED AP, Principal TERMINATION: 17. In the event Consultant fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed in default in 451 the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured withinthe time specified after receipt by Consultant from City of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, City may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to theConsultant written notice thereof. City shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon termination of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the other party that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. COMPLIANCES: 18. Consultant shall comply with all state or federal laws and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by City. CONFLICT OF LAW: 19. This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of California excepting any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the successors of those authorities.) Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of the County of Santa Clara, State of California. ADVERTISEMENT: 20. Consultant shall not post, exhibit, display or allow to be posted, exhibited, displayed any signs, advertising, show bills, lithographs, posters or cards ofany kind pertaining to the services performed under this Agreement unless prior written approval has been secured from City to do otherwise. WAIVER: 21. A waiver by City of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. INTEGRATED CONTRACT: 22. This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and Consultant. INSERTED PROVISIONS 22.: Each provision and clause required by law to be inserted into the Agreement shall be deemed to be enacted herein, and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as though each were included herein. If through mistake or otherwise, any such provision is not inserted or is not correctly inserted, the Agreement shall be amended to make such insertion on application by either party. 452 CAPTIONS: 23. The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the Agreement and in no way affect, limit or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed. CONSULTANTCITY OF CUPERTINO A Municipal Corporation The Planning Center/DC&E By ByGary Chao TitleTitleCity Planner Date___________________Date____________________ RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By TitleDirector, Community Development APPROVED AS TO FORM: By City Attorney ATTEST: By: City Clerk 453 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTEIR 454 EXHIBIT A-1 SCOPE OF SERVICES SOUTH VALLCO SPECIFIC PLANEIR During the term of this contract and until<<date>>, City retains the option torequest that Consultant complete an environmental impact report (or appropriate documentation required under the California Environmental Quality Act) for the South Vallco Specific Plan”).Upon written authorization to Consultant to proceedwith the EIR for the Vallco Specific Plan,Consultant shall complete environmental reviewthat includes the phases and tasks described in this Exhibit. 455 EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE Consultant shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for Consultant and City so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. Consultantshall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receiptof the notice to proceed. General Plan AmendmentEIR South Vallco Specific PlanEIR: If City exercises its option to proceed with the South Vallco Specific plan, project and environmental review schedule to be mutually determined in writing within reasonable time following notice from City to proceed. Combined General Plan Amendment and South Vallco Specific Plan EIR 456 EXHIBIT C COMPENSATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT EIR City shall compensate Consultant for professional services performed for the General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the rates and compensation schedule set forth below.Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rates set forth below up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to Consultant under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed the amounts set forth below, for a total amount for the services described in Exhibit A not to exceed $509,839.Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the City. Rates Principal: $190 per hour Assoc Principal:$175 per hour Senior Associate:$165 per hour Associate: $135 per hour Project Planner:$105 per hour Planner:$85 per hour Graphics Manager:$115 per hour Graphics WP:$80 per hour Invoices In order to request payment, Consultantshall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including anidentification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, task(s) for which work was performed, hourly rates, andreimbursable expenses), based upon Consultant’s billing rates. Additional Services Consultant shall provide additional services outside of the services identified in Exhibit A only by advance written authorization from the City’s Project Manager prior to commencement of any additional services. Consultant shall submit, at the Project Manager’s request, a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of additional services, schedule, and proposed maximum compensation. 457 EXHIBIT C-1 COMPENSATION VALLCO SPECIFIC PLAN If City chooses to exercise its option to have Consultant perform the Services set forth in Exhibit A-1 (Scope, South Vallco Specific PlanEIR), City shall compensate Consultant for such services in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the ratesand compensation schedule set forth below. The compensation to be paid to Consultant under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A-1” and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed the amounts set forth below, for a total amount for the services described in Exhibit A-1 not to exceed $210,164.Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the City. Rates Principal: $190per hour Assoc Principal:$175 per hour Senior Associate:$165 per hour Associate: $135 per hour Project Planner:$105 per hour Planner:$85 per hour Graphics Manager:$115 per hour Graphics WP:$80 per hour Invoices In order to request payment, Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including anidentification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, task(s) for which work was performed, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon Consultant’s billing rates. Additional Services Consultant shall provide additional services outside of the services identified in Exhibit A only by advance written authorization from the City’s Project Manager prior to commencement of any additional services. Consultant shall submit, at the Project Manager’s request, a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of additional services, schedule, and proposed maximum compensation. 