The URL can be used to link to this page

03-05-13 Searchable Packet Table of Contents Agenda3 Work Program Study Session Staff Report9 A - 2012-2013 Work Program with Status10 B - Proposed 2013-2014 Work Program28 Approve the February 19 City Council minutes Draft minutes32 Accept Accounts Payable for period ending February 1, 2013 Draft Resolution48 Accept Accounts Payable for period ending February 8, 2013 Draft Resolution57 Accept Accounts Payable for period ending February 15, 2013 Draft Resolution67 Approve the destruction of records from the Parks and Recreation (Senior Center, Quinlan Community Center, and Administration) departments Staff report78 A - Draft resolution79 Set the dates for the Teen Commission application deadlines and interviews Staff report92 Confirm the appointment of Don Sun to the Environmental Review Committee Staff Report93 Accept City Project, 2012 Pavement Maintenance Project, Project No. 2012-01 Staff Report94 A - 2012 Pavement Maintenance Street List95 Adopt the Addendum to the previously certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Findings of Fact regarding Single-Use Carryout Bags. Conduct second readings of a Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance and a Litter Enforcement Ordinance (continued from February 5) Staff Report96 A - Addendum to Final Program EIR99 B - Resolution Restating CEQA Findings of Fact for EIR and Approving Addendum and Findings of Fact120 C - Bag Ordinance adding Chapter 9.17 to the Cupertino Municipal Code193 D - Redline Bag Ordinance199 E - Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code205 Second reading of an ordinance providing an exception to allow off-leash professional dog services for City-authorized waterfow management at City Parks Staff Report210 1 A - Draft Ordinance212 B - Redline Version of Ordinance215 Second reading and enactment of an ordinance moving the date of the City's general municipal election to consolidate it with statewide general election commencing in November 2014 Staff report218 A - Draft ordinance220 B - Cupertino election statistics222 Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees (continue to March 19) No written materials in packet223 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 (continued from February 19) Staff Report224 A - Proposed scopes of work for the General Plan Amendment, Vallco Specific Plan, and EIRs230 B - Draft Contract with MIG321 C - Draft Contract with Planning Center361 D - General Plan Amendment Outline374 E - August 21, 2012 City Council report377 F - Minutes of the August 21, 2012 City Council meeting387 G - Map of properties in original staff report390 H - Map of properties whose owners have requested to be included391 I - Fair Share Weighting and Allocation392 J - General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Cost393 K - General Plan Payment Schedule and Applicant Share394 2 AGENDA CUPERTINOCITYCOUNCIL~SPECIALMEETING SUCCESSORTOTHEREDEVELOPMENTAGENCY~REGULARMEETING 10350TorreAvenue,CommunityHallCouncilChamber Tuesday,March5,2013 4:30PM CITYCOUNCILMEETING ROLLCALL K4:30PM STUDYSESSION 1.Subject:WorkProgramStudySession RecommendedAction:Reviewthe2012/2013and2013/2014WorkPrograms StaffReport A20122013WorkProgramwithStatus BProposed20132014WorkProgram Page:9 PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE K6:45PM ROLLCALL CEREMONIALMATTERSANDPRESENTATIONS POSTPONEMENTS KPostponeItemNo.13toMarch19 ORALCOMMUNICATIONS Thisportionofthemeetingisreservedforpersonswishingtoaddressthecouncilon anymatternotontheagenda.Speakersarelimitedtothree(3)minutes.Inmostcases, Statelawwillprohibitthecouncilfrommakinganydecisionswithrespecttoamatter notlistedontheagenda. 3 Tuesday,March5,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency CONSENTCALENDAR Unlessthereareseparatediscussionsand/oractionsrequestedbycouncil,staffora memberofthepublic,itisrequestedthatitemsundertheConsentCalendarbeactedon simultaneously. 2.Subject:ApprovetheFebruary19CityCouncilminutes :Approvetheminutes RecommendedAction Draftminutes Page:32 3.Subject:AcceptAccountsPayableforperiodendingFebruary1,2013 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13018acceptingAccountsPayable forperiodendingFebruary1,2013 DraftResolution Page:48 4.Subject:AcceptAccountsPayableforperiodendingFebruary8,2013 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13019acceptingAccountsPayable forperiodendingFebruary8,2013 DraftResolution Page:57 5.Subject:AcceptAccountsPayableforperiodendingFebruary15,2013 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13020acceptingAccountsPayable forperiodendingFebruary15,2013 DraftResolution Page:67 6.Subject:ApprovethedestructionofrecordsfromtheParksandRecreation(Senior Center,QuinlanCommunityCenter,andAdministration)departments RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13021approvingthedestructionof records Staffreport ADraftresolution :78 Page 4 Tuesday,March5,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency 7.Subject:SetthedatesfortheTeenCommissionapplicationdeadlinesandinterviews RecommendedAction:Staffrecommendsthefollowingdeadlines:1.)Applications dueintheCityClerksofficeonFriday,May10by4:30p.m.;and2.)Interviewsheld beginningat3:30PMonTuesday,May28andWednesday,May29(asneeded) Staffreport Page:92 8.Subject:ConfirmtheappointmentofDonSuntotheEnvironmentalReview Committee RecommendedAction:Confirmtheappointment Description:OnFebruary12,2013,thePlanningCommissionmadeitsannual recommendationsfortheselectionofamembertotheEnvironmentalReview Committee(ERC).InaccordancewithCityofCupertinoMunicipalCode,theCity Councilshallreviewandaffirmtheselection.TherecommendationisDonSun StaffReport Page:93 9.Subject:AcceptCityProject,2012PavementMaintenanceProject,ProjectNo.2012 01 RecommendedAction:AcceptProjectNo.201201 StaffReport A2012PavementMaintenanceStreetList Page:94 SECONDREADINGOFORDINANCES :AdopttheAddendumtothepreviouslycertifiedFinalProgram 10.Subject EnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR)andFindingsofFactregardingSingleUse CarryoutBags.ConductsecondreadingsofaSingleUseCarryoutBagOrdinance andaLitterEnforcementOrdinance(continuedfromFebruary5) 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 5 Tuesday,March5,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency managementandantilitterenforcementinconjunctionwiththe"¯º¿¹Stormwater Permit StaffReport AAddendumtoFinalProgramEIR BResolutionRestatingCEQAFindingsofFactforEIRandApprovingAddendum andFindingsofFact CBagOrdinanceaddingChapter9.17totheCupertinoMunicipalCode DRedlineBagOrdinance EOrdinanceAmendingChapter9.18oftheCupertinoMunicipalCode Page:96 11.Subject:Secondreadingofanordinanceprovidinganexceptiontoallowoffleash professionaldogservicesforCityauthorizedwaterfowlmanagementatCityParks RecommendedAction:ConductthesecondreadingandenactOrdinanceNo.13 2105:AnordinanceoftheCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinoamendingsections 8.03.010and13.04.130(d)oftheCupertinoMunicipalCodetoallowforwaterfowl managementbyaddinganoffleashdogexceptionforCityauthorizedeventsand programs StaffReport ADraftOrdinance BRedlineVersionofOrdinance Page:210 12.Subject:Secondreadingandenactmentofanordinancemovingthedateofthe Citysgeneralmunicipalelectiontoconsolidateitwiththestatewidegeneralelection commencinginNovember2014 RecommendedAction:ConductthesecondreadingofOrdinanceNo.132106:An OrdinanceoftheCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinomovingthedateofits generalmunicipalelectiontothefirstTuesdayafterthefirstMondayinNovember ofevennumberedyearsbeginninginNovember2014 Description: Staffreport ADraftordinance BCupertinoelectionstatistics Page:218 6 Tuesday,March5,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency PUBLICHEARINGS 13.Subject:MunicipalCodeAmendmenttoChapter14.18,ProtectedTrees(continueto March19) RecommendedAction:ContinuetoMarch19 Description:ApplicationNo.(s):MCA201202;Applicant:CityofCupertino; Location:citywide;MunicipalCodeAmendmenttoChapter14.18,ProtectedTrees andreviewforfuturepotentialamendments Nowrittenmaterialsinpacket Page:223 ORDINANCESANDACTIONITEMS 14.Subject:UpdateontheGeneralPlanAmendmentprocess,Councilauthorizationfor abudgetamendmenttoadd$150,507tothebudgetfortheGeneralPlan Amendmentprocess,andapprovalofcontractswithMIGastheplanningconsultant andThePlanningCenter/DC&Eastheenvironmentalconsultant(continuedfrom February19) 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 7 Tuesday,March5,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency StaffReport AProposedscopesofworkfortheGeneralPlanAmendment,VallcoSpecificPlan, andEIRs BDraftContractwithMIG CDraftContractwithPlanningCenter DGeneralPlanAmendmentOutline EAugust21,2012CityCouncilreport FMinutesoftheAugust21,2012CityCouncilmeeting GMapofpropertiesinoriginalstaffreport HMapofpropertieswhoseownershaverequestedtobeincluded IFairShareWeightingandAllocation JGeneralPlanAmendmentandSpecificPlanCost KGeneralPlanPaymentScheduleandApplicantShare Page:224 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. 8 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL 1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:March 5, 2013 Subject Work Program Study Session. Recommended Action Review the2012/2013and 2013/2014Work Programs. Discussion The City Work Program represents the major initiatives the City achieve during the coming fiscal year. It is an important part of the budget pr guides a significant part of the expenditure plan which is integratedinto the annual budget. Commonly, city work programscan evolve into a more detailed inventory of city activitiesincluding a variety of minor projects and ongoing city functions important to resist this trend as it can frequently mask the City Councils true priorities and limitthe usefulness of the Work Programas a budget tool. Staff has attached two exhibits to this report. The first exhibit is the status report on the progress toward thecompletion ofthe Work Program activities adopted by the City Council last fiscal year. The second exhibit is the proposed Work Programfor the upcoming 2013/2014 fiscal year. The proposed Work Programincludes a number of brand new initiatives and projects as well as a number of items which are being carried over from last years Work Programbecause those items have not been completed. The new Work Program intentionally does not include those items on the status report which are ongoing programs. It ispresumed that ongoing programs will continue to be resourced at levels consistent with prior year levelsof effort unless specifically identified in the report. Completed items are also not carried _____________________________________ Submittedby:David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A 2012-2013 Work Programwith Status B Proposed 2013-2014 Work Program 9 Status of 2012/2013City Council Work Program ProjectStatus 1. Major Developments (for a full list of development activity go to www.cupertino.org/developmentactivity A.Apple Apple has submitted plans for the development of an R&D Continue to process the development campus in the N-E part of the City. The project area entitlement application for decision in generally encompasses the properties between I-280, N. Fall of 2013. Tantau Ave, Homestead Road and N. Wolfe Road. The project also includes properties on the east side of N. Tantau Ave between Pruneridge Avenueand I-280 and three parcels to the north-east of the intersection of Pruneridge Avenueand N. Tantau Avenue. Environmental Review of the proposed project is currently underway. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is anticipated to be releasedin Spring/Early Summerof 2013 with Council review of development application anticipated in Fall of 2013. B.Vallco Mall(Cupertino Square) Owners of Vallco Mallare pursuing the private Vallco Mall Area is revitalization of the center as follows:with the area considered for General Plan 1.Periodic updates to City Council from Amendment increase in development property owners.allocation. Bay Club –approximately 67,000 square feet adjacent to the Sears space.Currently occupied. 2.Periodic reports regarding development Proposed Specific Plan is on hold pending Retail adjacent to J.C. Penney’s –43,000+ square feet approvals.agreement of the majority of of multi-tenant retail space facing Wolfe Road and ownersto participate. Vallco Parkway, adjacent to the new garage. 3.Adherence, if possible, to artist renderings presented to Council. The developer has put the plans for the J.C. Penney’s retail frontage on hold until the economy improves. 4.Analyze the impacts of the development agreement's expiration. On February 1, 2012, Redevelopment Agencies were dissolved. The Vallco area is no longer a Redevelopment Area. In August 2011, the Vallco Farmer’s Market moved from the Sears parking lot to the northern J.C. Penney’s parking lot. 10 Status of 2012/2013City Council Work Program ProjectStatus C. Sand Hill Properties Site City Council approved the original Master Use Permit, Staff to monitor project through the (Main Street Project) Architectural & Site Approval, Tentative Map, Tree construction process to ensure adherence Removal Permit, and EIR on January 20, 2009.SandHill with conditions of approval. was granted approval by City Council to modify its project entitlements in September of 2012. Architectural and Site approval for the hotel was approved by the Council in January 2013. The applicant is finalizinginfrastructure plans in order to submit a complete application for the Architecturaland Site approval for the remaining buildings. D. The Oaks City Council approveda Use Permit, Architectural & Site Project approvals and Tentative Mapapplicationsto construct a retail/hotel of 2014. project on September 2, 2008. City Council approved the Use Permit Modification for a limited number of late evening commercial entertainment establishments and live entertainment activities on November 16, 2010. AFarmer’s Market along the Highway 85 sound wall was approved by the Planning Commission on April 26, 2011 to open on Sundays from 9amto 1 pm. The market began operations on October 1, 2011. Council has approved a four story 122-room hotel, and a 3- story, 56,200 square foot mixed use building with retail, office, and banquet uses. The Use Permit and Architectural and Site approvals expiredon September 2, 2012. The applicant received a 2-year extension for the project in 11 Status of 2012/2013City Council Work Program ProjectStatus September 2012. E. Rose Bowl and Out-parcels RoseBowl project KCR/Evershine, the new owner of the Rose Bowl, has developed slightly modified plans with 204 residential Development of the out units and 60,000 sq. ft. of retail. pending GPA process. KCR has applied for a building permit for the superstructure. The permit was issued in December 2012. The outparcel behind Macy’s was bought by the Simeon Group in 2011/12. F.Aloft CupertinoHotel A 138-room, five-story hotel was approved inJanuary 2009.Project is In 2010, the project was given approval for a modification to reduce the size to 123 rooms and four stories,and an extension to the use permit untilJanuary2012. The hotel received an occupancy permit in December 2012. G. Embarcadero Park/Results Way On 7/21/09, the City Council approved the applicant’s Apple, Inc. has leased the vacant space at (Former Measurex site) request to extend the expiration date by fiveyears to allow the Results Way office park and will also phasing of construction, clarify conditions approval, and take over Arcsi modify the traffic and signal improvement condition.of seven years Redevelopment of the site by the owner has been put on hold. Three new office buildings totaling 155,500 sq. ft. Demolish five buildings totaling 139,632 sq. ft. Approved Sept. 2008, the extended expiration date is July 21, 2014. 12 Status of 2012/2013City Council Work Program ProjectStatus Arcsight, one of the existing tenants, was acquired by HP in September 2010 and was moved to Sunnyvale in 2012. H. Cupertino Crossroads Façade and site improvements for a new TJMaxx,Project construction nearing completion Homegoods and Party City store to replace the Mervyn’s is partially open. space were approved by the Planning Commission in April 2011. The City Council approved two new retail/restaurant building pads at the Crossroads Shopping Center in November 2011. The Islands restaurant project consists of the demolition of the Marie Calendar’s building (4,930 sq. ft.) and the construction of a 5,086 sq. ft. building for Island’s Restaurant, as well as an 8,011 sq. ft. building for three future retail/eating establishment tenants. Islands restaurant, received a use permits for a bar and late night usein March 2012. The building pad to the east of the TJ Maxx store is in construction and isexpected to open in Spring/Summer 2013. I. Prometheus/Biltmore Adjacency Prometheus submitted plans for a new multi-family Demolition of existing improvements residential project with a commercial frontage.The project underway and construction should begin in was approved by City Council in September of 2012.the spring/summer of 2013. J. Apple Cafeteria Apple has submitted plans for a new cafeteria to serve The project is under construction. employeesat the Tomokazu Restaurantsite located on the northeast corner of Bandley and Alves Drives. 13 Status of 2012/2013City Council Work Program ProjectStatus 2. Capital Improvements and Plans A.Parks The City Council revieweddesign elements, funding and Project sch authorized grant applications for Stevens Creek Corridor May(Spring?) 1.Stevens Creek Corridor ParkPhase 2:Park and Restoration Phase 2 in January, March, April and Completion of trail to Stevens Creek Blvd.May 2011. including restoration of the creek along the golf course The Phase 2 Project generally consists of extending the trail from its current temporary end point at the northern end of the Blackberry Farm parking lot, along the east side of the creek adjacent to the eighth green of the golf course to a new bridge, then to the west side of Stevens Creek through the Stocklmeir Orchard, past the Stocklmeir house and ending at the Blue Pheasant parking lot. It also includes restoring the creek channel along the east bank, encroaching moderately onto the golf course and relocating the existing sanitary line under the ninth fairway for approximately 700 feet. 2.Lawrence –Mitty ParkSanta Clara County Department of Roads and Airports owns Project is on hold pending and appraisal of a. Work with County to come up with a parcel west of Lawrence Expressway currently used as a thevalue of the City’s interest in the water a plan to move the County Roads materials storage site. County Parks has received Board of system and/or additional funding for the and Airports activity off the site Supervisors approval for the San Tomas Aquino trail master acquisition of the “swap” site. and develop a parkplan, which identifies this site as greenbelt.Appraised value of the propertyis $1.880 million. Staff has approached the San Jose Water Company about the potential for acquiring land immediately adjacent to the Roads & Airports corporation yard at Doyle, east Lawrence Expressway, and exchanging it with the County for the Park site. County has expressed interest in the swap and San Jose Water would sell the exchange property to the City for approximately $2 million in cash or for an increased lease term for the City’s water system. 14 Status of 2012/2013City Council Work Program ProjectStatus b. Pursue GrantsStaff is working to obtain grant funding for acquisition and design and construction. However the current State budget crisis continues to pose a challenge funding of any kind. 3.Traffic Management Studies –3This study, included inthe 2012-13 CIP, is underway and Studies are currently underway and Intersectionscommunity meetings have begun.expected to be complete around the end of FY 2012- Stevens Creek/Tantau Stevens Creek/Vista 4.Review plans for Simms and Stocklmeir McClellan Ranch Master Plan was approved in April of The future use of the Stocklmeir property and consider including in the CIP.2012. Several projects are moving forward, most will be revisited once the Stevens Creek Complete McClellan Ranch Master Plan.importantly the Environmental Education Center and the Corridor Park Phase 2 is complete. Outdoor Gathering Shelter. 5.Support the four city task force The four cities adjacent to Stevens Creek, Cupertino, Provide staff support for the planning investigating possible Stevens Creek Sunnyvale, Los Altos, and Mountain View have formed a process and bring the Task Force’s Trail alignment.task forceto develop a route for the Stevens Creek Trail recommendations to City Council for its between Cupertino and Mountain View. Through the task review. force, the four citieshireda consultant to work with community to develop trail alignment alternatives. The consultant is in the process of engaging the public in discussions of potential alignments through each of the participating jurisdictions. 15 Status of 2012/2013City Council Work Program ProjectStatus B.Provide report on Pavement Annual report to include multi-year preventative Report scheduled for City Council in May Management annually in May. maintenance strategy that balances available funds with 2013. prioritized needs. C.Investigate additional parking Prepare a proposal for a Council received a presentation on theCivic Center Master opportunities around Civic Center. pursued in 2013 Planframework in December 2012,and showed preference financing strategies. to the alternative with a new City Hall and Community Building, with underground parking. D.Develop Trash Plan as part of City’s Staff is preparing an ordinance regulating Council adopted Plastic Bag Ban and Anti-Litter Ordinance. Municipal Regional Storm Water polystyrene packaging for City Council Permit consideration later in 2013 and will be including a phased program for trash screens for storm drains in commercial areas in the FY 2014 Budget. E.Annual Forestry Workplan Citywill continue with the second phase of A new ordinance requirement to develop annual public tree the street tree planting program. workplan that focuses on asset inventory, conditions, and set standards for their care. Establishes goals and objectives to promote healthy trees through City. Staff prepared an inventory of allexisting street trees and attached QR Code tags to each tree so the public could access the program through the City’s web site. City council adopted a phased program to plant1,400 new street trees City Wide. The first phase,400trees, wasplanted in FY 2013. 16 Status of 2012/2013City Council Work Program ProjectStatus 3. Organizational Improvements A.E-Services City has transitioned to paperless agendas with the The City will continue to develop mobile introduction of iPads. City has developed restaurant and applications including a comprehensive City 1.Bring City Hall to the customer and improve street treemobile applicationsfor public use. City has application modeled after Ranc efficiency of service delivery.upgraded its records management system and through a Cucamonga’s popular RC2GO App. digital records management program and an integrated documentand video-streaming program, all users have City will also continue to explore web site access to all public document and video records.applications which will increa transparency of City programs and The City has also completed the following applications:operations, such as an interactive “budget game” Comply with new credit card security rulings. (PCI City will move towards digital pap compliance) plan an application submittal process for the Pavement Management on web. Community Development Department Code Enforcement tracking system. On-line building permits for minor projects. City will implement technology to permit Building permit searches from our database for 1997 virtual desktop/VPN, to facilitate forward. productivity for employees off Permit Tracking System -On February 21, 2012, the Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract with CSI Magnet andAvolve Software Corporation. 17 Status of 2012/2013City Council Work Program ProjectStatus B. Review of the development application Matrix Consulting Group completed the study on November Internal improvements to date: process.5, 2009.Staff report submitted to Council on December 3, Open counter (Building, Planning, 2009. Public Works) at lunchtime Rev The Council considered the item in May 2010 and directed revisions to simplify and improve staff to organize community focus group meetings. City readability Council reviewed the item on February 15, 2011and Flowchart directed staff to initiateOrdinanceamendments to simplify approval authority and improve readability and consistency Staff is also working on implementation of in accordance with the recommendations. The City Council the on-line permitting system. also directed staff to begin a separate project to include a expected to be rolled out in limited review of the R1 ordinance related to notification, story poles and design review. The Planning Commission reviewed proposed Municipal Code Amendments and the Public Engagement Policy at its March 22, 2011 and April 5, 2011 meetings and recommended minor amendments. The Council adopted the Municipal Code Amendments and the Public Engagement Policy in November2011. In March 2012, the Council authorized implementation of an on-line permitting process for Building, Planning, Public Works and Business License permits. C. Fiscal Strategic Plan Committee will meet during March and Aprilto recommend The Fiscal Strategic Planning The Plan:revenue, expenditure and reserve policy opportunities for Ongoing the 2013/14 budget. Committee recommendations are preparation. defines the financial problem included in the budget plan and implemented. analyzes the structure of the organization identifies opportunities for decreasing expenses and areas of risk exposure identifies opportunities for stabilizing our revenue resources adopted each year in conjunction with the annual budget 18 Status of 2012/2013City Council Work Program ProjectStatus D. Analyze and pursue opportunities to expand Citycontracted with AT&T to increasedatabandwidth to Expansion of the City’s fiber network City Hall, Quinlan and City Attorney’s Office. Staff willQuinlan Center will be identified as a CIP identifythe cost of expanding the city's fiber network to the project. Quinlan Centerfor video support. 