458 GPA Outline October 8, 2012 I. Area of Study or Amendment 1) Development Allocation: Office Propose adding 2 3 million square feet citywide for the N. De Anza, Vallco (Mall and Verigy) Existing allocation: 738,755 sf citywide (633,053 sf of Major Employers; 87,746 sf of unrestricted office in Vallco Park North; and 17,956 sf in Heart Commercial Propose adding 2 million square feet citywide for Vallco, Target/Crossroads, PGE site (Stelling/Homestead), Cupertino Village Existing allocation: 212,350 sf citywide (117,170 sf in HOC; 6,784 sf in Monta Vista; 78,104 sf in Vallco Park South; 12,124 sf in City Center) BQ/CG zone add CG zoning to BQ zones for the church sites on N. Stelling Ro and PG&E site Hotel Propose adding 1,500 rooms for 2 Vallco Mall sites, Cupertino Inn, Cu Village 339 rooms (Vallco Park South) 2) Retail Master Plan Vallco & other areas along Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza & Neighborhood Centers 3) Vallco Master Plan (subset of this include discussions on housing potentials a necessary discussion for any future Vallco redevelopment) 4) Height increases Vallco (KCR), Cupertino Inn, N. De Anza, S. Vallco, (City Center) 5) Other Misc. Clean Up GPA (Land Use Map) Do we want to include as part of this GPA review process? 1 459 II. Resources 1)Public Outreach Consultant 3 -4 meetings (more than 1 alternate meeting) to facilitate stakeholder/Vallco ownership/community meetings 2)Planning Consultant to assist with the planning process, meeting facilitation, staff report, graphics, public hearings 3)Retail/Economic Consultant 4)Advisory Committee Chamber LAC, Business Owners, Property Owners, Teen Commission, Parks and Recreation, Bike & Pedestrian Committee, P City Council) 5)Environmental Consultant (EIR) Ballpark estimate of 22 weeks (5 ½ months), total process time of 9 months 1 year 6)Total Process 1 year to 15 months. III. Community Outreach facilitated by the Public Outreach Consultant (MIG) 1)Visioning meetings 2 community meetings 2)Vallco Mall related meetings 2 community meetings 3)Land use Alternatives 1 community meeting 4)Draft GPA 1 community meeting 5)Planning Commission and Council meetings IV. Budget (rough ballpark estimates) 1)EIR -- $500,000 2)Planning & Graphics Consultant and Public Outreach Consultant - $500,000 3)Retail Consultant -- $75,000 4)Public Noticing, miscellaneous - $75,000 Total: $$1.15M-$1.3M V. Plan to recoup the cost of the GPA 1)Reimbursements: a.We are assuming that the City is putting in $350,000 to cover the cost of just adding sf to the General Plan (office, commercial and hotel rooms). There cost (staff time, etc.) b.Key Opportunity sites - This will be a cost additional to key opportunity sites that use the GPA. i.Cupertino Inn ii.Target iii.KCR Development (Vallco Mall) 2 460 iv.Simeon - v.Sears vi.JC Penneys vii.Vallco Mall viii.Mirapath 2)Payment options for key opportunity sites a.For the opportunity sites: i.Pay upfront based on land area and height requirements. Equal pa $150,000 each. Applicants have discussed providing monthly paym do this with an agreement. ii.Pay later increase of about 30% to add staff time. iii.Payment plan Half now and Half later (see above for implementation) VII. Schedule RFPs out October 2, 2012 RFPs due November 5, 2012 Interviews November 2nd to 3rd week City Council meeting December 18, 2012 VI. Other GPAs on the horizon? Apple (2012 or 2013) Parkside Trails (separate) 3 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 2013 GPA Opportunity Site Map Homestead Road 1 2 N 3d 3e 3c 3 3b 3a Stevens Creek Blvd 1. Church site at Stelling and Homestead- coml overlay City 2. PG&E site at Blaney & Homestead- coml overlay Boundary 3. Vallco Shopping District 3a. Sears /3b. Vallco Mall /3c. JCP/ 3d. Simeon/ 3e. KCR 475 2013 GPA Additional Opportunity Site Map Homestead Road 5 6 3 N 21 Stevens Creek Blvd 4 1. Target/Bottegas Center/Leong (Fatima) 4. City Center City 2. Stevens Creek Business Center 5. Mirapath (near the PG&E site) Boundary 3. Cupertino Inn 6. Cupertino Village 476 FAIRSHAREWEIGHTING No.ItemPoints 1Base0.20 2AreaChange0.15 3Height0.30 4LandUseChangeCGoverlay0.15 5LandUseResidential0.30 6Allocation0.10 Largesite(0forlessthan2.5acres,0.1for2.5 5acres,0.15for510acres,0.2for1015acres and0.25for1520acres) 7 No.PropertiesBaseAreaChangeHeightLandUseChangeLandUseAllocationLargesite(0forlessthanTotal CGoverlayResidential2.5acres,0.1for2.55 0.15for510acres, acres, 0.2for1015acresand 0.25for1520acres) 1 CitywideAllocation 0.200.750.50 1.45 0.25 2 PG&Esites 0.200.150.15 0.75 0.15 3 ChurchatStellingandHomestead 0.200.150.15 0.65 0.15 4 Volckman 0.200.150.300.300.20 1.30 5 CupertinoInn 0.200.150.450.200.10 1.10 0.15 6 PrometheusCityCenter 0.200.150.450.20 1.15 7 Mirapath 0.200.15 0.35 0.20 8 KimcoCupertinoVillage 0.200.150.450.10 1.10 9 VallcoShoppingDistrict1.000.451.201.201.000.85 5.70 0.25 aSears0.200.150.300.300.20 1.40 bVallcoMall0.200.150.300.300.200.25 1.40 0.20 cJCPenneys0.200.150.300.300.20 1.35 0.15 dSimeon0.200.150.150.20 0.85 eKCR0.200.150.150.20 0.70 477 GPA/SPECIFICPLANCOST No.ItemCost(GPA)Cost(SpecificPlan)Total(SeparateGPATotal(CombinedGPA andSpecificPlan)andSpecificPlan) SeparateCombinedw/GPA GPA/SpecificPlan /·Å r $222,024 År År /·zm;-ä VÅ r År År År 3{Ò,·/·Þ/·zm;-äÅ r Å rÅr År EIR /Ò··/·Å r Å r Å r Å r Å r /·zm;-ä VÅ r Å r Å r Å r Å r Ò,·/·Þ/·zm;-äÅ r Å r Å r Å r Å r { OtherCityCosts b·z-zmr;;·zmrÒ¦¦z;r;·-uÅ r Å r Å r Å r Å r 8Total$1,036,545$495,407$392,210$1,531,951$1,428,755 478 PAYMENTSCHEDULEGPAandEIRonly No.PropertiesPercentagePointsGPAandEIRCostPerPoint GPAandEIRcost$1,036,545$76,498 TotalHrs100.00%13.55$1,036,545 1 CitywideAllocatio10.70%1.45110,922 n 2 PG&Esite5.54%0.7557,373 s 3 ChurchatStellingandHomestea4.80%0.6549,724 d 4 Volckman9.59%1.3099,447 5 CupertinoInn8.12%1.1084,14 8 6 PrometheusCityCente8.49%1.1587,972 r 7 Mirapath2.58%0.3526,774 8 KimcoCupertinoVillag8.12%1.1084,14 e8 9 VallcoShoppingDistric42.07%5.70436,037 t {;© u V r ,-a u V r -/t;;äuV r W {z;uV ur 7 ;Y/wu r TotalCost$1,036,545 TotalPledge$436,037 d Balance$600,507 AllocatedFY201213$350,000 Balancetobefunded$250,507 APPLICANTSHARE No.ApplicantUpfrontCostsConsultantCost+ 10% PG&Esite$63,111 2s ChurchatStellingandHomestea$54,696 3d Volckman109,392$ 4 CupertinoInn92,562$ 5 PrometheusCityCente$96,77 6r0 Mirapath29,452$ 7 KimcoCupertinoVillag$92,562 8e VallcoShoppingDistric$479,641 9t {;© Å ,-a Å -/t;;äÅ r W {z; Å 7 ;Y/wr Å b·;t t©¦;©·äÞ;©ÞwwÝ;ÝÒ·;;©;7·-·©z,Ò·;·-Ò··-·Ò¦E© · 479 PAYMENTSCHEDULEGPA/EIRandSeparateSpecificPlan/EIR No.PropertiesPercentagePointsGPAandEIRSpecificPlanandTotalConsultantCostPerPoint EIRCost GPAandEIRcost1,036,545$$76,498 VallcoSpecificPlancost$495,407$86,913 TotalHrs100.00%13.55$1,036,545$495,407$1,531,951 1 CitywideAllocation10.70%1.45110,922$110,922 2 PG&Esites5.54%0.7557,373$57,373 3 ChurchatStellingandHomestead4.80%0.6549,724$49,724 4 Volckman9.59%1.3099,447$99,447 5 CupertinoInn8.12%1.1084,148$84,148 6 PrometheusCityCenter8.49%1.1587,972$87,972 7 Mirapath2.58%0.3526,774$26,774 8 KimcoCupertinoVillage8.12%1.1084,148$84,148 9 VallcoShoppingDistrict42.07%5.70436,037$495,407$931,444 {;© u V År ,-a u V År -W/t;;äuV Å r 7{z;uV ur rÅ r ;Y/wu r r Å r TotalCost1,036,545$$495,407$1,531,951 TotalPledged$436,037$60,839$496,877 Balance$600,507$434,567$1,035,075 