4. Public Safety A.Neighborhood Watch Ongoing Program Currently have210active Neighborhood Watch Leaders Continue emphasis on Neighborhood Watch supporting groups. Participated in City orientation of CERT graduates to connect them with Outreach programs in City. SupportedBlock Leader trainings, Fall Festival, Earth Day,National Night Outand citywide disaster drill. Publish weekly crime report (Ecap) and distribute to approximately 1,500 subscribers. B.Emergency Preparedness Provide ongoing training in various areas of disaster Ongoing program 1.Continue emphasis on Emergency preparedness. Response (ER) and PreparednessCoordinate Community Corp programs. CARES, CERT, MRC training and Organize and conduct citywide disaster drills. projects. 2.Work with schools and staff for Active SROs conduct Code Red Training and Drills at 14 schools Ongoing program Shooter preparednessin Cupertino. 3.Bicycle Safety Presentations to studentsBicycle Safety presentations made to students to help Ongoing program understand the rules pertaining to bicyclists. 4.Update the Stevens Creek Reservoir dam Disaster Council adopted the Dam Failure Plan in 2012.Dam Failure failure evacuation planCity Council Reviewed the plan the same year.2013 Annual Disaster Preparation Program 5.Disaster Recovery PlanIn order to address the lack of cell phone coverage in the In Progress. In order to address poor cell Civic Center and the EOC, staff is soliciting estimates for phone coverage, staff will seek direction a distributed antenna system that would allow the city to from Council on whether they wish to address coverage assures without having to wait for pursue a cell tower lease with a private commercial carriers to install antenna in the immediate provider or purchase and install a 19 Status of 2012/2013City Council Work Program ProjectStatus vicinitydistributed antenna 6.Local Hazardous Material Annex PlanComplete and approved by City Council. 7.FUHSD Evacuation Memorandum of Complete and approve Understanding3/6/12 C. Traffic Safety Ensure that the concept is present in all 1.Walkability:Implement “walkable city” City development/redevelopment projects. concept. 2.Review traffic safety issues around The Sheriff’s Office, the City, the School District, and the Ongoing programs. schoolsresidents implemented a four month pilot project at Monta Vista, Kennedy, and Lincoln involving deputies on over a.Traffic Improvements around time and additional crossing guards. The program is now an Schoolsongoing partnership. Partners continue to examine other alternatives to reduce congestion. Some improvement to the traffic conditions has been observed. The issue is reviewed quarterly with the members of the Mayor’s ad hoc committee of school officials. After a successful Walk One Week (WOW) in April 2010, the Teen Commission decidedto have WOW in November 2010 and April 2011 and April 2012. The Teen commission b.Walk One Week (WOW) voted to have another Event in 2013. 3.Provide pedestrian ramps at required City is currently meeting its obligations under its ADA Ongoing program. intersectionsTransition Plan. D. Non-City Projects In process. Managed by the Santa Clara Valley Water No further action. 1.Monitor the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Project was approved by the SCVWD Board and District’s flood control basin project at construction drawings are under courtesy staff review. Rancho San AntonioExcavated soils will be trucked to Lehigh Quarry, avoiding almost all diesel truck circulation impacts on Cupertino neighbors. 20 Status of 2012/2013City Council Work Program ProjectStatus 2.Monitor the Lehigh reclamation/In 2009, Stevens Creek Elementary School wasmonitored During EPA’s monitoring period, levels expansion project.by the EPA for hexavalent chromium.ofhexavalent chromium school were below levels of concern for The County of Santa Clara completed and the Board of short-term and long Supervisors approved the final consolidated Reclamation Plan Amendmentrelating to Lehigh Southwest and its constituent cement plant and quarry. City Council authorized a contribution to Los Altos/Los Altos Hills Quarry Air Emissions Mitigation Study. 21 Status of 2012/2013City Council Work Program ProjectStatus 5. Housing A.Provide housing opportunities for The General Plan update and Housing Element identified City will evaluate the feasibility of Cupertino workers sites for additional housing units.developing a “Teacher Housing” project in partnership with a non B.Cleo Avenue Affordable Housing Project is occupied.No further action. C.BMR Manual Update A draft of the Housing Mitigation manual was completed in Staff will bring the revised manual to the early 2010.The revised manual containschanges to the City Council in conjunction with the next BMR program required to address the outcome of the revision of the Housing Element in 2014 Palmer vs. the City of Los Angeles case,which ruled that along with a revised BMR Nexus Study. cities are unable to require BMR units in rental developments,incorporates the program changes adopted by Council in 2007 and includes amendments necessary to ensure the program is consistent with the recently adopted Housing Element. The Housing Commission found the existing mitigation fees are insufficient to offset the impacts of development and recommended increasing housing fees for non-residential developments, including commercial development and residential developments that are too small (6 or fewer units) to require a BMR unit. The current fee structure was approved in 2007. 22 Status of 2012/2013City Council Work Program ProjectStatus 6. Economic Development/Redevelopment A.Encourage, retain andsupport healthy City hired a new part-time Economic Development Manager Ongoing environment for retail growth in 2012. The Economic Development Committee is meeting regularly and providing input on theeconomic development work plan. Active outreach to landlords and brokers to facilitate re- tenanting, and theleasing of new mixed use space continues. B.Consider retail in reviewing new Advise on/facilitate new development projects.Ongoing development 23 Status of 2012/2013City Council Work Program ProjectStatus 7. Planning A.Review the Heart of the City Amendments to the Heart of the City Specific Plan were It is anticipated that a new round of effective February 16, 2012Theamendments involved Amendments to the Heart of The City SP clarifications to language and the land use/zoning of will need to occur following the proposed particular sitesin the Heart of the City Specific Plan.amendment to the General Plan to facilitate increased commercial development allotments. B.Prepare a historic preservation policy The City Council reviewed and approved the recommended Complete. changes to the General Plan with regards to historic preservation policies on June 1, 2010. C.Update the General Plan Housing The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed a The plan Element final draft of the Housing Element in March and April 2010 revision is scheduled for 2014. respectively. The final adopted Housing Element was then forwarded to HCD in late April 2010. The City received a letter from HCD dated June 24, 2010 stating the City of Cupertino’s Housing Element was in compliance with State law. D.Review of single family residential Complete.No further action at this time. standards/requirementsfor: Lots sloped 15% to 30% Two Story Design Review Notice Boards/Story Poles Public noticing General consistency and readability 24 Status of 2012/2013City Council Work Program ProjectStatus 8. Building Community A.Continue to offer opportunities and Neighborhood block leader program supportsapproximatelyThe Block Leader Program is an programs to promote cultural 350leaders.activity. understanding and address the needs of our diverse community City will expand and leverage the Neighborhood Block Leader Program by utilizing Block Leaders to provide “grass roots” notification to neighborhoods of potentially controversial Community Development and/or Public Works activities. B.Leadership 95014 The program kickedoff its third year with a two day retreat While participants have given the program in September 2012. There are currently 9participants. generally positive reviews, participation rates have fallen Leadership 95014 received Cityfunding for 2012/13.tuition cost. Staff will review the program to determine whether it can be continued in a cost effective manner. 25 Status of 2012/2013City Council Work Program ProjectStatus 9. Community Organizations A.Support the Cupertino Historical Society Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission met with in its effort to create a Center for Living the Historical Society to define a projectthata majority of History the Cupertino Historical Society Board will endorse. Cupertino Historical Society is no longer pursuing the Center for Living Historyor the Stocklmeir project. B.Pursue partnership opportunities with the See 4.C.2(Public Safety) three school districts: 1.Traffic and parkingSee 4.C.2 (Public Safety) 2.Teacher housingSee Section 5.A(Housing) 3.School Resource OfficersFunded second SRO in FY 2012/13withCOPS grant from Ongoing the State. 4.Juvenile Intervention ProgramContractingwith Linda Rios for Outreach ServicesOngoing 5.RecyclingDe Anza/City recycling program –the City gives De Anza Ongoing used computers and De Anza refurbishes them. 6.SummerSchool ProgramWorkedin partnership with FUHSD to provide summer Ongoing schoolin 2009.Program expanded in 2010.Program will be expanded and continued in 2012and 2013. 7.Placement of Arks (emergencyArks are currently located at Garden Gate, Lawson,Hyde No further action. supplies) at school sites.and De Anza College with a cooperative agreement with the schools for mutual use & storage of supplies. Each Ark costs approximately $10,000 to purchase equipment. Staff will continue to look for additional school sites that can accommodate and support these Arks. 26 Status of 2012/2013City Council Work Program ProjectStatus 10. Go Green A.Develop Sustainability Compliance GHG Inventories Achieve AB32 Local Targets : Programs both a Municipal & Co Complete Municipal Greenhouse Gas (GHG) o Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. Emissions Inventory Complete Communitywide GHG Emissions Inventory o Climate Action Plan Set a municipal & community GHG reduction goals o local jurisdictions to create a Climate Develop a Climate Action Plan (see below) o Action Plan template to leverage grant Adhere to updated CEQA Guidelines: resources to cover the cost of developing BAAQMD set “Thresholds of Significance” for plans o this report and monitoring tool. (i.e. General Plan Updates) to be addressed in a GHG Action Plan is a required element in the next Reduction Strategy (i.e. Climate Action Plan) Gen. Plan update. Climate Action Plan for Council approval in Green Building Ordinance –City Council adopted a Green FY 2014. Building Ordinance in September of 2012. B.Look for ways to become more resource To achieve utility and financial savings, staff have designed Energy Service Agreement Update efficient. and implemented over a dozen local, regional and statewide street light project is 100% complete. Work efforts including but not limited to:on irrigation controllers has also been completed. Water Efficient Landscaping Utility Accounting Ordinance -Completed Action Plan Project (above), staff is working Energy Service Agreement to utilize a tool that will enable better Utility Accounting monitoring and tracking of municipal utility Report on business case for solar on city facilities consumption. presented to City Council in February 2013 Report on possibility of utilizing aggregate net Renewable Energy Procurement metering amongcity facilities directed staff to review financing options for a solar installation at explore partnering with the Library District for a roof top installation on the Library Building. 27 Proposed FY 2013-2014 City of Cupertino Work Plan City Managers Office Communications 1)Expand and integrate Block Leader Program with Neighborhood Watc Disaster Preparedness. 2)Utilize Block Leader Program to provide grass roots notificati residents of potentially controversial community development and works projects. 3)Explore and develop new on-line/mobile applications to better inform and engage the public on civic issues. a.Generalized City mobile portal similar to Rancho Cucamongas RC2GO b.On-line Interactive Budget Game 4)Develop a strategy for improving cell phone coverage in the Civi (with PW). 5) Examine costs of extending video services via fiber to the Quinl Economic Development 1)Streamline city web content for new businesses (Small Business Workshop follow-up). 2) How to Start a Businessin Cupertino pamphlet (in multiple languages). 3) Seminars for new small businesses (held in multiple languages). 4) Increased coordination with the Chamber of Commerce. 5) Launch a Shop Local campaign. 6) Enhance business access to city services including GreenBiz and preparedness. 1 28 Environmental Strategies 1)Develop a Plan for financing and implementing solar generation a Service Center and exploring a partnership with the Library District for solar installation on the Library Building (with PW). 2) Prepare a Climate Action Plan as required by State law. 3) Fully develop the utility costs accounting program. 4) Review procurement and fleet management policies for best environmental practices. 5) Expand Growing Green Blocks program to include sustainability resilience activities. Community Development Department 1)Consider a General Plan Amendment to increase commercial development allocations and associated development standards. a. Amend Zoning Code and Heart of the City Specific Plan to conform to General Plan Amendment and respond to City Council concerns 2)Consider an amendment to the General Plan Housing Element to accommodate the most recent ABAG housing allocation. 3) Implement paperless permit application system. 4) Update Below Market Rate Housing Manual and Nexus Study. 5) Evaluate a Teacher Housing project in partnership with a non-profit developer. 6) Revise Private Tree Ordinance (to streamline process and eliminate disincentives). Public Works Department 1) Prepare Sidewalk Plan. a.Review ADA Transition Plan provisions b.Review Municipal Code provisions related to sidewalk improvements c.Consider Safe Routes to School and other funding sources 2 29 2)Implement programs to preserve and enhance pavement conditions throughout the City. 3)Continue to develop and implement measures and policies to compl the new requirements of the Citys stormwater discharge permit. 4) Review Fleet Management policies. a.Update Managed Vehicle Replacement Program i.Consider complete lifecycle costs ii.Evaluate vehicle/equipment sharing with other agencies 5) Develop Civic Center Plan. b.Financing Plan c.Solar/alternative energy options 6) Implement major CIP projects. d.Environmental Education Center e.Steven Creek Phase II f.Black Berry Farm Golf Course irrigation 7) Participate in Stevens Creek Trail planning process. Parks and Recreation Department 1) Prepare Blackberry Farm Master Plan (including Blue Pheasant Res 2) Resolve the Simms House issue since the lease is coming due, do lease or demolish the house per the McClellan Preserve Master Pl 3) Resolve the Sports Center leaning retaining wall issue. 4) Explore the potential for expanding Blackberry Farm operations. 5) Restart the Stocklmeir Task Force for discussion on a legacy far since creek restoration work and trail building will be done in 013-2014. 6) Replace the recreation registration software with a cloud-based software version to be accessed at any City facility. 7) Install a splash pad at Blackberry Farm pool area. Administrative Services Department 1)Restructure the budget process and document to increase transparency. 2)Negotiate long term (three year plus) contracts that are fair, f sustainable and competitive in the local labor market. 3 30 3) Implement a back to work/modified duty policy. 4) Pursue legislation to correct our TEA/ERAF inequity allocations. 5) Negotiate a new agreement with the SCC Sheriff and assist in the to possibly relocate the Sheriff substation. 6) Replace the Citys obsolete financial software. 7) Implement Virtual Desktop or Virtual Private Network softwa 8) Implement a new Technology Plan. 4 31 DRAFTMINUTES CUPERTINOCITYCOUNCIL SpecialMeeting Tuesday,February19,2013 CITYCOUNCILMEETING ROLLCALL At5:07p.m.MayorOrrinMahoneycalledtheSpecialCityCouncilmeetingtoorder. Present:MayorOrrinMahoney,andCouncilmembersBarryChang,MarkSantoro,and RodSink.Absent:ViceMayorGilbertWong. STUDYSESSION 1.Subject:PresentsolarfeasibilitystudyfindingsfortheCivicCenterandService Center(CorporationYard)andprovidedirectiontostaff RecommendedAction:Receivereportandprovidedirectiononpursuinga municipalsolarinstallation.IftheCouncildesirestopursueasolarinstallation, providedirectiononwhichfacility(s)shouldbeincludedandwhethertousea capitalfinancingplanorapowerpurchaseagreementstrategy.Providefurther directiononwhethertoenterintoaMemorandumofUnderstanding(MOU) betweentheCityofCupertinoandtheCountyofAlamedafortheRegional RenewableEnergyProcurementProject(RREP) WrittencommunicationsforthisitemincludedastaffPowerPointpresentation. CapitalImprovementProgramManagerKatyJensenintroducedSustainability ManagerErinCookeandOptonySeniorVicePresidentBenjaminFoster,reviewed thestaffreportviaaPowerPointpresentation,andhighlightedthefollowing information:ProjectBackground,FeasibilityStudyIntroduction,ReportFindingsfor theCivicCenter,ReportFindingsfortheServiceCenter,FinancingOptions,and RelevantRegulatoryPrograms;PursuingasolarinstallationattheCivicCenteror ServiceCenterorboth;Availablefinancingmechanismsofacapitalfinancing 32 Tuesday,February19,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency programorasolarpowerpurchaseagreement,andJoiningtheAlamedaCountyR REPbyMemorandumofUnderstanding. OptonySeniorVicePresidentBenjaminFosterexplainedthataVirtualNetMetering programwasauthorizedthruPG&Eandisineffect,butitwouldnotyieldanet savingstotheCityunderthecurrentcoststructureforsolar.Headdedthatthe incrementalvalueearnedfromoverproductionisroughlyhalfofwhatthe productionwouldbeworthonsite,andhalfofthatvaluewouldbegivenawayto PG&E.HesaidnewlegislationandanewPublicUtilitiesCommissionratemaking processthatwouldmakeitmoreequitableisacoupleofyearsaway,butthestudy providesanopportunityforwhenitbecomesavailableandwhatcanbedonetoday foranetbenefittotheCity. GaryLatshaw,representingCoolCitiesinCupertino,saidclimatechangeisvery seriousandthathesentanemailtoCouncilwithalinkfromtheAcademyof Sciencesofferingadviceonthesciences.Hesaidthatthetotalcostforrenewable energyislessthanfossilfuelsbutthereareupfrontcoststoinstallthecapital equipment.Henotedthatthebenefitswouldriseonceinstalledandthetotalenergy requirementsforournationisrelatedtowarsandmilitarycosts.HeaskedCouncil toapprovetheminimuminstallations. JenniferGriffinsaidthataddingsolartotheLibraryparkinglot,QuinlanCommunity Center,andtheServiceCenterwasheardtwoyearsandshethoughtithadbeen voteddownthen.Sheaddedthatsolarpowerisgoodinappropriateplacesanda viablealternative,butisaproblemwhentreesarecutdownintheparkinglotsand theBioswaleremoved.ShesaidtreeswereaddedwhenthenewLibrarywasbuilt anditwouldwasteº§¾¶§¿«¸¹moneytocutthemdown.Shenotedthatchildrenplay alongthetrees,thetreesprovideshade,andfrogsliveintheBioswale.Sheasked Counciltoprotectthetreesifsolarisadded. MarkFink,CupertinoLibrarian,saidtheSantaClaraCountyLibraryDistricthas madeanarrangementwiththeCityofGilroytoaddsolarpanelstotheLibraryand wouldalsoaddthemtotheLibraryDistrictadministrationbuilding.Headdedthat theLibraryspends$150,000inenergycostseachyearandthemoneycouldbere allocatedandsavetaxpayersmoney.HesaidtheLibraryDistrictisinterestedin lookingforwaystoaddsolarenergyandsuggestedanarrangementwiththeCityto makethathappen. 33 Tuesday,February19,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency Councilgavethefollowingdirectiontostaff: TherewasoverallsupporttojointheCountyof ²§³«ª§¹RegionalRenewable EnergyProcurementProject(RREP)byincludingthefollowingCitysites:(1)City Hall:evaluateothersiteoptionsfortheCivicCenterincludingsolarinstallations amongthewalkwaystructurebetweentheLibraryandCityHallandaroofmounted installationatCommunityHall,ifitisdeemedcosteffectiveandtheroofcan accommodateadditionalload;considersolarcarportsandalternativeparking structuresincludingtheadditionofatwostoryparkingstructureabovetheLibrary parkinglotwithroofmountedsolarpanelsthatwouldnotimpacttheMasterPlan;in allscenarios,minimizedisruptionstotheparkinglottreecanopyandtreeline adjacenttotheLibrarypark;exploreanddiscussfinancialoptionstosupportthe additionofroofmountedsolarpanelswiththeLibraryDistrict;exploretheaddition ofameterwithintheCivicCenterPlazatoshowcaseonsitesolarenergygenerated andsiteenergysavingsasaneducationaltool;(2)ServiceCenter:reviewadditional datatoevaluatefinancingoptionsforpurchasingtheequipment;pursuean installationattheServiceCenter(CorporationYard)andinvestigaterightsizingthe solarsystemtooffsettheenergyusageattheMaryAvenueBridgesite. Councilrecessedfrom6:36p.m.to7:00p.m. PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE At7:00p.m.MayorOrrinMahoneyreconvenedtheSpecialCityCouncilmeetingand ledthePledgeofAllegiance. ROLLCALL Present:MayorOrrinMahoney,ViceMayorGilbertWong,andCouncilmembersBarry Chang,MarkSantoro,andRodSink.Absent:none. CEREMONIALMATTERSANDPRESENTATIONS 2.Subject:EnvironmentalEducationCenterandOutdoorGatheringShelterconceptual designpresentation RecommendedAction :Receivethepresentationoftheconceptualdesign WrittencommunicationsforthisitemincludedconceptualdrawingsfromSiegel andStrainArchitects. 34 Tuesday,February19,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency CapitalImprovementProgramManagerKatyJensenreviewedthestaffreport. ConsultantHenrySiegelfromSiegel&StrainArchitectsreviewedtheconceptual drawingsandshowedpicturesfromthecurrentsiteviaaPowerPointpresentation. Ms.Jensennotedthatthenextstepswouldbetocompletethedesignandgooutfor bidprobablysometimeinAugust,awardthecontracthopefullyinSeptember,and tobeginconstructioninOctober. Councilreceivedthereport. POSTPONEMENTS None ORALCOMMUNICATIONS AnnStevensonupdatedtheCouncilonsomeoftheactivitiesoftheLibrary Commission.SheexplainedthattheTeenAdvisoryBoardhasdevelopedtwoprojects: 1)Electronicdatabasesformiddleandhighschoolstudentswhichofferrealtime homeworkhelpfromcredentialededucators,accesssciencewhichlocatesarticlesand practicetests,andacompleteacademicsearchwhichcanaccessandsavearticles;and2) AGreenTeaGarden,fundedbytheFriendsofCupertinoLibrary.YamagamiNursery willbedonatingmaterialsforanorganicvegetablegardentobeplantedinthelibrary courtyard.Thevegetableswillbeharvestedandthendonatedtoalocalfoodbank.She alsosaidthatTechToolBarisavailabletoofferpatronsanopportunitytotryout mobiledevicesfromthelibrary,andthataChineseESLclassandbookclubarealso available.ShesaidtheLibraryJointPowersAuthorityBoardapprovedathreeyear technologyplanofoverfivemilliondollarstocontinuetomeetthetechnologyneedsof thelibrary. DaveDenny,CupertinoPoetLaureate,saidthattheprogramstartedin2011andthat histwoyeartermwillendSeptember30.Heexplainedthathehashostedareading seriesinlocalcoffeeshops,appearedontheBetterPart,andconductedwriting workshopsatthelibrary.HealsoupdatedtheCouncilaboutapoetrywritingcontest thatwasheldfordifferentagegroupsandnotedthattherewere110entrieswithnine cashawardsandframedcertificatesbeingdistributedtothewinners.Mr.Denny introducedHopeNguyenwhoreadherwinningpoem,-§º»¸«¹Beauty.Hesaidheis planningtohaveapoetryoneononelectureinAprilandmorereadingsinthe summer.HenotedthatapplicationswouldbegoingoutCitywideinlatespringor earlysummertosearchforanewPoetLaureate.Areviewcommitteewouldinterview 35 Tuesday,February19,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency andselectacandidate,andCityCouncilwouldapprovethefinalappointment.Healso announcedthatthewinningpoemsareondisplayinthelibraryneartheteenroom untilApril1. MaureenJonesbroughtanarticlecalledFluorideTeethandtheAtomicBomb.Shesaid thatsomedocumentsrelatedtothe©µ»´º¸¿¹atomicbombprogramweredeclassified in1995andthatitwasdeterminedthatfluoridewasthekeychemicalusedinatomic bombproduction.12lawsuitswerefiledin1945,butwerenotsettledbecauseitwas fearedthatthepublicitysurroundingthemwouldthreatentheprogressofthebomb productionprogram.Shesaidthedeclassifieddocumentscanbefoundat deepwaternewjerseylawsuit.comandthatshegavetheSantaClaraValleyWater DistrictBoardthedocumentsinDecemberof2012. JennyCheungtalkedaboutparkingissuesattheMetropolitancommercialareaon StevensCreekBoulevard.ShesaidthattherearefiveunitsattheMetropolitanretail complexandthattherehasalwaysbeenparkingissuessince2010,buteversincethe openingofthecoffeeshopthattheCityapprovedlastFall,theparkingsituationis worse.Shesaidthereareatotalof22spacesforthefiveunitsandnowthereisacoffee shopwith20seatsandpeopletakethespacesawayfromhertenants. BuTruong,ownerofaneyecareshopintheMetropolitan,saidtheshortageofparking spaceshasbeenworsesincethecoffeeshopwasapproved.HesaidheapproachedCity Planningandsuggestedthattheparkingspacesbeallocatedequallytoeachretailer,but theproposalwasrejected.Hesaidhehasseenadeclineinhisbusinessbecausepeople cometohisshopwithanappointment,butcannotfindaplacetopark.Herequested thattheissuebereviewedformallyandrequestedthattheparkingspacesbeallocated toeachretailer. BarryJones,businessownerintheMetropolitan,saidhewastoldthattherewas dedicatedparkingforretailandlotsofotherparkingavailableforotherretailand residents.Hesaidthattheparkingsituationwasgoodforawhile,butsincethecoffee shopopenedinAugusthehasseenahugeexplosionofparkingproblems.Hesaidwith 22dedicatedparkingspacesforretaileitherusedbycoffeeshoporresidentsitmakesit hardfortheotherretailcustomerstocomeandpark.HesuggestedtotheCitythatfour spacespershopbeallocatedwiththenameofthebusinessoneach,butitwasrejected bytheCity.HerequestedCouncilassistancetoresolvetheissue. TheMayorrequestedthatstaffreviewtheissueandreportbacktoCouncil. 