AllocatedFY201213350,000$$$350,000 Balancetobefunded250,507$$434,567$685,075 APPLICANTSHARE No.ApplicantUpfrontCosts ConsultantCost+10% PG&Esites63,111$ 2 ChurchatStellingandHomestead$54,696 3 4Volckman109,392$ 5CupertinoInn92,562$ PrometheusCityCenter$96,770 6 Mirapath29,452$ 7 KimcoCupertinoVillage$92,562 8 VallcoShoppingDistrict$1,024,588 9 {;© Å ,-aÅ r -W/t;;ä rÅ 7{z; Å ;Y/w Å b·;t t©¦;©·äÞ;©ÞwwÝ;ÝÒ·;;©;7·-·©z,Ò·;·-Ò··-·Ò¦E©· 480 GENERALPLANPAYMENTSCHEDULECombinedGPA,SpecificPlanandEIR No.PropertiesHours(notincl.staffPercentagePointsGPAandEIRSpecificPlanTotalConsultantCostPerPoint/Comments time)andEIRCost GPAandEIRcost$1,036,545$76,498 VallcoSpecificPlancost$392,210$68,809 TotalHrs7,970100.00%13.55$1,036,545$392,210$1,428,755 1 CitywideAllocation85310.70%1.45$110,922$110,922 2 PG&Esites4415.54%0.75$57,373$57,373 3 ChurchatStellingandHomestead3824.80%0.65$49,724$49,724 4 Volckman7659.59%1.30$99,447$99,447 5 CupertinoInn6478.12%1.10$84,148$84,148 6 PrometheusCityCenter6768.49%1.15$87,972$87,972 7 Mirapath2062.58%0.35$26,774$26,774 8 KimcoCupertinoVillage6478.12%1.10$84,148$84,148 9 VallcoShoppingDistrict3,35342.07%5.70$436,037$392,210$828,248 {;© u V Å År Å r ,-a u V Å År Å r -W/t;;ä uV Å ÅrÅ r 7{z; uV uÅr År Å r ;Y/w u Å r Å r Å r TotalCost$1,036,545$392,210$1,428,755 TotalPledged$436,037$48,166$484,203 Balance$600,507$344,044$944,552 AllocatedFY201213$350,000$$350,000 Balancetobefunded$250,507$344,044$594,552 APPLICANTSHARE No.ApplicantUpfrontCosts ConsultantCost+10% 2PG&Esites63,111$ 3ChurchatStellingandHomestead54,696$ 4Volckman109,392$ 5CupertinoInn92,562$ 6PrometheusCityCenter$96,770 7Mirapath29,452$ 8KimcoCupertinoVillage92,562$ 9VallcoShoppingDistrict$911,072 {;© rÅ ,-a rÅ -W/t;;ä Å 7{z; Å ;Y/w Å b·;t t©¦;©·äÞ;©ÞwwÝ;ÝÒ·;;©;7·-·©z,Ò·;·-Ò··-·Ò¦E©· 481 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:February19,2013 Subject Consideradoptinganordinancemovingthedateofthe"¯º¿¹generalmunicipal electiontoconsolidateitwiththestatewidegeneralelectioncommencinginNovember 2014. RecommendedAction Decidewhethertomovethedateofthe"¯º¿¹generalmunicipalelectiontoeven numberedyearsandconductthefirstreadingofthedraftordinanceiftheCouncil desiresthechange.IftheCouncildecidesnottochangethegeneralmunicipalelection date,noactionisrequired. Discussion Manyjurisdictionsconsolidatetheirgeneralmunicipalelectionswiththestatewide generalelectionsheldonthefirstTuesdayaftertheFirstMondayinNovemberofeven numberedyears.Alocal°»¸¯¹ª¯©º¯µ´¹costsofholdingitselectionsisconsiderably lowerifelectionsareconsolidatedwiththestatewidegeneralelectionsthanifits electionsareheldinoddnumberedyears.InSantaClaraCounty,the1«¯¹º¸§¸¹Office chargeslocaljurisdictionsbasedonaratethatallocatesthefixedcostsoftheelection dividedproportionatelyamongthevotersregisteredforthatelection.Currently,only theCitiesofCupertinoandSunnyvaleandtheCupertinoUnion,Sunnyvaleand OrchardSchoolDistrictsholdelectionsonoddyears.TheCityofSunnyvalehasplaced ameasureamendingitsChartertoshiftelectionstoevenyearsonits2013ballot. GenerallawCitiessuchasCupertinoareprohibitedfromputtingsuchbinding measuresontheballotandmustmakeshiftsintheelectioncalendarbyOrdinance.Itis estimatedthatshiftingtostatewidegeneralelectionswillsavetheCity$39,000thefirst electionand$59,000everyelectionthereafter.SavingswillbegreaterifSunnyvale votersapprovetheproposedSunnyvalecharteramendmentin2013. Asidefromthepositivefiscalimpactsofthechangetoevenyearstatewidegeneral elections,thereareanumberofotherfactorstoconsider.First,consolidatinglocal