36 Tuesday,February19,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency DarrelLumsaidthatheisadentistandwantedtospeakonthefluorideissuethatwas broughtupearlier.Hesaidthatwhenwaterisfluoridated,cavitiesaredecreased.He saidhe¯¹´ºfamiliarwiththetopicstheotherspeakeraddressed,butªµ«¹´ºthinkitis pertinenttothefluoridationissue. CONSENTCALENDAR WongmovedandSantorosecondedtoapprovetheitemsontheConsentCalendaras recommendedwiththeexceptionofitemnumbers8and9whichwerepulledfor discussion.Ayes:Chang,Mahoney,Santoro,Sinks,andWong.Noes:None.Abstain: None. 3.Subject:ApprovetheJanuary28CityCouncilminutes RecommendedAction:Approvetheminutes 4.Subject:ApprovetheJanuary29CityCouncilminutes RecommendedAction:Approvetheminutes 5.Subject:ApprovetheFebruary5CityCouncilminutes(Regularmeeting) RecommendedAction:Approvetheminutes Writtencommunicationsforthisitemincludedanamendedpagetotheminutes. 6.Subject:ApprovetheFebruary5CityCouncilminutes(Specialmeeting) RecommendedAction:Approvetheminutes 7.Subject:AcceptAccountsPayableforperiodendingJanuary25,2013 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13013acceptingAccountsPayable forperiodendingJanuary25,2013 8.Subject:AuthorizetheCityManagertonegotiateandexecutealongtermlease agreementwiththeCupertinoRotarytousetheCupertinoRoomattheQuinlan CommunityCenterforweeklymeetings RecommendedAction:1.)Authorizetonegotiateandexecutetheleaseagreement; and2.)Establisha10yearminimumforanytypeofmarkeronbuildings ChangmovedandWongsecondedtonegotiateandexecutealongtermlease agreementbutnottoestablisha10yearminimumforanytypeofmarkeron buildings.ThemotioncarriedwithMahoneyvotingno.SinksmovedandMahoney 37 Tuesday,February19,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency secondedtoestablish10yearminimumforanytypeofmarkeronbuildings.The motionfailedwithMahoneyandSinksvotingyes. 9.Subject:BudgetAdjustment#4 RecommendedAction:ApproveBudgetAdjustment#4 Writtencommunicationsforthisitemincludedastaffhandoutnotingtotalcosts. SantoromovedandWongsecondedtoapprovethebudgetadjustment.Themotion carriedunanimously. 10.Subject:AppointtheTreasurerandDeputyTreasurer RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13014rescindingResolutionNo.12 020andmakingtheappointments 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´«! ThyagarajanRadrakrishnensaidhelivesnexttotheparkandwantedtomake changestothetrafficsuchasaddingastopsignatMaryAveandLubeck.Healso askedtohaveatrafficspeedsignpostedandtoincludeapedestriancrossingwith flashinglights.Henotedthattheroadhascracksinitcausingnoisewhencarsare 38 Tuesday,February19,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency drivingdownthestreet.HealsoaskedCounciltomakesurethattheparkis maintained. CityClerkGraceSchmidtreadthetitleofOrdinanceNo.132104. WongmovedandChangsecondedtoreadtheordinancebytitleonlyandthatthe City"²«¸±¹readingwouldconstitutethesecondreadingthereof.Ayes:Chang, Mahoney,Santoro,andWong.Noes:Sinks. WongmovedandChangsecondedtoenactOrdinanceNo.132104.Ayes:Chang, Mahoney,Santoro,andWong.Noes:Sinks. WongmovedandChangsecondedtoauthorizetheCityManagertouseanysavings fromtheadditionalsoilremediationbudgettowardsprojectenhancements.The motioncarriedunanimously. 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 NegativeDeclaration;OnJanuary8,2013,thePlanningCommissionapproved applicationsDP201205,ASA201213andTR201241perResolutionnumbers6714, 6715and6716;andtheMitigatedNegativeDeclaration,EA201209 39 Tuesday,February19,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency WrittencommunicationforthisitemincludedastaffPowerPointpresentation,letter fromStevensCreekCupertinoLLC,andahandoutontheArchitecturalSitePlanfor parallelparkingoptionfromDarrelLum. AssistantPlannerGeorgeSchroederreviewedthestaffreportviaaPowerPoint presentation. DirectorofCommunityDevelopmentAartiShrivastavadistributedcopiesofthe HeartoftheCityordinanceandconfirmedthesetbackrequirementofninefeet.She alsosaidthatshoponeoftheproposedprojectisabout1,700squarefeetwith33 seatsandshoptwoisabout2,800squarefeetwith56seats.Shesaidthatthe proposedprojectisabout4,500squarefeetandPaneraBreadand/««º¹Coffeeis about7,000.ShesaidshedidnothavenumbersforPaneraand/««º¹becausethey weresupposedtoshareparkingwiththeofficebuildings. AppellentDarrelLum,spokespersonforConcernedCitizensofCupertino,saidthey hadsomeconcernsregardingtheexceptiontotheHeartoftheCitySpecificPlanand parkingfortheproposedproject.HesaidthattheexceptiontotheHeartoftheCity SpecificPlanwasincludedattheJanuary8,2013PlanningCommissionmeetingbut waspulledpriortothemeetingbecauseofstaffinterpretationthattheexception ¯¹´ºrequired.HesaidthattheHeartoftheCitySpecificPlanstatesthatthe minimumsetbackfornewdevelopmentis35feetfromtheedgeofthecurbandnine feetfromtherequiredboulevardlandscapeeasement.HealsocitedtheNorthand SouthDeAnzaBoulevardConceptualPlansandtheSouthSaratogaSunnyvaleRoad PlanningAreaandMontaVistaDesignGuidelines.Hesaidthattheseguidelines havespecificsetbacksapprovedbyCouncil,notbystaffinterpretation.Hesaidthat accordingtotheJanuary18minutes,theapplicantdidnotrequestanexceptionto theHeartoftheCity,butintheHeartoftheCityitsaystheydid.Herecommended thatCityCouncilgiveinstructionstoremovetherequirementthatthesetbackonly requiresninefeet. Dr.Lumalsoaddressedconcernsrelatedtoparking.Heshowedoriginalplans notingthattheparkingconsultantshowedproblemsbetweentheStevensCreek drivewayandthePaneraBreadparkinglotandinthecenterofthesitewherethe onewayparkinglotaislebegins.Hesaidthatthetrafficandparkingstudyisvery briefanddealswithproblemsthatshouldbeaddressedincludingparkingspace addedonthelastrevisedplan.Shopnumberonehas44seatsandnumberfivehas 52seats.ThePlanningCommissionreducedthestallsto80bydroppingtheseating 40 Tuesday,February19,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency ineachrestaurantandnowtheseatinghaschangedagainbecauseoutdoorseating wasnotremovedfromtheoriginalplans. Dr.Lumrecommendedthatthedrivewayshouldbeonewayforenteringand exitingthroughthePaneradrivewayonSaich,makethetwolotsmorelevelfor safety,reducethesquarefootagetoincreaseparking,andmovethetrashbinto increaseparking.Healsosaidheprefers13.5feetforaprojectsizewhichishalfthe heightofthebuilding. ApplicantGalenGrant,FCGAArchitecture,saidthishasbeenauniqueprojectand ¯º¹timetodeveloptheproperty.Hesaidthatthedeveloperhasthoughtcarefully abouttheissueofwhethertohavea20footthroatormoreoffofStevensCreek Boulevard.Initially,theplanfora20footthroatwasthoughttobesafe,butsincethe appeal,theyhavetakenanotherlookattheplanincludingthe35footthroatand eliminatingtwomorecarsattheentrancewithparallelparkingonSaichWay.He saidtheywouldliketheprojecttobeassafeasitcanbeandwantedtoaddressall theissues.Heproposeda50footthroatwithnoparking,havingatwowaydrive wayoffofStevensCreekBoulevard,andtorevisitthebenefitofangledparkingon SaichWay.Hesaidthatangledparking½µ´ºputtrafficontheTargetsiteand wouldworkforthecenterinasafewaythataddsneededparking.Hesaidthat angledparkingwithlandscapingaroundthe16spacesalsocreatesafeelingofa largerprojectof35feet. MikeKrons,representingtheowner,saidthattheytriedamorestraightshottoline upparkingandbringitbackontoSaich,butranintoproblemswiththedriveway beingtooclosetotheintersection.Hesaidtherewouldbeproblemsmarketingthe locationwithastraighterdesignandthatotheroptionsforparkingandtrafficissues werereviewed. TheMayoropenedthepublichearing. StephenCarlson,alsospeakingforBarryWatkins,owneroftheTargetCentersaid hewasatthePlanningCommissionhearingandspokeinfavorofthegeneral developmentoftheproperty.HesaidthatangledparkingonSaichWaywould eliminateparkingontheirsideofthestreet.Healsosaidthattheyalreadyhave problemswiththeYMCAusingtheirspacesandangledparkingcouldimpactthe movementsoftrucksmakingdeliveriestotheirstore.Hesaidthepropertyhasan averagedailytrafficcountof20,000carswith60,000parkingmovementsperday. Hesuggestedthattheparallelparkingbeleftinplace,proposedrelocatingthebus 41 Tuesday,February19,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency stoponSaichWay,andexpandingtheAlvesdrivewaywestofBandleywhich wouldaddsixmorespacesonSaich.Hesaidthatangledparkingdirectlyopposite ofthedrivewaywouldcreateconflictswithtrafficmovements. BobMcKibbinurgedCouncilnottoaddangledparking.Hesaiditdisturbshim whenadevelopercomestostaffwithaplanandtheygetshotdownbecausestaff wantstomovethebuildingsasclosetothestreetaspossible.Herecommended movingthebuildingstothebackandhaveparkinginthefront.Hesaidthat movingahorrendousparkingproblemwithPaneraontothenewdevelopmentis notagoodidea.Healsosaidthattheninefeetrequirementisnotjustifiedhereand thatothersectionsofthecodeshouldbeusedtocomeupwiththenumbersandnot howyouinterpretthem. KevinMcClellandonbehalfoftheChamberofCommerceurgedCounciltodeny theappeal.Mr.McClellandalsosharedhisownpersonalperspectiveaboutparking andofferedsomesuggestions.Hesaidthatatwowaydrivewaykeepspeopleon thePanerasiteratherthangoingaroundit.Heencourageddiagonalparkingasa goodadditionandkeepingtheentryandexitfromStevensCreekBoulevardastwo way.Hesaidthattraffichasaneasiertimegettingaroundangledparkingbecause parallelparkingblocksthestreetwhilepeoplearemakingseveralattemptstoget intothespace.Hesaidthathehasnotexperiencedanyproblemgettingaparking spaceatPanera. TyBash,ownerofHappyDaysChildDevelopmentCenter,saidthatangledparking wasnotagoodideabecauseitwouldreducetheentryto24feetinwidthandwould bottlenecktrafficcomingintotheTargetparkinglot.Hesaidthatifthebusstop wererelocatedfarthernorthitwouldbedirectlyacrossfromtheplaygroundand wouldhaveanimpactonthechildrenwhowouldbebreathingthefumesfromthe buses. DennisWhittakersaidthatthereareglaringexamplesofwhatworksandªµ«¹´º workandcitedIslandsandStaplesasexamplesofwhatworks.Hesaidthatthe angledparkingonthestreet½µ´ºworkbecauseitwouldblocktrafficandStevens CreekBoulevardisaverybusyroad.Hesaidthat!)¹parkingistotallyinadequate andisanexampleofwhatwouldhappenwiththisproject.HeurgedCouncilto keepthefailedexamplesinmindwhenapprovingprojects.Hesaidheprefers keepingparallelparking,doesnotpreferhavingbuildingsupagainstthestreet,and wouldliketohaveaonewaydrivewaycomingontoStevensCreekBoulevard. 42 Tuesday,February19,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency TheMayorclosedthepublichearing. WongmovedandSantorosecondedtoadopttheresolutionsdenyingtheappeal andupholdingthePlanningCommissionsapprovalofthedevelopment applications(DP201205,ASA201213,TR201241)andmitigatednegative declaration(EA201209)withthefollowingmodifications: TherowofparkingstallsalongthesharedtwowaydrivewayentryfromStevens CreekBlvd.shallberemoved; Thebuildingpadforshop7maybereconfiguredaccordinglytoencompassthe areaoftheabovementionedremovedstallsandnewparkingstallsmaybe providedonthenorthsideofthebuilding; TheStevensCreekBlvd.sharedaccessdrivewaybetweentheprojectsiteandthe propertytothewestshallbeatwowaydriveway; TheexistingonstreetparallelparkingstallsalongSaichWayshallberetained (doesnotincludetherelocationoftheexistingbuslayoverlocation); Shop6shallbemovedtothenorthtobeattachedtotherearretailbuilding (whichincludesshops/restaurants15); Anewtwowaydriveaisleshallbeprovidedtothenorthofshop7,connecting thedriveaislebehindthe/««º¹C/§´«¸§building(tothewestoftheprojectsite) toSaichWaytotheeast; Theapplicantshallconsultwiththepropertyownertothewesttodiscussthe potentialremoval/relocationoftheexistingtrashenclosurealongthewest propertylineoftheprojectsiteinordertoaccommodateanewaccessconnection totheprojectsite;and Therequiredparkingfortheprojectshallremainconsistentwiththe"¯º¿¹ parkingordinance Intheeventthattheapplicantdoesnotprovidealloftherequiredmodifications notedabove,theprojectshallbebroughtbacktotheCityCouncilforreviewand approvalpriortoissuanceofbuildingandgradingpermits.Themotioncarriedwith Changvotingno. Councilrecessedfrom12:06a.m.to12:12a.m. WongmovedandMahoneysecondedtocontinueitemnumber14toMarch5andto scheduletheitemasearlyaspossible.ThemotioncarriedwithChangvotingno. 43 Tuesday,February19,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency ORDINANCESANDACTIONITEMS 13.Subject:RequesttowaivethetimelinesetforthinCupertinoMunicipalCode(CMC) Chapter14.04foranappealrelatedtostreetimprovementrequirementsat10567San LeandroAvenue RecommendedAction:Decidewhethertograntarequesttowaivetheappeal timelineforstreetimprovementsrequiredaspartofadevelopmentprojectat10567 SanLeandroAvenueand,ifthewaiverisgranted,directstafftosettheappealfor hearing WrittencommunicationsforthisitemincludedanactionletterfromCommunity DevelopmenttoGPResidentialapprovingatwostorypermit,ApplicationR2012 20andahandoutfromPaulKalranotingthetimelineofeventsleadingtotheutility polerelocationappeal. CityManagerDavidBrandtreviewedthestaffreport. PaulKalrasaidthatheistheownerofaresidenceonSanLeandroAveandwas requestingconsiderationofanappealthatMr.Bordenremovedfromanearlier Councilagenda.Hedistributedahandoutwithexhibitswhichexplainedthe timelineofeventsleadingtotheutilitypolerelocationappeal.Hereviewedthose documents.HeaskedCounciltowaivetheappealdeadlineofAug.27andto scheduletherelocationoftheutilitypoleappealfortheMarch5CityCouncil meeting. SantoromovedandChangsecondedtowaivetheappealtimelineforstreet improvementsrequiredaspartofadevelopmentprojectat10567SanLeandro Avenue.ThemotioncarriedwithMahoneyvotingno. StaffexplainedtoMr.Kalrathathemustfileanotherappealandthatitwouldbe heardoneitherMarch5or19. :UpdateontheGeneralPlanAmendmentprocess,Councilauthorizationfor 14.Subject abudgetamendmenttoadd$150,507tothebudgetfortheGeneralPlan Amendmentprocess,andapprovalofcontractswithMIGastheplanningconsultant andThePlanningCenter/DC&Eastheenvironmentalconsultant RecommendedAction:StaffrecommendsthattheCityCouncilapprovethe following:1.)ScopesofworkfortheGeneralPlanAmendment(GPA),Vallco 44 Tuesday,February19,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency 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 WrittencommunicationsforthisitemincludedlettersfromIvorSamsonofSNR DentonUSLLP,StevensCreekCupertinoLLC,StevensCreekCupertinoAssociates, anemailfromD.BarrettWatkins,andastaffPowerPointpresentation. Earlierinthemeeting,thisitemwascontinuedtoMarch5. 15.Subject:Consideradoptinganordinancemovingthedateofthe"¯º¿¹general municipalelectiontoconsolidateitwiththestatewidegeneralelectioncommencing inNovember2014 RecommendedAction:Decidewhethertomovethedateofthe"¯º¿¹general municipalelectiontoevennumberedyearsandconductthefirstreadingofthedraft ordinanceiftheCouncildesiresthechange.IftheCouncildecidesnottochangethe generalmunicipalelectiondate,noactionisrequired.OrdinanceNo.132106:An OrdinanceoftheCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinomovingthedateofits generalmunicipalelectiontothefirstTuesdayafterthefirstMondayinNovember ofevennumberedyearsbeginninginNovember2014 WrittencommunicationsforthisitemincludedemailsfromPatrickKwokandMark MatsumotooftheCupertinoChamberofCommerce. CityClerkGraceSchmidtreviewedthestaffreport. 45 Tuesday,February19,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency MayorMahoneynotedfromthespeakercardsthatDennisWhittaker,PatrickKwok, andLynFaustwerenolongerpresentbutallwereopposedtoanelectionchange. KevinMcClellandfromtheChamberofCommercereadaletterexpressingsupport forchangingthegeneralmunicipalelectiontoevennumberedyears. JenniferGriffinsaidthatthisrequestcamein2010anditwasdiscussedthentoalign theCityelectionwiththeSchoolBoardelection.Shesaidshewasconcernedwith theextensionoftermsforelectedofficials. CityClerkGraceSchmidtreadthetitleofOrdinanceNo.132106. WongmovedandSantorosecondedtoreadtheordinancebytitleonlyandthatthe City"²«¸±¹readingwouldconstitutethesecondreadingthereof.Ayes:Mahoney, Santoro,Sinks,andWong.Noes:Chang. REPORTSBYCOUNCILANDSTAFF WongandChangaskedthatstaffaddchangingthecodetohavealldevelopment applicationswithintheHeartoftheCityreferredtoCouncilforapproval.Sinks requested,withageneralconsensus,thatvariouszoningcodeprovisionsbebroughtto aCouncilworkshopincludingdensitycalculations,parkingrequirementsandsetbacks. Councilmembershighlightedtheactivitiesoftheircommitteesandvariouscommunity events. ADJOURNMENT At1:38a.m.onWednesday,February20,themeetingwasadjourned. ____________________________ GraceSchmidt,CityClerk Staffreports,backupmaterials,anditemsdistributedattheCityCouncilmeetingare availableforreviewattheCity"²«¸±¹Office,7773223,andalsoontheInternetat www.cupertino.org.ClickonAgendas&Minutes,thenclickontheappropriatePacket. 46 Tuesday,February19,2013CupertinoCityCouncil SuccessortotheRedevelopmentAgency MostCouncilmeetingsareshownliveonComcastChannel26andAT&TUverse Channel99andareavailableatyourconvenienceatwww.cupertino.org.Clickon Agendas&Minutes,thenclickArchivedWebcast.Videotapesareavailableatthe CupertinoLibrary,ormaybepurchasedfromtheCupertinoCityChannel,7772364. 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:March5,2013 Subject ApprovethedestructionofrecordsfromtheParksandRecreation(SeniorCenter, QuinlanCommunityCenter,andAdministration)departments. RecommendedAction Adoptthedraftresolutionapprovingthedestructionofrecords. Discussion TheCityCouncilhasadoptedtheLocalGovernmentRetentionGuidelines AdministeredbytheCaliforniaStateArchivesDivisionoftheSecretaryof2º§º«¹office asthe"¯º¿¹recordsretentionschedule.Theretentionscheduledeterminesthatcertain recordsinexcessoftwoyearsoldcanbedestroyed.Thedepartmentalrequestfor permissiontodestroyallsaidrecordsinexcessoftwoyearsoldasnotedinthedraft resolutionattachmenthasbeenapprovedbytheCityClerkandtheCityAttorney. _____________________________________ Preparedby:KirstenSquarcia,DeputyCityClerk GraceSchmidt,CityClerk Reviewedby: ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: ADraftResolution 78 RESOLUTIONNO.13 ARESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCUPERTINO APPROVINGDESTRUCTIONOFCERTAINRECORDSFROMTHE PARKS&RECREATION(SENIORCENTER,QUINLANCOMMUNITY CENTER,ANDADMINISTRATION)DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS,theCityCouncildidbyadoptionofResolutionNos.8894and 02037establishrulesandregulationsforrecordsretentionanddestruction;and WHEREAS,ithasbeendeterminedthatcertainrecordsinexcessoftwo yearsoldnolongercontaindataofanyhistoricaloradministrativesignificance; and WHEREAS,thedepartmentalrequestforpermissiontodestroyallsaid recordsinexcessoftwoyearsoldhasbeenapprovedbytheCityClerkandthe CityAttorneypursuanttoResolutionNos.8894and02037; NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDthattheCityCounciloftheCity ofCupertinoauthorizesdestructionoftherecordsspecifiedintheschedule attachedhereto. PASSEDANDADOPTEDataregularmeetingoftheCityCouncilofthe CityofCupertinothis5thdayofMarch,2013,bythefollowingvote: VoteMembersoftheCityCouncil AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:APPROVED: ________________________________________________________ GraceSchmidt,CityClerkOrrinMahoney,Mayor,CityofCupertino 79 RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org File name or Box number: SNT CTR 2012 Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed ResolutionDate records Date: Date paperDate: Date authorizingdestroyed:destroyed: destruction: DMS =Destruction =Microfilm =Scanning Number to be Name Subject Address Date Ranges Other used for information microfiche card N/ADonation Log N/A2005N/A N/ADonation LogN/A2006N/A N/ACase Manager’s Client case files N/A2000N/A (closed) N/ACase Manager’s Client case files N/A2001N/A (closed) N/ACase Manager’s Client case files N/A2002N/A (closed) N/ACase Manager’s Client case files N/A2003N/A (closed) N/ACase Manager’s Client case files N/A2004N/A (closed) 80 RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org File name or Box number: SNT CTR 2012 Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed ResolutionDate records Date: Date paperDate: Date authorizingdestroyed:destroyed: destruction: DMS =Destruction =Microfilm =Scanning Number to be Name Subject Address Date Ranges Other used for information microfiche card N/ABingo records N/A2007N/A N/AVolunteer Program Monthly Reports N/A2003-2007N/A N/ABingo certificates/recordsN/A2004-2007N/A N/AVolunteerapplications(non-active)N/A2001-2007N/A N/AStudentvolunteerapplicationsN/A2006N/A N/AGuest Speaker Guidelines N/A1997-1998N/A N/AStudentVolunteerHoursN/A2003-2005N/A N/AVolunteerHours logsN/A1979-2007N/A N/AAARP class listsN/A2005-2007N/A N/ASenior Center NewslettersN/A2004-2007N/A 81 RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org File name or Box number: SNT CTR 2012 Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed ResolutionDate records Date: Date paperDate: Date authorizingdestroyed:destroyed: destruction: DMS =Destruction =Microfilm =Scanning Number to be Name Subject Address Date Ranges Other used for information microfiche card N/AVolunteerLunch/Breakfast Files N/A1999-2007N/A N/AThe Better Part Flyers N/A2007N/A N/AActivityFlyersN/A2006-2007N/A N/AClassListsN/A2006-2007N/A N/ARhythmaires FlyersN/A2007N/A N/AChinese New Year Invoices N/A2004-2005N/A N/AChinaTripCalculationsN/A2005N/A N/APanama Trip Invoice N/A2006N/A N/AKitchenVolunteerLists N/A2002-2004N/A N/AVolunteer Advisory Council List N/A1999N/A 82 RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org File name or Box number: SNT CTR 2012 Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed ResolutionDate records Date: Date paperDate: Date authorizingdestroyed:destroyed: destruction: DMS =Destruction =Microfilm =Scanning Number to be Name Subject Address Date Ranges Other used for information microfiche card N/ASenior Center Events finance sheets N/A1995-2000N/A N/AMember suggestion forms N/A2005-2006N/A N/ATravelProgram ReportsN/A2004-2007N/A N/AVolunteer Program Assessment N/A2008N/A N/ACPRSConferenceModelN/A2008N/A N/ATravel documents inc. rosters, invoices, N/A2007N/A evaluations, research info, financial info N/ARedeemed RecBucksN/A2007N/A N/ARedeemed GiftChecksN/A2007N/A N/AClasslistsN/A2007N/A 83 RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org File name or Box number: SNT CTR 2012 Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed ResolutionDate records Date: Date paperDate: Date authorizingdestroyed:destroyed: destruction: DMS =Destruction =Microfilm =Scanning Number to be Name Subject Address Date Ranges Other used for information microfiche card N/ABingo volunteer sheets N/A2007N/A N/ABingo committee notes N/A2007N/A N/ARhythmaires volunteer hours N/A2007N/A N/ARedeemed bingo certificates N/A2007N/A N/ARedeemed bingo coupons N/A2007N/A N/AMembership applications N/A2007N/A N/ATravel Program EvaluationN/A2008N/A N/ALeadershipDevelopment Training N/A2009N/A N/APhysical Activity Forum N/A2009N/A N/AFresh Look Committee N/A2009N/A 84 RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org File name or Box number: SNT CTR 2012 Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed ResolutionDate records Date: Date paperDate: Date authorizingdestroyed:destroyed: destruction: DMS =Destruction =Microfilm =Scanning Number to be Name Subject Address Date Ranges Other used for information microfiche card N/ABooktalkN/A2009N/A N/APositive Aging Luncheon N/A2009N/A N/ASenior Center Anniversary Event N/A2009N/A N/ASeniorBallEventN/A2009N/A N/AVolunteerLuncheon N/A2009N/A N/ASenior Center Staff Meeting Agendas N/A2009N/A N/ASeniorCenterQuarterly Program N/A2009N/A Evaluations N/ACPRSConferenceN/A2009N/A N/AComputer ProgramN/A2009N/A N/ARentalProgramN/A2009N/A 85 RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org File name or Box number: SNT CTR 2012 Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed ResolutionDate records Date: Date paperDate: Date authorizingdestroyed:destroyed: destruction: DMS =Destruction =Microfilm =Scanning Number to be Name Subject Address Date Ranges Other used for information microfiche card N/AMonday Night FootballN/A2009N/A 86 RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org File name or Box number: QCC 2010 Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed ResolutionDate records Date: Date paperDate: Date authorizingdestroyed:destroyed: destruction: DMS =Destruction =Microfilm =Scanning AdditionalName Number Subject Address Date Ranges Type information Park Rental Permits Quinlan Comm. Ctr Jan.-Dec. 2010 10185 N. Stelling Rd Cupertino, Ca 95014 Quinlan Room Quinlan Comm. Ctr Jan.-Dec. 2010 10185 N. Stelling Rd Permits Cupertino, Ca 95014 Creekside Park Quinlan Comm. Ctr Jan.-Dec. 2010 10185 N. Stelling Rd Rental Permits Cupertino, Ca 95014 Jan.-Dec. 2010 Quinlan Comm. Ctr Monta Vista 10185 N. Stelling Rd Recreation Center Cupertino, Ca 95014 Rental Permits Community Hall Quinlan Comm. Ctr Jan.-Dec. 2010 10185 N. Stelling Rd Rental Permits Cupertino, Ca 95014 Quinlan Comm. Ctr Teen Center Jan.