electionswiththestatewidegeneralelection,typicallyresultsinagreatervoterturnout inthelocalelections.Manyvotersthatmaynotnormallyparticipateinlocalelections heldinoddnumberedyearsdoparticipateinthestatewidegeneralelections. Furthermore,whenelectionsareconsolidatedwiththestatewidegeneralelections, 482 votersdonothavetokeeptrackofseveraldifferentelectiondateswhichalsomakesthe electionprocessmoreopentothepublic. Inthe2012statewidegeneralelection,81%ofCupertinoregisteredvotersparticipated andinthe2010statewidegeneralelection69%participated,ascomparedto40%inthe November2011generalmunicipalelection.Inaddition,the2008statewidegeneral electionhad86%voterparticipation,ascomparedto42%intheNovember2009general municipalelection.AchartshowingCupertinovoterturnoutforthepast10yearsis attached. However,itcanbearguedthatvotersingeneralelectionscanbelesspreparedthan thoseinoddyearelectionsbecauseofthegreaternumberofmeasuresandelective officesonthegeneralelectionballot.Inaddition,thereisabeliefthatevenyear electionsaremorecostlyforcandidatesthanoddyearelections.Theevidenceto supportthisassumptionismixedatbest.Forexample,thetotalcandidateexpenditures reportedinthePaloAltoCityCouncilelectionsubstantiallydecreasedbetweenthe2009 oddyearelectionand2012whentheCitymadetheswitchtotheevenyearstatewide generalelection. ElectionCodeSection1303(b)(1)authorizestheCityCounciltoenactanordinance requiringthegeneralmunicipalelectionstobeheldonthesamedayasthestatewide generalelections,providedtheordinanceisapprovedbytheCountyofSantaClara BoardofSupervisors. Inaddition,iftheCouncilchoosestochangethemunicipalelectiondatetoeven numberedyears,thetermsofexistingCouncilMemberswouldbeextendedto accommodatethechange.ThetermsofcurrentCouncilMemberswouldexpirein2014 and2016ratherthan2013and2015.PursuanttoElectionCodeSection10403.5(b),an ordinancechangingtheelectiondatemaynotincreaseanytermofofficebymorethan 12months. tu³µ´º®¹!meanstheperiodbetweenthedayuponwhichatermofoffice commencedandthefirstTuesdayafterthesecondMondayinthe12monthafterthat day,inclusive.Therefore,movingtheNovember2013generalmunicipalelectionto November2014wouldnotextendbymorethan12monthsthetermofanyCouncil member. FiscalImpact Byconsolidatingthe"¯º¿¹generalmunicipalelectionswiththestatewidegeneral elections,theCityanticipatesthatthecostofholdingtheelectionwouldbereducedby approximately$59,000ormoreperelectionyear.Further,byholdingtheelectionin 2014insteadof2013,theelectioncostswouldbedeferredforoneyear.Tomakethis change,theCitywouldhavetopayaonetimechargeof$20,000totheCounty RegistrarofVoters. 483 _____________________________________ Preparedby:GraceSchmidt,CityClerk Reviewedby:CarolKorade,CityAttorney ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: AKCupertinoelectionstatisticschart BKDraftordinance 484 "»¶«¸º¯´µ$²«©º¯µ´2º§º¯¹º¯©¹ 2®§ª«ª¨§¸¹¸«¬²«©º¹º§º«½¯ª««´«¸§²«²«©º¯µ´¹ $²«©º¯µ´#§º«"»¶«¸º¯´µ!§²²µº¹"»¶«¸º¯´µ1§©«¹§´ª,«§¹»¸«¹ 1«¯¹º«¸«ª"§¹º5µº«¸ 5µº«¸¹3»¸´µ»º -µ¼ ussvux zyxz sszuz u³"µ»´©¯²¹«§º¹ -µ¼ usswu{ y{xut uz|zw w³/¸«¹¯ª«´º¯§² -µ¼ ussxux wuttx tyyx| z³"µ»´©¯²¹«§º¹§´ª v"¹¯´¯º¯§º¯¼«¹²¯³¯º¹µ´ ¨»¯²ª¯´®«¯®º ¹«º¨§©±¹ §´ª ª«´¹¯º¿ -µ¼ ussyux zyxty vxuyv x³&»¨«¸´§ºµ¸¯§²§´ª1«¬«¸«´ª§ µ´5§²²©µ 3µ²²!¸µ¹ -µ¼ usszuv {yt| vwuv| u³"µ»´©¯²¹«§º¹ %«¨ uss{uw wsuty vwyyz³/¸«¹¯ª«´º¯§²/¸¯³§¸¿§´ª 2®µ¸º3«¸³"µ»´©¯²2«§º -µ¼ uss{uz wwvuv yvs{y t³/¸«¹¯ª«´º¯§² -µ¼ uss|u{ xyutt uywwu w³"µ»´©¯²¹«§º¹§´ª,«§¹»¸«!K 4º¯²¯º¿4¹«¸3§¾ -µ¼ ustsuy {uyt{ y{uy| y³&»¨«¸´§ºµ¸¯§² -µ¼ usttux ywwts vsyws u³"µ»´©¯²¹«§º¹§´ª,«§¹»¸«"K 3¸§´¹¯«´º.