-Dec. 2010 10185 N. Stelling Rd 87 RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org File name or Box number: QCC 2010 Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed ResolutionDate records Date: Date paperDate: Date authorizingdestroyed:destroyed: destruction: DMS =Destruction =Microfilm =Scanning AdditionalName Number Subject Address Date Ranges Type information Rental Permits Cupertino, Ca 95014 88 RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org File name or Box number: P&R 011813 Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed ResolutionDate records Date: Date paperDate: Date authorizingdestroyed:destroyed: destruction: DMS =Destruction =Microfilm =Scanning AdditionalName Number Subject Address Date Ranges Type information n/aAgendas,Draftn/a2008 - 2010 Parks & Rec Packets & Minutes, Staff Exhibits Binders Reports & Exhibits 89 RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org File name or Box number: P&R 012813 Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed ResolutionDate records Date: Date paperDate: Date authorizingdestroyed:destroyed: destruction: DMS =Destruction =Microfilm =Scanning AdditionalName Number Subject Address Date Ranges Type information n/astaffreports,n/a1991 - 2005 Parks & Rec File on DACA (De meeting notes, & Anza Cupertino correspondence Aquatics) Parks & Rec file residents’ 2002 Hyde School petition Park Parks & Rec file Parks & Rec 2001 - 2003 Director’s Director’s Reportsreports to Commission GrantStateUrban2004 Application for Parks & Healthy CupertinoCommunities Aquatic Fitness 90 91 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:March5,2013 Subject SetthedatesfortheTeenCommissionapplicationdeadlinesandinterviews. RecommendedAction Staffrecommendsthefollowingdeadlines: 1.)ApplicationsdueintheCityClerksofficeonFriday,May10by4:30p.m.;and 2.)Interviewsheldbeginningat3:30PMonTuesday,May28andWednesday,May29 (asneeded) Discussion TheTeenCommissionhassixvacanciesthisyear.TheParksandRecreation Departmentwillprintanddistributeflyers,aswellasincludetheinformationinthe summerRecreationScheduleandtheCupertinoScene.TheCity"²«¸±¹Officewill advertisethevacanciesintheCourierandtheWorldJournal.Interviewsshouldbe scheduledinMayinordertointerviewapplicantsbeforetheyleavetheareafor summeractivities. _____________________________________ Preparedby:KirstenSquarcia,DeputyCityClerk Reviewedby:GraceSchmidt,CityClerk ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager 92 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:March 5, 2013 Subject Planning Commission’s recommendation to select Don Sun as the Environmental Review Committee representative Recommended Action Accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Environmental Review Committee. Description On February 12, 2013, the Planning Commission made its annual recommendations for the selection of a member to the Environmental Review Committee (ERC). In accordance with City of Cupertino Municipal Code, the City Council shall review and affirm the selection. The recommendation is Don Sun. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Beth Ebben, Administrative Clerk Reviewed by:Gary Chao, City Planner Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager 93 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:March5,2013 Subject CityProject,2012PavementMaintenanceProject,ProjectNo.201201. RecommendedAction AcceptProjectNo.201201. Discussion The"¯º¿¹contractor,InterstateGradingandPaving,Inc.,hascompletedworkonthe 2012PavementMaintenanceProject,whichconsistedofasphaltoverlays, removal/replacementoffailedasphalt,andcracksealingatvariouslocations throughouttheCity. _____________________________________ Preparedby:JoanneJohnson,PublicWorksEngineeringTechnician Reviewedby:TimmBorden,PublicWorksDirector ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: A2012PavementMaintenanceStreetList 94 ATTACHMENT A 2012 STREET MAINTENANCE PROJECT PROJECT 2012-01 {·©;;· b;C© Bollinger RdWestlynn WayDe Foe Dr Brittany CtLas Ondas WayEnd Disney LnMiller AveStendahl Ln Dumas DrJollyman LnWestlynn Way Fallen Leaf WayWestlynn WayDe Anza Blvd Greenleaf DrCastine AveFlora Vista Ave Las Ondas WayFarallone DrPacifica Linda Vista DrMcClellan RdHyannisport Dr hÝ;©ä Merritt DrBlaney AveW End N Blaney AveForest AveHomestead Rd NB De Foe DrDe Foe DrBollinger Rd Pear Tree CtPear Tree LnEnd Pear Tree LnN Blaney AveBaywood Dr Santa Teresa DrHyannisport DrTerrace Dr Stendahl LnDisney LnPhil Ln Westlynn WayTiptoe LnBollinger Rd Woodridge CtLockwood DrEnd Blaney AveStevens Creek BlvdHomestead Rd Bollinger RdLawrence ExpwyCity Limit Foothill ExpwyStevens Creek BlvdN City Limit Miller AveStevens Creek BlvdBollinger Rd /©- {; Stevens Creek BlvdBubb RdJanice Ave Tantau AveStevens Creek BlvdHomestead Rd Vallco ParkwayWolfe RdTantau Ave Wolfe RdStevens Creek BlvdHomestead Rd Bollinger RdBlaneyMiller az µ Cz Banrhart Aveat Tantau Ave Blaney AveStevens Creek BlvdHomestead Rd Bollinger RdDe Anza BlvdBlaney Ave Miller AveStevens Creek BlvdBollinger Rd 5zm hÒ· w;¦z© Peninsula AveStevens Creek BlvdGrand Ave Rainbow DrStelling RdRainbow Pl S Tantau Aveat Barnhart Ave Stelling RdSR 85Tomki Ct 95 PUBLICWORKSDEPARTMENT CITYHALL 1010300TORREAVENUE'CUPERTINO,CA950143255 TELEPHONE:(408)7773354www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:March5,2013 Subject ApprovetheAddendumtotheFinalProgramEnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR);and AdoptaResolutionexplainingCEQAFindingsofFactregardingSingleUseCarryout Bags.ConductsecondreadingsofaSingleUseCarryoutBagOrdinanceandaLitter EnforcementOrdinance. RecommendedAction AdoptaResolutionapprovingtheAddendumtotheFinalProgram EnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR),adoptingassociatedCalifornia EnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)FindingsofFactfortheEIRAddendum,and restatingtheCEQAFindingsofFactadoptedfortheEIRfortheCityof "»¶«¸º¯´µ¹Ordinance,RegulationofSingleUseCarryoutBags. ConductthesecondreadingofanordinanceaddingChapter9.17tothe MunicipalCodetoregulatethedistributionofsingleusecarryoutbagsbyretail establishmentsintheCityofCupertino. ConductthesecondreadingofanordinanceamendingChapter9.18ofthe MunicipalCodeadoptingalitterordinancefortheCityofCupertino. Discussion OnJanuary15,2013theCityCouncilconsideredoptionsrelatedtolitterandwaste reductionconsistingof1)anordinanceregulatingthedistributionofsingleuse carryoutbagsbyretailestablishmentsintheCityofCupertino;and2)anamendmentto themunicipalcode(Chapter9.18)makinglitteringintheCityofCupertinoan infractioncarryingafineandincludingtherequirementforredevelopedprivate commercialsitesintheCitytoinstallpublicwasteandrecyclebins. Afterreceivingpubliccommentsatthepublichearingonthelitterreductionpackage, theCityCouncilconductedthefirstreadingofChapter9.18relatedtolitter enforcementandwasteandrecyclebinrequirements. 1 96 TheCityCouncilalsoconductedthefirstreadingoftheRegulationofSingleUse CarryoutBagsOrdinancewiththefollowingmodifications: ChangewordinginSection9.17.110(J)from ³¯²²¯³«º«¸¹!to ³¯²¹! Captherequiredminimumchargeforrecycledpaperbagsattencentsand eliminateafutureincreasetotwentyfivecentsperbag. Allowretailerstodistribute¸«»¹§¨²«bags,asdefinedintheordinance,without arequiredcharge. Removetherequirementofrecordkeepingbyretailers. SanMateoCountyactedastheleadagencyinpreparingandcertifyingtheEIRforthe draftordinanceinitiallyproposedbystaff.ThatEIRanalyzedtheenvironmentaleffects ofareusablebagordinanceinastudyareaof24jurisdictionsinSanMateoandSanta ClaraCounties.Asoneofthejurisdictionsstudied,theCityofCupertinoisa ¸«¹¶µ´¹¯¨²«§«´©¿!underCEQAbecauseithasdiscretionaryapprovaloverthe proposedordinancewithinitsjurisdiction.TheCityactedasaresponsibleagency duringtheCountyEIRprocessandaccordinglymayrelyonthatEIRwhenconsidering adoptionofitsownordinance. Asdiscussedintheattachedfindings,CEQAGuidelinesallowanaddendumtoa previouslyadoptedFinalEIRwhen µ´²¿minortechnicalchangesoradditionsare ´«©«¹¹§¸¿!andwhenthenewinformationdoesnotinvolvenewsignificant environmentaleffectsbeyondthoseidentifiedinanadoptedFinalEIR.Becausethe Councilrequestedtheminormodificationsnotedabovetotheformordinanceanalyzed intheEIR,theCityoptedtoprepareanaddendumtotheEIR. StaffcontractedwithRinconConsultants,Inc.,theconsultingagencyusedtoprepare theRegionalProgramEIR,toprepareanaddendumtotheEIRtoanalyzethese proposedchangesandreviewthe"¯º¿¹FindingsofFacttoensurethattheminor modificationsmadeto"»¶«¸º¯´µ¹ordinanceareconsistentwithCEQAandtheFinal ProgramEIR.Theconsultantconcludedthattheminormodificationsdonotchangethe analysisorimpactsidentifiedintheProgramEIR.Inparticular,theAddendum explainsthatthe"¯º¿¹minorchangesdonotinvolvenewsignificantenvironmental effectsbecausetheEIRdidnotassumeachargeforreusablebagsandthattheanalysis wasbasedonatencentchargeperbag.Thefullrationaleandthefactsforthis conclusionareprovidedinthebodyoftheattachedAddendum. Asnotedinearlierreports,copiesoftheDEIRandFEIRhavebeenavailableonline throughtheCountywebsitesinceapproximatelyOctober2012.Becauseofthelargesize ofthedocuments,theCouncilhasbeenprovidedwiththewebsitelinksintheir 2 97 electronicCouncilpackets.Inaddition,hardcopiesoftheDEIRandFEIRhavebeen availableforreviewintheCity"²«¸±¹OfficeatCupertinoCityHallsinceJanuary3, 2013.CopiesoftheDEIR,FEIR,andAddendumwerealsoplacedintheCupertino PublicLibraryonFebruary19,2013. SustainabilityImpact Adoptionandimplementationoftheordinancesisintendedtoreducewaste,improve waterquality,reducenegativeimpactstoaquaticlife,conservenaturalresources,and reducegreenhousegasemissions. FiscalImpact Theonetimecostforimplementationofareusablebagordinanceisestimatedat $10,000to$14,000tocovertheeducationandoutreachtoassistbusinessesandshoppers withthetransition. Ongoingcostsofalitterordinancecannotbedetermined,butwillincludestafftimefor enforcement.Itisanticipatedthatlitteringcitationswouldonlybeissuedinconjunction withthedailyroutineofcodeenforcementofficersorthe"¯º¿¹stormwaterillicit dischargedetectionandelimination(IDDE)inspectors.Thecostofinstallingpublic garbage,recyclingandfoodwastebinsforcustomersonprivatepropertyatnew commercialandretailprojectsandthemaintenancethereof,willbetheresponsibilityof theprojectdeveloperandtheprivatecommercialpropertyowner.Theresponsibilityof maintainingalitterfreeareasurroundingallcommercialandretailsiteswillbethe responsibilityoftheprivatepropertyowner. _____________________________________ Preparedby:CheriDonnelly,EnvironmentalProgramsManager Reviewedby:TimmBorden,DirectorofPublicWorks ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: AAddendumtoFinalProgramEIR BResolutionRestatingCEQAFindingsofFactforEIRandApprovingAddendum andFindingsofFact CBagOrdinanceaddingChapter9.17totheCupertinoMunicipalCode DRedlineBagOrdinance EOrdinanceAmendingChapter9.18oftheCupertinoMunicipalCode 3 98 City of Cupertino Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Addendum to the County of San Mateo Reusable Bag Ordinance Final Program EIR January 2013 99 City of Cupertino Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Addendum to the County of San Mateo Reusable Bag Ordinance Final Program EIR Prepared by: City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Contact: Cheri Donnelly Environmental Programs Mgr. Prepared with the assistance of: Rincon Consultants, Inc. 180 North Ashwood Avenue Ventura, California 93003 January 2013 100 This report is printed on 30% recycled paper with 30% post-consumer content and chlorine-free virgin pulp. 101 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Addendum to the County of San Mateo Reusable Bag Ordinance Final Program EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction .......................................................................................................................1 Project Description ............................................................................................................2 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................................4 Air Quality ................................................................................................................4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................6 Hydrology and Water Quality ..............................................................................7 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................8 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................9 References and Preparers ..............................................................................................10 List of Tables Table 1 Existing and Proposed Bag Use ......................................................................3 Table 2 Estimated Emission Changes Due to the ...............................................................................................................5 Table 3 Estimated Daily Emissions from Increased Truck Trips ..............................5 Table 4 Estimated GHG Emissions ................................................................................7 Table 5 Solid Waste Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags ..............9 Appendix Appendix A: URBEMIS Results for Truck Trips City of Cupertino i 102 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum INTRODUCTION This document is an addendum to the County of San Mateo Reusable Bag Ordinance Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was certified by the County of Mateo Board of Supervisors on October 23, 2012 (SCH #2012042013). As one of the 6 participating municipalities from the County of Santa Clara in the EIR, the City of Cupertino proposes an ordinance to ban plastic carryout bags that is largely consistent with the ordinance analyzed in the County of San Mateoadopted by the Board of Supervisors. The addendum is required to address the possible environmental effects associadoption of such an ordinance within Cupertino. The proposed Ordinance within Cupertino would ban single-use plastic carryout bags at all commercial establishments that sell perishable or nonperishable goods, including, but not limited to, clothing, food and personal items and would place a minimum ten (10) cent charge on the issuance of recycled paper carryout bags by an affected store, as defined. Retailers would be allowed to provide reusable carryout bags (a m 2.25 mils thick) to customers at the point of sale for no cost. According to Section 15164 of the , an California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines addendum to a previously adopted Final EIR is the appropriate environmental document in information does not involve new significant environmental effec an adopted Final EIR. The change being contemplated involves adopting a Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance in the City of Cupertino that is similar to the County of San Mateo. The EIR for ded San Mateo County, incorporated cities within San Mateo, and 6 participating municipalities in Santa Cl (including Cupertino) EIR. The City is one of the 6 participating municipalities from the County of Santa Clara that were included in the EIR analysis for the County of San MateoThe City would adopt the Reusable Carryout Bag Ordinance with a few minor changes that are specific to Cupertino. These minor revisions are discussed below in the project description. The proposed Ordinance would have no new significant environmental effects beyond those identified in Program EIR. Since the proposed Ordinance does not are not warranted. As such, a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines would not be warranted and an addendum is the appropriate environmental document under CEQA. This addendum includes a description of the currently proposed Ordinance in Cupertino and a comparison of the impacts of the proposed Ordinance to those identified for the County of San Mateo, which was studied in the Final Program EIR that was certified on October 23, 2012. City of Cupertino 1 103 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Cupertino Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would ban the issuance of plastic carryout bags and impose a minimum ten (10) cent charge on the issuance of recycled paper carryout bags at all retail establishments. Reusable bags may be given by a retailer without charge. The stores that would be affected are located within the City li include commercial establishment that sells perishable or nonperishable goods including, but not limited to, clothing, food, and personal items directly to t establishments or nonprofit charitable reusers would be exempt. rdinance adopted by the San Mateo County include the following: available by a retail establishment for a minimum charge of 10 c m charge for reusable bags. Reusable bags may be given by a retailer without charge. bags would increase from 10 cents to 25 cents on January 1, 2015This provision is not he minimum charge for recycled paper bags would not increase to 25 cents. The minimum charge would remain at 10 cents. keep records of the purchase and sale of recycled paper or reusable bags for three years f proposed Ordinance. The differences between the City of Cupertino and County of San Mateo Ordinances as listed above are minor changes that would not significantly alter any of the bag use assumptions in the County of San MateoOctober 2012). adopted Ordinance, with a ban on single-use plastic carryout bags and a minimum charge of 10 would be switched to reusable bags and 30% would switch to recyc An 1 estimated 31,340,682 plastic bags are currently used annually in the City of Cupertino. With a proposed Ordinance, as shown in Table 1, total bag use would be 11,360,998 carryout bags per year. analysis, which analyzed bag use in San Mateo County and in 6 participating municipalities in the County of Santa Clara. Thus, even with the minor changes to the text of the Ordinance, analyzed in the Count 1 Assumption from Table B-2, Herrera Fiscal Analysis, 2010 and City of San Jose Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance FEIR (SCH # 200910209rdinance would allow retail establishments to provide reusable bags free of charge, it is assumed that most retailers would include a charge. The assumption in the Herrera Fiscal Analysis of 30% switch to paper bags and 60% swit reusable bags. City of Cupertino 2 104 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum Table 1 Existing and Proposed Bag Use Proposed Plastic Proposed Proposed Paper Existing Bags: 5% Reusable Bags: Bags: 30% Proposed Total Area Plastic Bags Remain (exempt 65% Switch to Switch to Carryout Bags retailers) Reusable Paper ¹¹¹ County of San 200,437,619 Mateo EIR 552,931,362 27,646,568 165,879,409 6,911,642 Study Area 11,360,998 Cupertino 34,340,682 1,567,034 391,759 9,402,205 ¹ Rates utilized in the County of San Mateo Final EIR, SCH #2012042013, and City of San Jose Final EIR, SCH # 2009102095, October 2010. The proposed bag use assumptions used in the environmental analysis contained in the because under a $0.10 fee, more customers would likely pay for recyclable paper Because more paper bags would be used under a $0.10 fee rather than under a $0.25 fee, and discussed in Section 6.0, Alternatives an Alternative (Alternative #3) that considered a $0.25 fee on recy considered roposed Ordinance (with a $0.10 fee) as the $0.25 fee would result in the use of fewer recyclable pape Nevertheless, as discussed in Section 6.0, the Alternatives Proposed Ordinance would not have any significant impacts; therefore, adopting an environmentally superior alternative rather than the Proposed Ordinance would not avoid any significant environmental effects. As such, the EIR analysis and CEQA findings that were adopted by the County Supervisors were based on the environmental impacts associated with a $0.10 fee. , which would not increase the fee for Further, it should be noted that the bag use assumptions used in the environmental analysis were not based on a fee for recyclable bags or whether retailers kept records of the purchase and sale of recycled paper or reusable bags for three years. Thus, under the Citys proposed Ordinance which would not require a fee for recyclable bags or the provision that requires retailers keep records of the purchase and sale of recycled paper or reusable bags, the bag use assumptions would be the same as in the Countys Final Program EIR. ives for the proposed Ordinance would be the same as San Mateo objectives for the countywide ordinance. include: Reducing the amount of single-use plastic bags in trash loads (e.g., landfills), in conformance with the trash load reduction requirements of the NPDES Municipa Reducing the environmental impacts related to single-use plastic carryout bags, such as impacts to biological resources (including marine environments), water quality and utilities (solid waste) City of Cupertino 3 105 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum Deterring the use of paper bags by customers in the respective j Promoting a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags by re jurisdictions Avoiding litter and the associated adverse impacts to stormwater systems, aesthetics and marine environment (San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This section addresses each of the environmental issues studied EIR, comparing the effects of the proposed Cupertino Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance with the effects of the County of San Mateo Reusable Bag Ordinance that was the subject of the adopted Final Program EIR. he analysis impact related to adopting its own plastic carryout bag ban ordinance and the impacts associated with implementation of such an ordinance citywide. Timpacts identified as less than Appendix A of the Draft EIR). Each of those impacts would remain sed Ordinance. As such, further discussion of these issues in this addendum is not warranted. Air Quality The proposed Ordinance would have impacts related to Air Quality similar to those of the previously studied San Mateo County Ordinance. bag use nal EIR analysis, which analyzed bag use in San Mateo County and in 6 participating municipalities in the County of SaTherefore, all of the carryout bags analyzed for air q, as shown below, impacts would be no greater than what was already determiLike the activities; therefore, there would be no regional or localized constr consideration of construction air quality impacts is not relevant. Thus, this analysis focuses on operational impacts. cts include emissions associated with bag manufacture, transportation, and uemissions resulting from increased delivery trips. Emissions from Manufacture, Transportation and Use As described in Section 4.1 of the expected to result in an overall decrease in ozone and atmospheric acidification (AA) emissions. Table 2 shows the estimated daily emission changes that would result if the County of San Mateo and participating cities in Santa Clara County (including Cupertino) were to implement a plastic bag ban ordinance simiThe emissions related to converting from plastic to paper and reusable are also shown in Table 2. As shown, ozone and atmospheric acidification emissions would decrease in Cupertino. Therefore, sair City of Cupertino 4 106 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum quality impacts from the manufacture, transportation and use of carryout would b compared to existing conditions. Table 2 Estimated Emission Changes Due to the Ozone Emissions per AA Emissions per year Emission Source year (kg) (kg) San Mateo County Ordinance (6,884) (205,220) City of Cupertino Ordinance (390) (11,632) ( ) denotes decrease in emissions compared to existing conditions Source: San Mateo County Draft Program EIR, June 2012, Table 4.1-5 and Appendix B Emissions Resulting From Increased Delivery Trips Similar to th potential increase in delivery truck trips required to transport to affected stores. Ace would result in an overall increase of approximately 1.57 truck trips per day in the Study Area. Using the ology to determine truck trips, increase would be approximately 0.09 truck trips per day. 2 As shown in Table 3, would not result in an exceedance of any thresholds of significance set by the BAAQMD. Consistent with related to mo proposed Ordinance would be less than significant. Table 3 Estimated Daily Emissions From Increased Truck Trips Emissions (lbs/day) Emission Source ROG NO PM PM x 2.510 San Mateo County Ordinance 0.02 0.23 0.03 0.01 City of Cupertino Ordinance <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? No No No No County Ordinance Significant No No No No Impact? Source: San Mateo County Draft Program EIR, August 2012, table 4.1-6; and, URBEMIS output (see Appendix A). 2 Existing bag use in Cupertino estimated to be 31,340,682 plastic year. Assuming that 30% of existing plastic bag use would switch to paper (9,402,205 paper bags), 65 bags assuming 52 uses a year) and 5% would remain (1,567,034 plas. Assuming 2,080,000 plastic bags per truck load, 217,665 paper ba truck load. City of Cupertino 5 107 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum Biological Resources the use and disposal of plastic carryout bags and an increase in the use and dis paper and reusable bags. As of single-use plastic bag litter that could enter the marine environment a species. pap widely noted to have adverse impacts upon biological resources. become a part of the waste stream, because they can be reused mumes and are heavier than plastic carryout bags, the number of reusable bags that wou could impact biological resources would be lower than the number bags. In addition, because paper bags are not as resistant to biodegradation, paper bags do not persist in the marine environment for as long as plastic bags. For the reasons stated above, c result in beneficial effects on sensitive wildlife species and sensitive habitats. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Carryout bags have the potential to contribute to the generationgreenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) either through emissions associated with manufacturing process of carryout bags, truck trips delivering carryout bags to retailers or through disposal For this analysis, t based on the project-level threshold of 4.6 metric tons COE per service population per year (BAAQMD, June 2010). Based on existing 2 population and employment data provided by the California Depart2), the existing population in Cupertino is approximately 59,022. Manufacturing, Transportation, and Disposal As the manufacture, transport, and disposal of a single-use paper bag generates 3.3 times more GHG emissions than the manufa disposal of a single-use plastic bags. If only used once, the manufacture, use, and disposal of a reusable carryout bag results in 2.6 times the GHG emissions of -use plastic bag. However, reusable carryout bags are intended to be used multiple bags, the total carryout bags that would be manufactured, transported and disposed of would be reduced. The increase of approximately 6,418 metric tons of COE emissions per year, or 0.006 metric tons COE per 22 person, as shown in Table 4. Thus, s Final EIR determined Ordinance would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds and therefore impacts related to the manufacturing of paper bags would be less than significant. Similarly, f Ordinance, the conversion of plastic to paper and reusable bags would increase GHG emissions in the City by approximately 364 metric tons per year or 0.006 metric tons per person as shown in Table 4. A Ordinance would have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions. City of Cupertino 6 108 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum Table 4 Estimated GHG Emissions Emission Source COe Emissions Metric Tons per Year 2 (metric tons/year)¹ per Capita San Mateo County 6,418 0.006 Ordinance City of Cupertino Ordinance 364 0.006 1 Represents a net change in GHG emissions compared to existing plastic bag use Source: San Mateo County Draft Program EIR, August 2012 Consistency with Applicable GHG Plans and Policies Consistent with the Co as discussed in tables 4.3-3 and 4.3-proposed Ordinance would be consistent with the objectives of AB 32, SB 97, and SB would be less than significant. Hydrology and Water Quality Hydrology and water quality impacts would be similar to those identified in the EIR. The following discusses the impacts related to drainage and surface water quality that would result from implementation of Drainage not require construction of new structures or additional storm water infrastr. Consequently, the capacity of existing storm water drainage would remain unc redirecting storm water flows would be unnecessary. Single-use plastic bags that become litter may enter storm drains from surface water runoff or may be blown d waterways by the wind. By banning plastic carryout bags within the City, the Ordinance improve the existing drainage capacity by removing a significant that can clog features of the system and reduce its capacity. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the hydrology and water quality related to drainage. Surface Water Quality the manufacturing processes for single-use plastic, single- use paper, and reusable bags utilize various chemicals and mater would reduce plastic bag use by 95% and increase the use of recycled paper and reusable bags. -use bags (including single-use paper, single-use plastic, and reusable bags) would be manufactured for use in the Citya decrease of 64% compared to existing conditions. Consequently, the proposed Ordinance would reduce the overall impacts to water qual manufacturing. Furthermore, manufacturing facilities would be re City of Cupertino 7 109 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum federal, state and local regulations. Therefore, impacts to water quality r Utilities and Service Systems Impacts to utilities and service systems would be similar to impacts discusThe following summarizes the impacts related to wastewater collection and treatment, water supply, and solid waste for . Water Supply Carryout bags would indirectly result in water use through the m carryout bags. As discussed in the Co carryout bags and reusable carryout bags would result in an incr manufacturing process of paper and reusable bags. Manufacturing facilities of carryout bags are not known to be located within San Mateo or Santa Clara Counties. Therefor facilities would not utilize the water supplies of either County or of the City of Cupertino. In addition to water use from manufacturing carryout bags, the proposed Ordinance may result in increased water use as reusable bags would be washed. The that the water demand from washing reusable bags would increase by 395.19 acre-feet per year (AFY). e would be 44.2 AFY as a result of the Total water use in Santa Clara County is estimated to be 332,900 AFY in calendar year 2010. The increase of water demand would repres 0.013% of the total water supplied to the County. This increase would not have significant impacts. As noted above, there is no known manufacturing and production of paper carryout bags in the Study Area (or in the City of Cupertino). Therefore, any increase in water supply necessary for paper carryout bag manufacturing would not impact supplie anticipated to necessitate new or expanded entitlements for water. Consistent with the Final EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Wastewater Generation no manufacturing facilities for paper carryout bags appear to be located within the Study Area. Therefore, any increase in wastewater generation due to paper carryout bag manufacturing would not affect wastewater treatment providers in the Study Area100% of the water used to wash reusable bags would become wastewater, there was an expected increase in wastewater of approximately 395 AFY per year (128,774,812 gallons) or approximately 352,808 The San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, which se remaining capacity of 47 million gallons per day (MGD) and therefore has capacity to treat the change the conclusions regarding wastewater generation since the wastewater and impacts would be less than significant. City of Cupertino 8 110 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum Solid Waste LCA data, Ordinance would reduce solid waste by 2,180 tons per day. Also, as shown in Table 5 proposed Ordinance would also result in a reduction of approximately 123 tons of solid waste per year. However, as shown in Table 5, determined that the ordinance would result in an increase of approximately 255 tons of solid waste per year. Of this total countywide, approximately 86 tons of solid waste per year, or 0.24 tons per day, would be directly related to implementation of As statethroughput of the Newby Island Landfill, which serves the City of Cupertino, is 4,000 tons per day. Ordinance, using the worst case scenario (the Boustead data) the potential increase of 0.24 tons of solid waste per day would represent approximately 0.00006% of the daily capacity of the landfill. Thus, the existing waste disposal facilities in the City could a s proposed Ordinance. Similar to the findings in the Table 5 Solid Waste Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Solid Waste Generation (tons per year) Solid Waste Sources Ecobilan Boustead San Mateo County Ordinance (2,180) 1,524 City of Cupertino Ordinance (123) 86 Sources: Ecobilan. February 2004; Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. 2007. ( ) denotes reduction in solid waste compared to existing conditions Assumes a 36.8 percent of paper carryout bags are diverted from landfills and 11.9 percent of plastic carryout bags are diverted from landfills, based on the 2007 USEPA recycling rates. Conclusion osed Ordinance related to air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gases, hydrology and water quality, and utilities and service systems were determined to have similar impacts as San Mateo All of these issues were determined to result in either less than significant impacts or beneficial impacts. none of the impacts of the proposed Ordinance would be significant, no new significant environmental effects beyond those already analyzed in San Mateo would occur. City of Cupertino 9 111 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum LIST OF REFERENCES Bay Area Air Quality Management District. June 2010, Updated May CEQA Air Quality Retrieved From: Guidelines. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CE D%20CEQA%20Guidelines_December%202010.ashx Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Adopted September 2010Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Homepage: CEQA Guidelin Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA- GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. 2007. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery . Bags Recyclable Plastic; Compostable, Biodegradable Plastic; and Recy Prepared for the Progressive Bag Alliance. California Department of Finance. May 2012. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2010- City of Huntington Beach. February 2012. Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH #2011111053. City of San Jose. May 2011. Environmental Services. San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control . Last Updated May 24, 2011. Retrieved From: Plant http://www.sanjoseca.gov/esd/wastewater/water-pollution-control-plant.asp. City of San Jose. Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. Final Environmental Impact Report. # 2009102095. October 2010. City of Santa Monica. January 2011. Final Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance. Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2010041004). City of Sunnyvale. December 2011. Sunnyvale Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2011062032). County of Los Angeles. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags i Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2009111104). Certified by the Board of Supervisors November 16, 2010. County of San Mateo. Reusable Bag Ordinance (formerly Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance) Final Program EIR. Adopted October 2012 (SCH#2012042013). County of San Mateo. Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance Draft Program June 2012 (SCH#2012042013). City of Cupertino 10 112 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum County of Santa Clara. October 2010. Initial Study for Single-use Carryout Bag. Ecobilan. 2004. . Report prepared for Carrefour Environmental impact assessment of Carrefour bags by Ecobilan. February 2004. Volume I and II. Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities. January 2008. Herrera Environmental Consultants. June 2010. City of San José Single-Use Carryout Bag Fee Fiscal . Analysis Final Report Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). 2010. . Retrieved Urban Water Management Plan 2010 From: http://www.valleywater.org/Services/UWMP2010.aspx. URBEMIS Model, Version 9.2.2. 2007. United States Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review . August 2010. http://www.eia.gov/aer/envir.html. from the U.S. Government United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP). December 2007. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/cctp.html. U.S. EPA. . USEPA #430-R-11-005. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:1990-2009 April 2011. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.htm. U.S. EPA. 2005. . Table 7. As reported in County of Los Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste Angeles, 2007. REPORT PREPARERS Rincon Consultants, Inc. Joe Power, AICP, Principal Matt Maddox, MESM, Senior Program Manager Karly Kaufman, Environmental Planner Katie Stanulis, Production Coordinator City of Cupertino 11 113 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum This page intentionally left blank City of Cupertino 12 114 Appendix A Air Quality URBEMIS Results 115 Page: 1 1/21/2013 2:03:17 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Users\mmaddox\AppData\Roaming\Urbemis\Version9a\Pr Project Name: San Mateo County Bag Ban Ordinance EIR - City of C Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 No Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROGNOxCOSO2PM10PM2.5CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.000.010.000.000.000.002.68 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROGNOxCOSO2PM10PM2.5CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.000.010.000.000.000.002.68 116 Page: 1 1/21/2013 2:03:41 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Operational Unmitigated Emissions (Poun File Name: C:\Users\mmaddox\AppData\Roaming\Urbemis\Version9a\Pr Project Name: San Mateo County Bag Ban Ordinance EIR - City of C Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 No Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigat SourceROGNOXCOSO2PM10PM25CO2 Cupertino Bag Ban Ordinance0.000.010.000.000.000.002.68 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.000.010.000.000.000.002.68 Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2013 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Summary of Land Uses Land Use TypeAcreageTrip RateUnit TypeNo. UnitsTotal TripsTotal VMT Cupertino Bag Ban Ordinance0.091000 sq ft1.000.090.67 0.090.67 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle TypePercent TypeNon-CatalystCatalystDiesel Light Auto0.00.699.20.2 Light Truck < 3750 lbs0.00.896.92.3 117 Page: 2 1/21/2013 2:03:41 PM Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle TypePercent TypeNon-CatalystCatalystDiesel Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs0.00.599.50.0 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs0.00.0100.00.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs0.00.077.822.2 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs0.00.050.050.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs0.00.020.080.0 Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs100.00.00.0100.0 Other Bus0.00.00.0100.0 Urban Bus0.00.00.0100.0 Motorcycle0.056.243.80.0 School Bus0.00.00.0100.0 Motor Home0.00.083.316.7 Travel Conditions ResidentialCommercial Home-WorkHome-ShopHome-OtherCommuteNon-WorkCustomer Urban Trip Length (miles)10.87.37.59.57.47.4 Rural Trip Length (miles)16.87.17.914.76.66.6 Trip speeds (mph)35.035.035.035.035.035.0 % of Trips - Residential32.918.049.1 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Cupertino Bag Ban Ordinance2.01.097.0 118 Page: 3 1/21/2013 2:03:41 PM Operational Changes to Defaults 119 RESOLUTION NO. 13- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RESTATING THE DETERMINATION OF ADEQUACY FOR THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED BY THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO AND APPROVING AN ADDENDUM AND FINDINGS OF FACT TO THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR ADDITION OF CHAPTER 9.17 TO THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING REUSABLE BAGS , single-use carryout bags constitute a high percentage of litter, which WHEREAS is unsightly, costly to clean up, and causes serious negative en , the City has a substantial interest in protecting its resident WHEREAS environment from negative impacts from plastic carryout bags and single-use carryout bags; and , the County of San Mateo designated itself as the lead agency for WHEREAS environmental review under the California Environmental Quality reusable bag ordinance, addressing the impacts of an ordinance banning single-use, carryout bags from stores, while requiring stores that provide r-content paper bags to charge customers a minimum of ten cents($.10) per bag; a on October 23 , 2012 the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors WHEREAS, rd certified a Program Program that analyzed the impacts of ag ordinance if adopted in 24 jurisdictions (18 cities in San Mateo County and 6 cities, including the City of Cupertino, in Santa Clara County). The Program EIR was adopted and certified pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Res 21000 et seq 14, Section 15000 . and is incorporated by reference herein; and et seq , on November 6, 2012 the County adopted an ordinance banning WHEREAS th single-use carryout bags from stores, while requiring stores that provide reusable bags to charge customers for such bags; and 120 , the City is participating as a responsible agency in the Initial WHEREAS and EIR that was certified by the San Mateo County Board of Supe the rdinance encouraged cities within and neighboring WHEREAS, the County to adopt similar ordinances; and , the City of CupertinoSingle- WHEREAS Use Carryout Bags, adding section 9.17 to the Cupertino Municipal Code, fits within the scope of the been modeled ; and on January 15, 2013 the City of Cupertino City Council, reviewed WHEREAS, , and carefully considered the information in the Draft and Final Program EIR and made ordinance regarding reusable bags, and conducted the first reading of the Cupertino ulation of Single- modifications; and to ensure that the minor language modifications were adequately WHEREAS, addressed in the environmental review documents, but because the not rise to the level of the conditions set forth in Public Resources Code Section 2 Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring preparation supplemental EIR, the City of Cupertino prepared an Addendum to the Final Program EIR; and the City Council has exercised its independent judgment in WHEREAS, reviewing and carefully considering the information in the Draft and Final EIR and the Addendum, and hereby restates the findings it made with respect to the D on January 15, 2013 and makes the findings contained in this resolution with respect to the Addendum. consistent with section 15096 of NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the CEQA guidelines and based upon the entirety of the record and independent review of the DEIR and FEIR and the Addendum to the EIR and all the evidence before it, the City Council makes the following findings : 2 121 1)The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of t 2)City has reviewed and considered the program EIR and environmental impacts of the proposed ordinance shown in the EIR, and determines that the certified in accordance with the provisions of CEQA by the Count adoption of a single-use bag ordinance in 24 jurisdictions in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, specifically including the City of Cupertino, is -use carryout bag ordinance. 3)Pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15096, the City as a respons restates its January 15, 2013 approval and adoption of the CEQA findings of fa related to the EIR, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. 4)The City Council has reviewed and considered the Addendum to the that it is complete, correct, adequate and prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, and hereby approves and adopts the Addendum and CEQA findings of fact related to the Addendum, attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. 5)Based on the information and analysis in the Program EIR and the Addendum, the City Council finds that the proposed ordinance (including modifi result in any significant environmental effect, and that there a alternatives or mitigation measures that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment. 6)Adoption of the Regulation of Single-Use CarryoutBags ordinance and the determination that the Program EIR and Addendum reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Cupertino; and 7)None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 or 15163 are applicable to adoption of the proposed Regulation of Single-Use Carryout Bags ordinance (including modifications), and adoption of the Regulation of Single-Use Carryout Bags ordinance is an activity that is part of the program examined by ogram EIR and the Addendum to the EIR. No further environmental review is required. 3 122 8)A Notice of Determination shall be filed by the City of Cupertino pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15094 and 15096. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the City Council of t Cupertino this 5 day of March, 2013, by the following vote: th Vote Members of the City Council Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________ ___ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Orrin Mahoney, Mayor 4 123 Exhibit A CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE REUSABLE BAG ORDINANCES October 23, 2012 124 1. OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION Project Approvals These findings are made with respect to the (as defined Project below) for the Reusable Bag Ordinances (the ) to be adopted by the County of San Mateo (the County) and various municipalities in the County and in Santa Clara County and state the findings of the Board of Supervisors (the Board ) of the County relating to the potential environmental effects of the Project. The following findings are required by the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA (), Public Resources Code Sections 21081, 21081.5 and 21081.6, and CEQA Guidelines Title 14, California Code of Regulations (the ) Sections 15091 through 15093, for the Project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project where an Environ- EIR mental Impact Report () has been certified, which identifies one or more significant impacts on the environment that would occur if the Project is approved or carried out, unless the public agency makes one or more findings for each of those significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale of each finding. The possible findings, which must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, are: a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant impact on the environment. b. Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. c. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. For those significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to below a level of signifi- cance, the public agency is required to find that the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant impacts on the environment. As discussed in detail below, the Project would not result in any significant unavoidable effects; all potential impacts identified by Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR are either beneficial or less than significant such that no mitigation measures are required. The Project EIR determines that no significant impacts on the environment would occur if the Project is approved or carried out and only identifies impacts that would be considered less than significant without need for mitigation and impacts that would be considered beneficial to the environment. Findings for each of the 2 125 impacts considered less than significant or beneficial, as accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale of each finding, are provided below. 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed Ordinances The proposed Reusable Bag Ordinances () would regulate the use of paper and plastic single-use carryout bags w participating municipalities. Participating municipalities include the County of San Mateo and 24 cities in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties: Participating Municipalities, in Addition to the County of San Mateo, in the Program EIR San Mateo County Santa Clara County Belmont MillbraeMilpitas BrisbanePacifica Cupertino BurlingamePortola Valley Los Gatos Colma Redwood City Los Altos Daly City San Bruno Campbell East Palo Alto San Carlos Mountain View Foster City San Mateo Half Moon Bay South San Francisco Menlo Park Woodside For the purposes of the Program EIR, the geographical limits of unincorporated San Mateo County and all of the participating municipalities listed above shall be Study Area known as the . The Program EIR assumes the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance by the County and adoption of ordinances that are identical or materially similar to the Countys Ordinance by each municipality in the Study Area, where the Proposed Ordinances would apply to all retail establishments located within the limits of the Study Area, including those selling clothing, food, and personal items directly to the customer. The Proposed Ordinances would not apply to restaurants or non-profit charitable reuse organizations. The Proposed Ordinances would (1) prohibit the free distribution of single-use carryout paper and plastic bags and (2) require retail establishments to charge customers for recycled paper bags and reusable bags at the point of sale. The minimum charge would be ten cents ($0.10) per recycled paper bag until December 31, 2014, and twenty-five cents ($0.25) per paper bag on or after January 1, 2015. For the County, the Project Sponsor is the Environmental Health Services Division of the County of San Mateo Health System, where Dean D. Peterson, Director, is the project applicant. 3 126 3. PROJECT APPROVALS The Project Approvals constitute the Project for purposes of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and these determinations of the Board. For unincorporated San Mateo County, the Proposed Ordinance would require an amendment to the San Mateo County Ordinance Code with discretionary approval by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. The following approvals would be required: Certification of the Final Program EIR (Board of Supervisors) Adoption of an Ordinance amending the Ordinance Code (Board of Supervisors) Subsequent to adoption of the Ordinance, the County would file a Notice of Determination (NOD), as set forth in Section 21152 of the California Public Resources Code, with the San Mateo County Clerk. For each of the 24 participating agencies, the Proposed Ordinances would require an amendment to the citys municipal code with discretionary approval by the municipalitys city council. The following approvals would be required for each municipality: Consider the Final Program EIR (City Council) Adoption of an Ordinance amending the Ordinance Code (City Council) Subsequent to adoption of the Ordinance, each municipality would file a Notice of Determination (NOD) similar to the NOD to be filed by the County as lead agency after its adoption of the Ordinance. 4. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The County of San Mateos and the participating cities objectives for the Proposed Ordinances include: Reducing the amount of single-use plastic bags in trash loads ( landfills), in conformance with the trash load reduction requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Permit. Reducing the environmental impacts related to single-use plastic carryout bags, such as impacts to biological resources (including marine environ- ments), water quality and utilities (e.g., solid waste). Minimizing the use of paper bags by customers in the participating jurisdictions. 4 127 Promoting a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags by retail customers in the participating jurisdictions. Avoiding litter and the associated adverse impacts to stormwater systems, aesthetics and the marine environment (San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean). 5. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the Record of Proceedi Project shall include, at a minimum, the following documents: NOP The Notice of Preparation () and all other public notices issued by the County in conjunction with the Project; The Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance Draft Program EIR (June 2012) and Reusable Bag Ordinance (formerly Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance) Final Program EIR (August 2012) and all documents cited or referred to therein; All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day public comment period for the Draft Program EIR; All comments and correspondence submitted to the County with respect to the Project, in addition to timely comments on the Draft Program EIR; All findings and resolutions adopted by County decision makers in connec- tion with the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein; All reports, studies, memoranda, staff reports, maps, exhibits, illustrations, diagrams or other planning materials relating to the Project prepared by the County or by consultants to the County, the applicant, or responsible or trustee agencies and submitted to the County, with respect to the Countys compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the Countys actions on the Project; All documents submitted to the County by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the Project, up through the close of the public hearing on October 23, 2012; Minutes, as available, of all public meetings and public hearings held by the County in connection with the Project; Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the County at such information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings; 5 128 Matters of common knowledge to the County, including, but not limited to, those cited above; and Any other materials required to be in the Record of Proceedings Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The custodian of the documents comprising the Record of Proceedings is the Countys Planning and Building Department, whose office is located at 455 County Center, Second Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063. The Board has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the Project. 6. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The County released an NOP of an EIR for the Project on April 6, 2012. Rincon Consultants, Inc., prepared a Draft Program EIR entitled Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance Draft Program EIR under the direction of the County Planning and Building Department. The Draft Program EIR consists of the Draft Program EIR and Appendices, consisting of Appendix A through F. The Draft Program EIR is dated June 2012. A Notice of Completion and copies of the Draft Program EIR were delivered to the State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2012042013) on June 22, 2012. The Draft Program EIR was circulated for a duly noticed 45-day public review period that began on June 22, 2012 and ended on August 6, 2012. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft Program EIR was posted by the County Clerk on June 22, 2012, and published in the San Mateo County Times and San Jose Mercury News (both newspapers of general circulation serving the area in which the Project is located). The NOA of the Draft Program EIR was also sent by mail and/or electronic mail to interested parties (those who had comments on the NOP) and participating agencies. An electronic link to the Draft Program EIR in .pdf format was posted on the Countys website and copies of the Draft Program EIR were made available for review at the County of San Mateo Planning and Building Department and at the following libraries in the Study Area: Serramonte Main Library San Mateo Main Library 40 Wembley Drive 55 West Third Avenue Daly City, CA 94015 San Mateo, CA 94402 Millbrae Library Redwood City Downtown Library 1 Library Avenue 1044 Middlefield Road Millbrae, CA 94030 Redwood City, CA 94063 6 129 Half Moon Bay Library Los Gatos Public Library Town Civic Center 620 Correas Street 100 Villa Avenue Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 Los Gatos, CA 95030 Mountain View Library 585 Franklin Street Milpitas Library Mountain View, CA 94041 160 North Main Street Milpitas, CA 95035 The Countys Planning Commission held an informational public hearing on July 11, 2012, to receive comments on the Draft Program EIR. The County of San Mateo Planning and Building Department prepared a Final Program EIR entitled Reusable Bag Ordinance (formerly Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance) Final Program EIR. Pursuant to Section 15132 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this Final Program EIR consists of (a) revisions to the Draft Program EIR, (b) a list of persons and organizations that commented on the Draft Program EIR, (c) comments received on the Draft EIR, (d) the Countys responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process, and (e) any other information added by the County. The Final Program EIR is dated August 2012. The Final Program EIR was released and distributed to public agencies and other commenters on the Draft Program EIR and for public review, on August 31, 2012, more than 10 days in advance of the scheduled date of consideration of the document for certification by the County Board of Supervisors. Although not required by CEQA, a notice was sent by electronic mail to interested parties (those who had provided comments on the Draft EIR) and participating agencies. Copies of the Final Program EIR were made available for review at the County of San Mateo Planning and Building Department and at libraries listed above, and an electronic link to the Final Program EIR in .pdf format was posted on the Countys website. Copies of the Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR, including appendices, studies, documents and reports referenced EIRs are available for public review at the Planning and Building Department, 455 County Center, Second Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063. Copies of the Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR can also be viewed online at the following website: http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/portal/site/planning. The County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on October 23, 2012 to consider the Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR. At the conclusion of the Board of Supervisors public hearing of October 23, 2012, the Board of Super- visors certified the Final Program EIR (which incorporates the Draft Program EIR, as corrected). 2 130 7. FINDINGS OF FACT The Program EIR assumes the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance by the County and adoption of ordinances that are identical or materially similar to the Countys Ordinance by each municipality in the Study Area. The following references to Proposed Ordinance refer to the adoption of an individual Ordinance in each participating agency of the Final Program EIR: A. IMPACTS DECLARED TO BE BENEFICIAL (NO MITIGATION REQUIRED) Air Quality Impacts: Impact AQ-1: With a shift toward reusable bags, the Proposed Ordinance is expected to substantially reduce the number of single- use carryout bags, thereby reducing the total number of bags manufactured and the overall air pollutant emissions associated with bag manufacture, transportation and use. Therefore, air quality impacts related to alteration of processing activities would be Class IV, beneficial, effect. Biological Resource Impacts: Impact BIO-1: Although the Proposed Ordinance would incrementally increase the number of recycled paper and reusable bags within the Study Area, the reduction in the amount of single-use plastic bags would be expected to reduce the overall amount of litter entering the coastal and bay habitat, thus reducing litter-related impacts to sensitive wildlife species and sensitive habitats. This is a Cl beneficial, effect. Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts: Impact HWQ-1: The Proposed Ordinance would incrementally increase the number of recycled paper and reusable bags used in Study Area, but the reduction in the overall number of single-use plastic bags used in the Study Area would reduce the amount of litter and waste entering storm drains. This would improve local surface water quality, a Class IV, beneficial, effect. B. IMPACTS DECLARED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT (NO MITIGATIONREQUIRED) The Board finds that the environmental impacts identified in the Final Program EIR as being less than significant or as having no impact have been described and analyzed accurately and are less than signifi 7 131 have no impact for the reasons described in the Final Program EIR. Reference should be made to the Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR for a more complete description of the findings regarding these impacts. Specifically, the Board makes the following findings as to the following impacts: Air Quality Impacts: Impact AQ-2: With an expected increase in the use of recyclable paper bags, the Proposed Ordinance would generate air pollutant emissions associated with an incremental increase in truck trips to deliver recycled paper and reusable carryout bags to local retai However, emissions would not exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) operational significance thresholds Therefore, operational air quality impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Impacts Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Impact GHG-1: The Proposed Ordinance would increase the number of recyclable paper bags used in the Study Area. Implementation of the Proposed Ordinance would incrementally increase GHG emissions over existing levels. However, emissions would not exceed thresholds of significance. Therefore, impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Impact GHG-2: The Proposed Ordinance would not conflict with any agencys applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts: Impact HWQ-2: A shift toward reusable bags and potential increase in the use of recyclable paper bags could potentially increase the use of chemicals associated with their production, which could degrade water quality in some instances and locations. However, bag manufactu would be required to adhere to existing regulations, including NPDES Permit requirements, AB 258, and the California Health and Safety Code. Therefore, impacts to water quality from increasing bag processing activities would be Class III, less than significant. 8 132 Impacts to Utilities and Service Systems: Impact U-1: The increase of reusable bags within the Study Area as a result of the Proposed Ordinance would incrementally increase, by a negligible amount, water demand due to washing of reusable bags. However, sufficient water supplies are available to meet the neg increase in demand created by reusable bags. Therefore, water supply impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Impact U-2: Water use associated with washing reusable bags would increase negligibly in the Study Area, resulting in an increase in wastewater generation. However, projected wastewater flows would remain within the capacity of the wastewater collection and treatment system of the Study Area, and would not exceed applicable waste- water treatment requirements of the RWQCB. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Impact U-3: The Proposed Ordinance would alter the solid waste generation associated with increased paper bag use in the Study Area. However, projected future solid waste generation would remain within the capacity of regional landfills. Impacts would therefore be Class III, less than significant. 8. ALTERNATIVES The Program EIR assumes the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance by the County and adoption of ordinances that are identical or materially similar to the Countys Ordinance by each municipality in the Study Area. The following references to Proposed Ordinance refer to the adoption of an individual Ordinance in each participating agency of the Final Program EIR: As noted above, the Project would not result in any significant unavoidable effects. All potential impacts identified by Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR are either beneficial or less than significant such that no mitigation measures are required. In order to select and analyze alternatives that would avoid or sub- stantially lessen any of the Projects identified less than significant adverse environmental effects, the following environmental topics for which less than significant effects were identified in Final Program EIR were considered: Air Quality: Pollutant emissions from paper bag manufacture and delivery. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Emissions from paper bag manufacture delivery, and degradation. Hydrology and Water Quality: Litter in storm drains and waterways associated with plastic and paper bags. 9 133 Utilities and Service Systems: Water use from the manufacture of plastic and paper bags and cleaning of reusable bags, as well as wastewater generation from the cleaning of reusable bags. Solid waste from the disposal of plastic, paper and reusable bags. The following four alternatives are evaluated in the Final Program EIR: Alternative 1: No Project The no project alternative assumes that the Reusable Bag Ordinance is not adopted or implemented. Single-use plastic and paper carryout b continue to be available free-of-charge to customers at most retail stores throughout the Study Area. In addition, reusable carryout bags continue to be available for purchase by retailers. Thus, it is assumed that the use of carryout bags at Study Area retail stores would not materially change compared to current conditions. Alternative 2: Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags at all Retail Establishments Similar to the proposed Reusable Bag Ordinance, this alternative would prohibit Study Area retailers from providing single-use plastic carryout bags to customers at the point of sale and create a mandatory $0.10 charge per paper bag until December 31, 2014, and twenty-five cents ($0.25) per paper bag on or after January 1, 2015. However, under this alternative, the Ordinance would apply to all categories of retail establishments, including restaurants and non-profit, charitable retailers. As a result, under this alternative, no single-use plastic carryout bags would be distributed at the point of sale anywhere within the Study Area. Alternative 3: Mandatory Charge of $0.25 for Paper Bags This alternative would continue to prohibit Study Area retail establishments from providing single-use plastic bags to customers at the point of sale, but would increase the mandatory charge for a single-use paper bag from $0.10 to $0.25 initially rather than on or after January 1, 2015. As a result of the $0.15 mandatory charge increase per paper bag, it is anticipated that this alternative would further and more quickly promote the use of reusable bags since customers would be deterred from purchasing paper bags due to the additional cost. Alternative 4: Ban on Both Single-Use Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags This alternative would prohibit all Study Area retail establishments (except restaurants and non-profit, charitable retailers) from providing single-use plastic and paper carryout bags to customers at the point of sale. It is 10 134 anticipated that by also prohibiting paper carryout bags, this alternative would significantly reduce single-use paper carryout bags within the Study Area, and further promote the shift to the use of reusable bags by retail customers. By banning both single-use plastic and paper bags, customers would be forced to use reusable carryout bags. This is expected the number of reusable bags purchased within the Study Area. A. ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM CONSIDERATION The Program EIR assumes the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance by the County and adoption of ordinances that are identical or materially similar to the Countys Ordinance by each municipality in the Study Area. The following references to Proposed Ordinance refer to the adoption of an individual Ordinance in each participating agency of the Final Program EIR: CEQA requires that all alternatives considered be described, but it does not require a full analysis of alternatives that are infeasible, that do not meet the Project objectives, or that do not potentially reduce environmental impacts. Alternatives considered but eliminated from further consideration for these reasons are addressed in Section 6.5 of the Draft Program EIR and are summarized below. Additional litter removal programs, education efforts, enforcement for littering, and recycling programs for plastic bags: This altern rejected because it does not achieve the Ordinances objectives, including reducing the use of paper bags and promoting a shift toward the use of reusable bags. Ban Styrofoam (polystyrene) in addition to banning single-use plastic carryout bags: This alternative would not achieve the Proposed Ordinances objectives of reducing the environmental impacts related to single-use plastic bags or reduce any of the Proposed Ordinances environmental effects. Environmental impacts related to polystyrene use are outside the scope and objectives of the proposed action. Ban single-use plastic carryout bags, but not charge for paper bags at retailers in the Study Area: This alternative was rejected beca would not reduce customers use of paper bags, which have greater impacts related to air quality, GHG emissions, and water quality than plastic bags on a per bag basis. In addition, this alternative would not achieve the Proposed Ordinances objective of promoting a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags by retail customers to as great a degree as would occur with the Proposed Ordinance. Ban the use of single-use plastic carryout bags by retailers (e restaurants), with the exception of plastic bags made with bio- 11 135 degradable or compostable additives: This alternative was rejected from consideration because the environmental impacts associated with using biodegradable and compostable additives are uncertain at this time. Researchers at California State University Chico Research Foundation tested the degradation of biodegradable bags in composting conditions, and found that they did not degrade (CIWMB 2007; Green Cities California MEA, 2010). Furthermore, these bags reduce the quality of recycled plastics when introduced into the recycling stream and so must be kept separate to avoid contaminating the recycling stream (CIWMB 2007; Green Cities California MEA, 2010). Therefore, it is unclear what environmental impacts may be associated with switching to plastic bags made with biodegradable additives or water-soluble bags. In addition, this alternative would not achieve the objectives of reducing the amount of single-use plastic bags in trash loads (e.g., landfills), in conformance with the trash load reduction requirements of the NPDES Municipal Regional Permit, promoting a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags by retail customers, and avoiding litter and the associated adverse impacts to stormwater systems, aesthetics and the marine environment (San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean). Ban the use of single-use plastic carryout bags by retailers (e restaurants) and apply the ban to doggie waste cleanup bags at public parks: While plastic doggie waste cleanup bags may have certain impacts to the environment, it is assumed that these types of bags represent only a very small percentage of total plastic bag use. In contrast, the use of these types of bags promote the proper disposal of solid waste and benefit water quality in reducing so stormwater pollution. Thus, while this alternative would further reduce the overall number of plastic bags produced and used, it would not promote a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags by retail customers in the Study Area and could potentially increase impacts to stormwater systems. Environmental impacts related to plastic doggie waste cleanup bag use in the Study Area are outside the scope and objectives of the Proposed Ordinance. Implement an action targeting litter from homeless encampments near water bodies: This alternative would not achieve the objectives of reducing the amount of single-use plastic bags in trash loads (e.g., landfills), in conformance with the trash load reduction requirements of the NPDES Municipal Regional Permit and promoting a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags by retail customers. Require retailers to offer incentives for customers to use reus bags (such as paying customers) rather than banning single-use bags: While this alternative may deter some customers from using single- 12 136 use plastic and paper bags, it may not promote the shift to reusable carryout bags by retail customers as effectively and would place a financial burden on the Study Area retailers. B. FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CEQA only requires public agencies to make findings regarding the feasibility of project alternatives in limited circumstances. Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) provides that a public agency may not approve a project unless it makes findings, with respect to each significant project effect, that (1) mitigation has been required to reduce the significant effect, (2) mitigation to reduce the significant effect is within the jurisdiction of another public agency and should be adopted by that agency, and (3) that [s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations . . . make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (Pub. Res. Code § 21081(a), emphasis added, see also CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a).) In Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (CH Oceanside) (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 490, the Court of Appeals confirmed that, where the city found that the only adverse impact of a project could be avoided through the imposition of mitigation measures, it was not required to make any findings regarding the feasibility of proposed alternatives. (Citing Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 351, 379 [CEQA does not require the agency to consider the feasibility of environ- mentally superior project alternatives identified in the EIR if described mitigation measures will reduce environmental impacts to acceptable levels],Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 402, and Laurel Hills Homeowners Ass’n v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521.) The Project would not result in any significant unavoidable effects. All potential impacts identified by Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR are either beneficial or less than significant such that no mitigation measures are required. Accordingly, the County is not required to make findings regarding the feasibility of the alternatives considered in the EIR. C. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts which cannot be avoided. Based on the a contained in the Final Program EIR, implementation of the Project would not result in any significant unavoidable environmental impacts. 13 137 D. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT The Program EIR assumes the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance by the County and adoption of ordinances that are identical or materially similar to the Countys Ordinance by each municipality in the Study Area. The following references to Proposed Ordinance refer to the adoption of an individual Ordinance in each participating agency of the Final Program EIR: Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of the ways in which a proposed action could be growth inducing. This ways in which the Project would foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Based on the analysis contained in the Draft Program EIR, the Project would not be growth inducing as it would not affect long-term employment opportunities or increase the regions population. Employment patterns in the region would not be affected, as there are no known plastic bag manufacturing facilities in the Study Area. In addition, recyclable paper bag use is anticipated to increase incrementally. However, similar to plastic bag manufacturing, employment patterns in the region would not be affected by the Proposed Ordinance, as there are no known paper bag manufacturing plants in the Study Area. However, it should be noted that there is a paper bag manufacturing plant in Buena Park, California. Also, demand for reusable bags can be anticipated to increase. Nevertheless, incremental increases in the use of paper and reusable bags in the region are not anticipated to significantly affect long-term employment at these facilities or increase the regions population. Revenues generated by sales of paper bags would remain with th stores. The Proposed Ordinance would not affect economic growth and therefore would not be significant. No improvements to water, sewer, and drainage connection infra would be necessary for Project implementation. No new roads would be required. Because the Proposed Ordinance would not include any physical development or construction activities and would not involve the of infrastructure into areas that otherwise could not accommodate growth, it would not remove an obstacle to growth. For these reasons, the Project would not result in significant growth-inducing impacts. 