©©»¶§´©¿3§¾ -µ¼ ustuuz zvxuu wyz{t³/¸«¹¯ª«´º¯§² &D"¯º¿"²«¸±D$²«©º¯µ´¹D"»¶«¸º¯´µ$²«©º¯µ´2º§º¯¹º¯©¹ ªµ© 485 ORDINANCENO.132106 ANORDINANCEOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCUPERTINOMOVING THEDATEOFITSGENERALMUNICIPALELECTIONTOTHEFIRSTTUESDAY AFTERTHEFIRSTMONDAYINNOVEMBEROFEVENNUMBEREDYEARS BEGINNINGINNOVEMBER2014 WHEREAS,The"¯º¿¹generalmunicipalelection(hereinafter ,»´¯©¯¶§²$²«©º¯µ´! isnowheldinthemonthofNovemberofoddnumberedyearstocoincidewiththe uniformdistrictelections; WHEREAS,TheCitydesirestorescheduleitsMunicipalElectiontothefirst TuesdayafterthefirstMondayinNovemberofevennumberedyearstocoincidewiththe statewidegeneralelectionsbeginninginNovember2014;and WHEREAS,Byreschedulingthe"¯º¿¹MunicipalElection,theCitywillnotincrease ordecreaseanytermofofficebymorethan12months. NOW,THEREFORE,THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCUPERTINODOES HEREBYORDAINASFOLLOWS: Section1.PursuanttoSections1000and1301oftheCaliforniaElectionsCode,as ofNovember2014,the"¯º¿¹generalmunicipalelectionshallbemovedfromNovemberof oddnumberedyearstothefirstTuesdayafterthefirstMondayinNovemberofeven numberedyearstocoincidewiththestatewidegeneralelections. Section2.ThetermofanyelectedCityOfficeholderthatwouldhaveexpiredin November2013and2015shall,instead,expireinthesamemanner,butaftertheoccurrence oftheNovember2014and2016generalmunicipalelectionsestablishedbythisOrdinance. Section3.PursuanttoSection10403.5(e)oftheCaliforniaElectionsCode,within 30daysafterthisOrdinancebecomesoperative,theCityelectionsofficialshallcausenotice tobemailedtoallregisteredvotersinformingthevotersofthechangeintheelectiondate madebythisOrdinanceandthat,asaresultofthechangeinelectiondate,thetermsof officeofcurrentlyelectedCityOfficeholderswillbeextendedbynotmorethan12months. Section4.CodeAmendment.Section2.04.005oftheCupertinoMunicipalCodeis herebyamendedtoread: 2.04.005Elections. GeneralmunicipalelectionsshallbeheldonthefirstTuesdayafterthefirstMonday inNovemberofevennumberedyearstocoincidewiththestatewidegeneral«²«©º¯µ´¹ ! 486 Ordinance No. 13-2106 Page 2 Section5.Severability Ifanysection,subsection,subdivision,paragraph, sentence,clauseorphraseofthisOrdinance,oritsapplicationtoanypersonor circumstance,isforanyreasonheldtobeinvalidorunenforceable,suchinvalidityor unenforceabilityshallnotaffectthevalidityorenforceabilityoftheremainingsections, subsections,subdivisions,paragraphs,sentences,clausesorphrasesofthisOrdinance,orits applicationtoanyotherpersonorcircumstance.TheCityCounciloftheCityofCupertino herebydeclaresthatitwouldhaveadoptedeachsection,subsection,subdivision, paragraph,sentence,clauseorphrasehereof,irrespectiveofthefactthatanyoneormore othersections,subsections,subdivisions,paragraphs,sentences,clausesorphraseshereof bedeclaredinvalidorunenforceable. Section6.EffectiveDate.ThisOrdinanceshalltakeeffectuponitsapprovalby theSantaClaraCountyBoardofSupervisorsasprovidedbyCaliforniaElectionsCode Section1301(b)(1). CityClerkshallcertifytothepassageandadoptionof Section7.Certification. thisOrdinanceandshallcausethesametobepublishedinthemannerrequiredbylaw. TheCityManagershallforwardacopyofthisOrdinancetotheSantaClaraCountyBoard ofSupervisorswitharequestthatitbeapprovedpursuanttoCaliforniaElectionsCode Sections1301and10403.5. INTRODUCEDataregularmeetingoftheCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinothis19th dayofFebruary,2013,andENACTEDataregularmeetingoftheCityCounciloftheCity ofCupertinothis____dayof____,2013,bythefollowingvote: VoteMembersoftheCityCouncil AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:APPROVED: _________ GraceSchmidt,CityClerkOrrinMahoney,MayorCityofCupertino 97655.1 487