14 138 E. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES TO THE ENVIRONMENT The Program EIR assumes the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance by the County and adoption of ordinances that are identical or materially similar to the Countys Ordinance by each municipality in the Study Area. The following references to Proposed Ordinance refer to the adoption of an individual Ordinance in each participating agency of the Final Program EIR: Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that significant irreversible environmental changes associated with a project shall be discussed, including the following: (1) Uses of non-renewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the Project that may be irreversible because a large commitment of such resources makes removal or non-use thereafter unlikely; (2) Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement that provides access to a previously inaccessible area), which generally commit future generations to similar uses; and (3) Irreversible damage that could result from environmental accidents associated with the Project. The intent of the Proposed Ordinance is to reduce the environmental impacts related to the use of single-use carryout bags, and to promote a shift toward the use of reusable bags. As an Ordinance, the Project would not include development of any physical structures or involve any construction activity. Therefore, the Proposed Ordinance would not alter existing land uses or cause irreversible physical alterations related to land development or resource use. To the contrary, the express purpose of the Ordinance is to reduce the wasteful use of resources and associated environmental impacts. Therefore, the Project, as proposed, would not result in significant irreversible environmental changes. 12. SUMMARY Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record, it is determined that: All potential effects on the environment due to the Project are either less than significant, such that no mitigation is required, or beneficial to the environment. 15 139 13. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE The Final Program EIR is hereby incorporated into these findings in its entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the basis for determining the significance of impacts and the comparative analysis of alternatives. 14. RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED Minor changes to the Draft Program EIR have been made since its publication as a result of comments received from organizations and individuals on the docu- ment. Staffinitiated changes include minor corrections and clarification to the text to correct typographical errors. None of the changes affect the analysis or conclusions of the Draft Program EIR. The changes to the Draft Program EIR do not require recirculation of the Program EIR because they do not result in any increased environmental effects that would alter or modify the conclusions of significance contained in the Draft Program EIR. The corrections and additions do not identify any new significant impacts, and, therefore, do not require additional mitigation measures or alternatives to the proposed Project. These are minor changes that do not require recirculation of the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b)). 15. CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Board finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final Program Environmental Impact Report in evaluating the Project, that the Final Program Environmental Impact Report is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and that the Environmental Impact Report reflects the independent judgment of the Board. The Board declares that no significant new impacts or information as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 have been received by the Board after the circulation of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report that would require recirculation. All of the information added to the Final Program Environmental Impact Report merely clarifies, amplifies or makes insignificant modifications to an already adequate EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b). The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo hereby certifies the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Project is adequate and complete in that it addresses the environmental effects of the Project and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. The Final Program Environmental Impact Report is composed of: The backup file material for the Project. The Notice of Preparation. 16 140 The Initial Study and the studies it relies upon. The Draft Environmental Impact Report dated June 2012. The comments on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report and responses thereto as contained in the Final Program EIR dated August 2012. The staff report for the public hearings before the Planning Commission held on July 11, 2012 and September 12, 2012. The staff report for the public hearing before the Board of Supervisors held on October 23, 2012. The minutes of the hearings and all documentary and other testimonial evidence submitted thereat. The Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof. Findings CEQA Compliance : As the decision-making body for the Project, the Board has reviewed and considered the information contained in the findings and supporting documentation. The Board determines that the findings contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project. The Board finds that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and applicable State and County Guidelines and that the County complied with CEQAs proce- dural and substantive requirements, such that the public was provided meaningful opportunity to comment regarding potential environmental effects of the Project. The 45-day public review period for the Draft Program EIR was June 22, 2012 to August 6, 2012. The 10-day public review period for the Final Program EIR was August 31, 2012 to September 10, 2012. The EIR concludes that the Project, as proposed, will result in impacts considered less than significant or beneficial to the environment. Review by the Decision Making Body Prior to Approval : The Final Program EIR was prepared and reviewed under the supervision and directions of the County of San Mateos Planning and Building Department staff. The Board is the final decision-making body for approval of the Project. The Board has received and reviewed the Final Program Environmental Impact Report prior to certifying the Final Program Environmental Impact Report and prior to making any decision to approve or disapprove the Project. Independent Judgment of Lead Agency : The Final Program Environmental Impact Report reflects the Countys independent judgment. Public Resources Code Section 21082.1 requires any environmental impact report or draft environmental impact report, prepared pursuant to the requirements of this division, to be prepared directly by, or under contract to, a public agency. The County has exercised independent judgment in accordance with this section retaining its own environmental consultant and directing the consultant in preparation of the Draft and Final Program Environmental Impact Report. 17 141 Conclusions : The Project would not result in any significant unavoidable effects. All potential impacts identified by Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR are either beneficial or less than significant such that no mitigation measures are required. 16. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM All potential impacts identified by Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR are either beneficial or less than significant such that no mitigation measures are required. Therefore, no mitigation monitoring program is required or necessary. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this ____ day of ____________, 2012. 18 142 County of San Mateo Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance Program EIR Attachment B Section 2.0 Project Description P A C I F I C O C E A N Bing Maps Hybrid: (c) 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data s baselayer data from San Mateo County Information Services Depart Project Location (San Mateo County) Aerial Map of 0 36Miles Participating City* in County of San Mateo and San Mateo County) Participating Cities in * Cities not included in Study Area: San Mateo County Atherton and Hillsborough Figure 2-1 County of San Mateo 143 County of San Mateo Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance Program EIR Section 2.0 Project Description Milpitas Mountain View Los Altos Cupertino Campbell Los Gatos Bing Maps Hybrid: (c) 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers. Additional baselayer data from San Mateo County Information Services Department, May 2012. Project Location 01.252.5Miles (Participating City Boundary in Santa Clara County) Aerial Map of Participating Cities in Santa Clara County Figure 2-2 County of San Mateo 144 Attachment C COUNTY OF SAN MATEO PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: September 12, 2012 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:Consideration of: (1) the certification of a Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final Program EIR)that analyzes the adoption of a Reusable Bag Ordinance (formerly Single-Use Bag Ban Ordinance) by the County of San Mateo and by cities in San Mateo County (Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Pa Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Franci Woodside) and by cities in Santa Clara County (Milpitas, Cuperti Gatos, Los Altos, Campbell, Mountain View); and (2) a proposed Reusable Bag Ordinance Regulating the Distribution of Single-Use Carryout Bags by Retail Establishments (Except Restaurants). PROPOSAL The applicant, the County Environmental Health Services Division Reusable Bag Ordinance (Proposed Ordinance) to be implemented within areas of unincorporated San Mateo County. The Proposed Ordinance will pr- tion of plastic bags by retail establishments and require these customers for recycled paper bags and reusable bags at the point of sale. The minimum charge would be ten cents ($0.10) per paper bag until De and twenty-five cents ($0.25) per paper bag on or after January 1, 2015. A stores may retain the charges to compensate the stores for increased costs related to compliance with the Proposed Ordinance. The Proposed Ordinance restaurants, take-out food establishments, or non-profit charitable reuse organizations. The Proposed Ordinance exempts retail customers participating in the California Special Supplement Food Programs and the CalFresh program from the paper bag charge. The Proposed Ordinance would be effective on April 22, and consumers time to comply with the Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of Supervisors: 1.Certify the Final Program EIR,and 2.Adopt the Reusable Bag Ordinance. 145 SUMMARY It is estimated that retail customers within the County and part San Mateo County consume approximately 386 million plastic bags other participating agencies in Santa Clara County are included,s to approximately 546 million plastic bags per year. According to the Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags prepared by Green Cities California in March 2010, most used plastic bags end up in landfills or as litter. The Proposed Ordinance draws on ordinances from other cities in California of San Jose) and is the product of outreach and feedback from ci Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San B San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, and Woodside, all pa in the Final Program EIR) and business representatives (e.g., Chambers of Com local businesses)in San Mateo County. The objectives of the Proposed Ordinance a to: Reduce the amount of single-use plastic bags in trash loads, in conformance with the trash load reduction requirements of the NPDES Municipal Regional Permit. Reduce environmental impacts related to single-use plastic carryout bags, such as impacts to biological resources, water quality, and utilities Deter the use of paper bags by customers in the County. Promote use of reusable carryout bags by retail customers in theCounty. Avoid litter and associated adverse impacts to stormwater system and the marine environment (San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Oc In addition to the County and 18 listed cities in San Mateo Counalso invited Santa Clara cities to participate in the Countys Program Environmen Report (Program EIR) to encourage regional reusable bag use. Inclusion of a cit scope of the Program EIR would allow thatcity to use the Program EIR to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act in the adoption of their own b The cities of Milpitas, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Los Altos, Campbeland Mountain View choose to be included in the Program EIR. The Final Program EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the adoption of an identical or similar ord the County and each of the 24 participating agencies. The Draft Program EIR analyzes the following issue areas in whic Ordinance may result in potentially significant environmental impacts: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology/Water Utilities and Service Systems. The Draft Program EIR concludes Ordinance may result in some negative environmental impacts in these issue areas, but -2- 146 that these impacts would be less than significant such that no m needed, and that the Proposed Ordinance would also result in ben these issue areas. CL:pac -CMLW0606_WPU.DOCX -3- 147 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: September 12, 2012 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Consideration of: (1) the certification of a Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final Program EIR),pursuant to the California Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA), that analyzes the adoption of a Reusa Ordinance (formerly Single-UseBag Ban Ordinance) by the County of San Mateo and by cities in San Mateo County (Belmont, Brisbane, Burl Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo P Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San San Mateo, South San Francisco, Woodside) and by cities in Santa County (Milpitas, Cupertino, Los Gatos, LosAltos, Campbell, Mountain View); and (2) a proposed Reusable Bag Ordinance (formerly Single-Use Bag Ban Ordinance) that would apply to retail establishments (in those selling clothing, food, and personal items directly to the but would not apply to restaurants nor charitable reuse organiza would (1) prohibit the free distribution of single-use carryout paper and plastic bags and (2) require retail establishments to charge cus recycled paper bags and reusable bags at thepoint of sale (minimum charge would be ten cents ($0.10) until December 31, 2014 and tw- five cents ($0.25) on or after January 1, 2015), within unincorp areas of San Mateo County. County File Number: PLN 2012-00136 PROPOSAL Summary of Ordinance Provisions The applicant, the County Environmental Health Services Division Reusable Bag Ordinance (Proposed Ordinance) to be implemented wi unincorporated San Mateo County. The Proposed Ordinance will: Prohibit the distribution of plastic bags by retail establishmen law already restricts local jurisdictions from imposing a fee on-use plastic 148 1 bags, the Proposed Ordinance imposes a cost pass-throughby prohibiting the free distribution of single-use carryout paper and plastic bags. Require retail establishments to charge customers for recycled p reusable bags at the point of sale. The minimum charge would be ($0.10) per paper bag until December 31, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) per paper bag on or after January 1, 2015. Allow the recycled bag charge to be retained by the affected sto the stores for increased costs related to compliance with the Pr Define the specific factors (durability and washability) that qu Exclude restaurants, take-out food establishments, or any other business that receives 90%or more of its revenue from the sale of prepared food to be eate or off its premises. Exclude non-profit charitable reuse organizations. Exempt retail customers participating in the California Special Food 2 Programs and the CalFresh program from having to pay the charge for a paper bag. Ordinance Implementation The Proposed Ordinance would: Be effective on April 22, 2013, giving stores and consumers time the ordinance and locate reusable bags as alternatives to carry purchases from stores. Require regulated retail establishments to keep complete and accurate records (including documents of the purchase and sale of any recycled pa reusable bag) for a minimum period of three years from the date of purchase and sale. Be enforcedby complaint response, as well as random compliance visits by Environmental Health Specialists. For stores out of compliance, the Environmental Health Services follow up with an educational letter for first time violations u well as outlining re-inspection fees charged for subsequent re-inspection visits. 1 A cost-share system where some or all of the cost of a product is passe-through from the purchaser to the receiver of the product. 2 The CalFresh (Food Stamp) program provides electronic benefits f-income households to buy food at most grocery stores. - 2 - 149 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the Supervisors: 1.Certify the Final Program EIR, and 2. Adopt the Reusable Bag Ordinance. BACKGROUND Report Prepared By: Camille Leung,Project Planner Applicant: Dean D. Peterson, Director of Environmental Health S SanMateo Location: Once adopted, the Ordinancewould apply to all of unincorporated San Mateo County. The Study Area of the Final Program EIRconsidersa bag ordinance adopted within unincorporated San Mateo County as well as a similar ordi the 18 participating cities in San Mateo County and six particip County. Environmental Evaluation: The Draft Program EIR was issued with a 45-day public review period from June 22, 2012 to August 6, 2012. The Final Program EIR(which includes the Draft Program EIR by reference and corrections) was issued with a 10-day Public Review period from August 31, 2012 to September 10, 2012. Chronology: DateAction March 23, 2012 - County enters into an Agreement with Rincon Consultants, Inc., to perform environmental consulting services, including preparation of a Program Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report for the project. April 6, 2012 - The County of San Mateo prepares a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Program EIR and distributes the NOP for agency and public review for a 30-day review period. April May 2012 - The County conducts seven public scoping meetings during the NOP comment period, which take place in Half Moon Bay (April 18), San Mateo (April 19), Mountain View (April 25), South San Francisco (April 26), Campbell (May 2), Milpitas (May 3) and Redwood City (May 3). June 22, 2012 - Public releasedate of Draft Program EIR. - 3 - 150 July 11, 2012 - Planning Commission Informational Public Hearing of the Draft Program EIR. August 6, 2012 - End of Draft Program EIR 45-day Public Review and Comment Period. August 31, 2012 - Public release date of Final Program EIR.Final Program EIR released with new name of Reusable Bag Ordinance, formerly Single-UseBag Ban Ordinance,to better communicate the positive purpose of the ordinance. September 10, 2012 - End of Final Program EIR10-day Public Review period. September 12, 2012 - Planning Commission public hearing. DISCUSSION A.IMPACTS OF CARRYOUT BAGS FROM THE GROCERY BAG MEA Many cities and counties that have adopted bag ordinances have r Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags (Grocery Bag MEA), prepared by Green Cities California in March 2010, to significance of actions that they may take to cut back on the use of single-use 3 grocery bags.The Countys Reusable Bag Ordinance Draft Program EIR relies on the Grocery Bag MEA for information about single-use grocery bags including existing regulations, life-cycle analysis, and potential impacts on the environment. The following is an overview of findings on various types of carout bags from the 4 Grocery Bag MEA. Single-Use Plastic Bags:Nearly 20 billion single-use high density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic grocery bags are used annually in Ca and most end up in landfills or as litter.In fact, of the four types of bags considered, plastic bags hadthe greatest impact on litter. Single-Use Paper Bags:Kraft paper bags are recycled at a significantly higher rate than single-use plastic bags. Still, over its lifetime, a single-use paper bag has significantly larger greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions results in greater atmospheric acidification, water consumption,e production than plastic bags. 3 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) authorizes the u Assessments (MEAs) in orderto provide information which may be used or referenced in EIRs o negative declarations (CEQA Guidelines Section 15169). 4 Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags, Green Cities California, March 2010, Page1. - 4 - 151 Single-Use Biodegradable Bags: Although biodegradable bags are thought to be an eco-friendly alternative to HDPE plastic bags, they have greater environmental impacts at manufacture, resulting in more GHG emis and water consumption than conventional plastic bags. In addition, biodegradable bags may degrade only under composting conditions. Therefore, when littered, they will have a similar impact on aes marine life as HDPE plastic bags. Reusable Bags:Reusable bags can be made from plastic or cloth and are designed to be used up to hundreds of times. Assuming the bags are reused at least a few times, reusable bags have significantly lo environmental impacts, on a per use basis, than single-use bags. 1.County Bag Consumption and Impact As previously stated, almost 20 billion plastic grocery bags, orproximately 5 531 bags per person, are consumed annually in California.Based on this estimate, retail customers within the County and participating municipalit of San Mateo County consume approximately 386 million plastic ba year. When the otherparticipating agencies in Santa Clara County are included (listed in Table 2 of this report), the number rises to approximatel 6 546 million plastic bags per year. - At the County-level, singleuse plastic carryout bags have been found to contribute substantially to the litter stream and to have advers 7 marine wildlife.The prevalence of litter from plastic bags in the urban - environment compromises the efficiency of infrastructure systems to channel stormwater runoff, leading to increased cleanup costs for the 8 County. The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Muni Regional Permit (MRP) requires Permittees (including all municip within San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties) to reduce trash loads municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) by 40% by 2014, 70% b 2017, and 100% by 2022. Specifically, each Permittee is require a Short-Term Trash Load Reduction Plan which must describe control measures and best management practices, including any trash redu ordinances that are currently being implemented or planned for i- tion, to attain a 40% trash load reduction from its MS4 by July adoption of the Proposed Ordinance is included in the Countys S-Term Trash Load Reduction Plan, submitted to the Water Board on February 1, 5 Source:Green Cities California MEA, 2010; and CIWMB, 2007. 6 Table 2-1 of the Draft Program EIR. - 7 United Nations 2009, CIWMB 2007, County of Los Angeles 2007. 8 Baseline Trash Load and ShortTerm Trash Load Reduction Plan, County of San Mateo, February 1, 2012. - 5 - 152 2012. The County of San Mateo will receive a 10%reductioncredit for 9 Ordinance adoption. 2.Effects of Fees on Single-Use Bag Use Per the Grocery Bag MEA, fees and bans on bags in the United Sta other regions of the world have resulted in dramatic drops in co For instance, Washington, D.C., saw bag use drop almost 80%after requiring a 5-cent charge for checkout bags, with 78%of businesses 10 reporting positiveor no impact to their sales.Fees on single-use bags reflect some or all of the actual production cost (approximately 1112 per plastic bagand approximately 15 to 25 cents per paper bag), as well as the environmental cost of the bags, and serve as a disincentive purchase. Several cities and counties in California have previo- sidered or passed similar ordinances within their respective jur These include, but are not limitedto, the Cities of San Francisco, Palo Alto, San Jose, Sunnyvale, Berkeley, Millbrae, Fairfax, Manhattan Beac Santa Monica, Calabasas, Huntington Beach, Dana Point, Laguna Be and Long Beach, and the Counties of Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Maand Alameda. B. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE 1.Basic Objectives of the Ordinance As listed in the Reusable Bag Ordinance Final Program EIR, the objectives of the Proposed Ordinance areto: Objective 1: Reduce the amount of single-use plastic bags in trash loads (e.g., landfills), in conformance with the trash load redu requirements of the NPDES Municipal Regional Permit (NPDES MRP). Objective 2:Reduce the environmental impacts related to single-use plastic carryoutbags, such as impacts to biological resources (including marine environments), water quality, and utilities (s waste). Objective 3: Deter the use of paper bags by customers in San Mateo County. - 9 BaselineTrash Load and ShortTerm Trash Load Reduction Plan, County of San Mateo, February 1, 2012. 10 Bag ban is good, but lets change behavior,Tara Gallagher, Portland Tribune, August 01, 2012. 11 AEA Technology, 2009. 12 City of Pasadena, 2008. - 6 - 153 Objective 4: Promote a shift toward the use of reusable carryoutbags by retail customers in San Mateo County. Objective 5: Avoid litter and associated adverse impacts to stormwater systems, aesthetics and the marine environment (San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean). 2.Origin of a Regional Approach On September 27, 2011, the Board of Supervisors held a workshop took comments from a number of individuals and business represen (e.g., chambers of commerce). At the conclusion of the workshop Board provided direction to staff to meet with cities within the Count develop an ordinance that could be implemented regionally. On October 3, 2011, San Mateo County Supervisors Groom and Tissi sent a letter (Attachment E) to all city mayors in San Mateo Cou them to participate in a Countywideworking group to develop an ordinance that would apply consistently across as many jurisdictions in Sa County as possible. The working group focused primarily on four of the ordinance: (1) which types of bags should be banned at the point-of- sale; (2) whether, in conjunction with a ban on the issuance of single-use carryoutbags at the point-of-sale, to require a fee for paper bags; (3) which, if any, types of establishments to exclude from the ordinances requirements; and (4) how the ordinance would be enforced. Many cities in the County participated in the Countywideworking group, including all cities that are now considering adoption of an ide similar ordinance to the Countys Proposed Ordinance, as listed Table 1 Municipalities in which County Environmental Health Services Division Staff would Regulate Implementation of Ordinance San Mateo County BelmontMillbrae BrisbanePacifica BurlingamePortola Valley ColmaRedwood City Daly CitySan Bruno East Palo AltoSan Carlos Foster CitySan Mateo HalfMoon BaySouth San Francisco Menlo ParkWoodside - 7 - 154 Working group discussions expressed a common desire to include a establishments and not to include restaurants, non-profit charitable retailers, nor protective product bags (e.g., produce/meat bags). 3.County Consultation with Industry Representatives Environmental Health Services Division staff consulted with the Grocers Association (CGA) in order to gauge their memberships a- tance to a bag ordinance. The CGAencouraged a consistent regional approach that applies to all retailers. Division staff also sen the farmers market managers informing them of the possible ordi Division staff also spoke with several dry cleaners and toured local dry cleaning plants. After reviewing the dry cleaning process, it w that a protective plastic cover was needed to ensure that clothe clean and protected from lint and other material during storage. from local plants underscored that a reusable garment bag is not- ically feasible at this time and sparks concerns of contaminatio bags. Further, the industry is making strides to reduce their u and encourages their customers to recycle plastic protective cov Further, creek and coastal cleanups do not report this type of plastic to be an issue. 4.Basis of Policy Direction Based on review of information collected from the working group, bag ordinances in the Bay Area and inother cities in the State, information from the Grocery Bag MEA, and consultation from County Counsel, Environmental Health Services Division staff established the fol guiding principles for its Reusable Bag Ordinance: Include all retail establishments: Level playing field for all retail establishments is critical for acceptance by retailers. Ban single-use plastic bags only and apply fee to recycled paper bags: Based on a comparison of pending and adopted bag ordinances in California included as Attachment C, all of the listed ordinance the exception of the City of Carpinterias ordinance, apply a ban on plastic single-use bags, not both plastic and papersingle-use bags. Most ordinances restrict the distribution of paper bags to recyc paper bags and have imposed a fee (in most cases, a 10-cent per bag fee with some increasing to 25 cents after a set time). Include single-use biodegradable bags inban, based on the Grocery Bag MEA: As stated previously, biodegradable bags have greater environmental impacts at manufacture, resulting in more GHG - 8 - 155 emissions and water consumption than conventional plastic bags a may degrade only under composting conditions. Therefore, when littered, they will have a similar impact on aesthetics and mari HDPE plastic bags. Therefore, biodegradable bags are included in the ban on plastic bags. Exclude restaurants:18 of the 25 ordinances listed in Attachment C exclude restaurants from the requirements of the ordinance. It be noted that the City of San Francisco expanded its ordinance i February 2012 to apply to restaurants and encountered strong opposition by the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition on this basis and issues related to CEQA compliance. Exclude non-profit charitable retailers: A handful of pending and adopted ordinances in the region exempts this type of retail establishment (e.g., Millbrae, Sunnyvale, San Jose, Monterey). Additionally, by the nature of their business, these organizations reduce the waste stream and use proceeds from purchases to fund charitable efforts. Exclude produce bags: Plastic produce bags (plastic bags with no handles) are presently a best-practices tool in the prevention of food cross contamination and to maintain the cleanliness of shopping and checkout stands at retail establishments. Based on the guiding principles listed above, Environmental Heal Division staff decided to model San Mateo Countys Proposed Ordi after an ordinance adopted by the City of San Jose. At a meeti- vened with representatives of 15 of the 20 incorporated cities i County, cities indicated support for this direction. 5.Outreach Plan A comprehensive outreach plan has been developed that will include extensive outreach to retailers and the public. Outreach effort phased to address pre-adoption of the Ordinance, providing for extensive outreach between Ordinance adoption and implementation, and then ongoing outreach after Ordinance implementation. County outreac in the pre-adoption phase have included support for participating agencies through email updates, press releases to local media, public eve appearances by the Bag Monster, websites, social media, as well as CEQA-related public scoping meetings. County outreach efforts betwee Ordinance adoption and implementation will also involve press re local media, public events, websites, social media, and will als support for participating agencies within the County through e-newsletters, reusable bag give-aways, partnerships with non-profit environmental - 9 - 156 agencies, and coordination with retailers for in-store campaigns. County ongoing outreach after implementation will include continued sup participating agencies within the County through e-newsletters and continued public campaigns through websites and social media. E jurisdiction will be responsible to identify and lead additional outreach efforts within their jurisdictions. C.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 1.Type and Scope of EIR The Proposed Ordinance is a discretionary project subject to the- mental review requirements of the California Environmental Quali (CEQA). Therefore, County of San Mateostaff have prepared a Final Program EIR (which includes the Draft Program EIR by reference including corrections) examining the Ordinances potential environmental i To increase the reach of the Countys efforts to encourage regio bag use, the County invited Santa Clara cities to participate in EIR as participating agencies.It should be noted that the Environmental Health Services Division only has enforcement authority within S County and that each cities outside of the County would be respo enforcing their own ordinance. Inclusion of a city in the scope would allow the city to use the EIR to comply with the Californi- 13 mental Quality Act in the adoption of their own bag ordinance.Six (6) cities in Santa Clara County choose to be included in the EIR. cities, in addition to the County of San Mateo, in the Program F listed below: Table 2 Participating Municipalities, in addition to the County of San M in the Program EIR San Mateo CountySanta Clara County BelmontMillbraeMilpitas BrisbanePacificaCupertino BurlingamePortola ValleyLos Gatos ColmaRedwood CityLos Altos Daly CitySan BrunoCampbell East Palo AltoSan CarlosMountain View Foster CitySan Mateo Half Moon BaySouth San Francisco Menlo ParkWoodside 13 The Program EIR does not preclude any requirement for individual further environmental review. - 10 - 157 The Final Program EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the adoption of an identical or similar ordinance in the County and 24 participating agencies. It should be noted that, consensus a the cities indicated support for the proposed ordinance language of the cities expressing that they did not feel comfortable expa restrictions of the Ordinance within their own jurisdictions bey City of San Joses ordinance. Further the proposed language was reviewed by several Chambers of Commerce and business associations, all o stressed that their support was contingent on consistency of loc ordinances region-wide. 2.Summary of Environmental Impacts a.Plastic Bag Replacement Assumptions The Final Program EIR estimates that the total volume of plastic bags 14 currently used in the study area is 552million plastic bags per year. The Final Program EIR assumes a reduction in plastic bag use after the adoption of the Ordinance, with assumptions that plastic bag would be replaced by recycled paper bags and reusable bags in th following proportions: Ninety-five percentof the total volume of plastic bags currently used in the study area (525 million plastic bags per year) would be replaced by recycled paper bags (30% of total) and reusable bags (65% of total) as a result of the Reusable Ban Ordinance. Five percentof the existing single-use plastic bags used in the study area (27 million plastic bags) would remain in use, as the Proposed Ordinance does not apply to some retailers who distribute single-use plastic bags. 15 Based on an estimate of 52 uses per reusable bag, 6.9 million reusable bags would replace 359 million single-use plastic bags. Based on the above assumption, the approximately 552 million single-use plastic carryout bags currently used in the study area annually would be reduced to approximately 200 million total bag a result of the Proposed Ordinance. 14 Based on statewide data indicating anestimate of 531 bags used per person,multiplied by the population of each participatingmunicipality. 15 A reusable carryoutbag would be used by a customer once per week for one year (52 t conservative estimate as a reusable bag, as required by the Prop capability of being used 125 times. - 11 - 158 b.Potential Environmental Impacts of Ordinance The Initial Study included in Appendix A of the Draft Program EIR identifies issue areas in which the adoption of the Proposed Ord would not result in any potential significant impact. Conversel Final Program EIR identifies and analyzes the following issue areas in which the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance may result in less significant or beneficial environmental impacts: Air Quality: While the Proposed Ordinance would reduce the total number of bags manufactured and the overall air pollutant emissions associated with bag manufacture, the Proposed Ordinance would generate air pollutant emissions associated with an incremental increase in truck trips to deliver recycled paper and reusable carryoutbags to local retailers. Biological Resources:The Proposed Ordinance would reduce the amount of single-use plastic bags which would be expected to reduce the overall amount of litter entering the coastal and bay habitat, thus, reducing litter-related impacts to sensitive wildlife species and sensitive habitats. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions: The Proposed Ordinance would increase the number of single-use paper bags used in the Study Area, resulting in an incremental increase in GHG emissions compared to existing conditions. Hydrology/Water Quality:While the Proposed Ordinance would incrementally increase the number of recycled paper and reusable bags used in the Study Area, which may result in an increase in the use of chemicals associated with their productio and associated water quality impacts, bag manufacturers would be required to adhere to existing water quality regulations. Al the Proposed Ordinance would reduce the overall number of single-use plastic bags used in the Study Area, reducing the amount of litter and waste entering storm drains. Utilities and Service Systems: While the Proposed Ordinance would increase the number of reusable bags within the Study Area, resulting in an incremental increase in water demand and wastewater generation by a negligible amount due to washing of reusable bags, projected wastewater flows would remain within the capacity of the wastewater collection and treatment system of the Study Area. Also, the Proposed Ordinance would - 12 - 159 increase paper bag use and related solid waste generation in the Study Area. However, projectedfuture solid waste genera- tion would remain within the capacity of regional landfills. Attachment D of this staff report includes a more detailed descr of the environmental issues relative to the Proposed Ordinance, identified significant environmental impacts and residual projec impacts. In summary, the Final Program EIR concludes that the Ordinance may result in some negative environmental impacts in t above issue areas, but that these impacts would be considered le than significant without need for mitigation or the Ordinance ma in beneficial impacts in these issue areas. As the Final Program EIR does not identify any significant impacts requiring mitigation, mitigation measures are included in the Final Program EIR. It should be noted that minor revisions were made to the Propose Ordinance after the release of the Draft Program EIR. These changes, as shown in tracked changes in Attachment B, clarify th dry cleaning bags would not be subject to the requirements of the Ordinance and adds a fee exemption for CalFresh (Food Stamp) program participants. These revisions to the Proposed Ordinance would not result in any change in the level of project-related environmental impact as analyzed in the Final Program EIR for the project. c. Project Alternatives As required by CEQA, the Final Program EIR examines a range of alternatives to the Proposed Ordinance (Project)that feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives. A brief summary of each alternative is provided below. Alternative 1: No Project The no project alternative assumes that the Reusable Bag Ordinance would not occur. The existing retail establishments would continue to provide single-use bags free of charge to the customers. Under Alternative 1, the Proposed Ordinances less than significant impacts related to water and wastewater demand from washing reusable bags would beeliminated, however, this alternative would not achieve the Proposed Ordinances beneficial effects relative to air quality, biological resources (sensitive species), and hydrology water quality, nor would it result in litter reduction. - 13 - 160 Alternative 2: Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags at All Retail Establishments This alternative would prohibit all retail establishments in the Study Area from providing single-use plastic bags to customers at the point of sale, including restaurants and other retailers not covered by the Proposed Ordinance. Under Alternative 2, the Ordinance would eliminate distribution of allsingle-use plastic carryout bags within the Study Area. It is assumed that the additional plastic bags that would be removed under this alternative would be replaced by recyclable paper bags. Compared to the Proposed Ordinance, Alternative 2 would result in equal or reduced impacts in the areas of biological resources and hydrology/water quality, due t the reduction in the use of single-use plastic bags. Alternative 2 would result in equal or increased impacts compared to the Proposed Ordinance in the areas of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and utilities and service systems, due to the increased use and disposal of paper bags. Alternative 3: Mandatory Charge of $0.25 for Paper Bags Alternative 3 is identical to the Project except that itwould increase the mandatory charge from $0.10 to $0.25 per recycled paper bag. Alternative 3 would further promote the use of reusable bags since customers would be deterred from pur- chasing paper bags due to the additional cost. Alternative 3 would result in equal or reduced impacts compared to the Proposed Ordinance in the areas of biological resources, hydrology/water quality, and utilities and service systems, due to reduced paper bag use. Similarly, compared to the Proposed Ordinance, Alternative 3 would result in reduced impacts in the areas of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Alternative 4: Ban on Both Single-Use Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Alternative 4 is identical to the Project except that it would prohibit retail establishments from providing both single-use plastic and paper carryout bags to customers at the point of sale. Alternative 4 would be considered environmentall superior among the alternatives, as it would have greater overal environmental benefits compared to the Proposed Ordinance. This alternative would result in beneficial effects to the envir- ment compared to existing conditions in the areas of air quality biological resources, GHG emissions, hydrology/water quality andutilities and service systems. - 14 - 161 These alternatives are described and evaluated in detail in Sect 6.0, Alternatives, of the Draft Program EIR. Environmental Health Services staff has discussed the possibility of implementing Alternatives 2 through 4 with each of the participatingagencies. A majority of the jurisdictions made it clear that they would not to consider a different policy direction, due to factors outline Basis of Policy Direction in Section B.4 of this staff report. Therefore, since the original project has been shown to result in less than significant impacts which do not require mitigation and ben impacts in some areas, the applicant has decided not to pursue a the alternatives and remain with the proposed language. d.Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period During the 45-day comment period for the Draft Program EIR, the County received 29 comments. The following is a summary of the commenters: Twenty-twocomments were received from individual members of the public (10 from San Mateo County residents, 3 from Santa Clara County residents, and 9 unknown). Fourcomments were received from participating agencies with questions regarding the CEQA process or corrections to the Draft Program EIR. Onecomment was received from a retailer (e.g., IKEA), in support of the Proposed Ordinance. Twocomments were received from environmental organizations in support of the Ordinance or one of the Project Alternatives (e.g., the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club supports Alternative 2). Eleven of the 29 comments expressed opposition to the Proposed Ordinance, for reasons including the following: Fivecomments stated that plastic bags are currently being reused or recycled. Fourcomments suggested that the fee for recycled bags is too high or would hurt the economy. - 15 - 162 Threecomments stated that use of reusable bags may pose health and sanitation risks, due to lack of washing. Other commenters expressed the opinion that the Ordinance is over-regulation and/or places a burden on businesses. D.SCHEDULE FOR REUSABLE BAG ORDINANCE Hearing Schedule Public Release Date of Draft Program EIRJune 22, 2012 Planning Commission Informational Public HearingJuly 11, 2012 August 6, 2012 End of 45-day Draft Program EIR Public Review and Comment Period Public Release Date of Final Program EIRAugust 31, 2012 September 10, 2012 End of 10-day Final Program EIR Public Review and Comment Period September 12, 2012 Second Planning Commission Public Hearing for Consideration Program EIR of the Final and the Proposed Ordinance Program October 23, 2012 Board of Supervisor Public Hearing to certify Final (Tentative) EIR and adopt ordinance (1st reading) Program October 30, 2012 Board of Supervisor Public Hearing to certify Final (Tentative) EIR and adopt ordinance (2nd reading) Ordinance Implementation Schedule Proposed effective date of ordinanceApril 22, 2013 Minimum charge would be ten cents ($0.10) per recycled paper April 22, 2013 bagDecember 31, 2014 January 1, 2015 Minimum charge would be twenty-five cents ($0.25) per recycled paper bag ATTACHMENTS Copies of the Reusable Bag Ordinance Final Program EIR are available at the following locations: 1.County of San Mateo Health System Environmental Health Services, Alameda de las Pulgas, Suite 100, San Mateo, California, 94403 a electronically at http://www.smchealth.org/BagBan; 2.County Planning Department, 455 County Center, Second Floor, Red California, 94063 and electronically at http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/planning; and - 16 - 163 3.At the following libraries: Serramonte Main LibraryHalf Moon Bay Library 40 Wembley Drive620 Correas Street Daly City, CA 94015Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 Millbrae LibraryMountain View Library 1 Library Avenue585 Franklin Street Millbrae, CA 94030Mountain View, CA 94041 San Mateo Main LibraryLos Gatos Public Library 55 West 3rd AvenueTown Civic Center San Mateo, CA 94402100 Villa Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 Redwood City Downtown Library 1044 Middlefield RoadMilpitas Library Redwood City, CA 94063160 North Main Street Milpitas, CA 95035 A.Reusable Bag Ordinance Final Program EIR Study Area Map B.Proposed Draft Ordinance, dated August 9, 2012 C. Comparison of Pending and Approved Bag Ordinances in California, August 2012 D. Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measure Residual Impacts from Final Program EIR E. Letter from San Mateo County Supervisors Groom andTissier, dated October 3, 2011 CL:pac - CMLW0607_WPU.DOCX - 17 - 164 County of San Mateo Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance Program EIR Attachment B Section 2.0 Project Description P A C I F I C O C E A N Bing Maps Hybrid: (c) 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data s baselayer data from San Mateo County Information Services Depart Project Location (San Mateo County) Aerial Map of 0 36Miles Participating City* in County of San Mateo and San Mateo County) Participating Cities in * Cities not included in Study Area: San Mateo County Atherton and Hillsborough Figure 2-1 County of San Mateo 165 County of San Mateo Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance Program EIR Section 2.0 Project Description Milpitas Mountain View Los Altos Cupertino Campbell Los Gatos Bing Maps Hybrid: (c) 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers. Additional baselayer data from San Mateo County Information Services Department, May 2012. Project Location 01.252.5Miles (Participating City Boundary in Santa Clara County) Aerial Map of Participating Cities in Santa Clara County Figure 2-2 County of San Mateo 166 Attachment B Single UseReusableBag Ordinance Ban–Draft Ordinance Language March 05, 2012August 9, 2012 Definitions A."Customer" means any person obtaining goods from a retail establishment. B.“Garment Bag” means a travel bag made of pliable, durable material withor withouta handle,designed to hang straight or fold double and used to carry suits, dresses, coats, or the like without crushing or wrinklingthe same. Nonprofit charitable reuser B."" means a charitable organization, as defined in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or a distinct operating unit or division of the charitable organization, that reuses and recycles donated goods or materials and receives more than fifty percent of its revenues from the handling and sale of those donated goods or materials. C."Person" means any natural person, firm, corporation, partnership, or other organization or group however organized. D."Prepared food" means foods or beverages which are prepared on the premises by cooking, chopping, slicing, mixing, freezing, or squeezing, and which require no further preparation to be consumed.“Prepared food” does not include any raw, uncooked meat product or fruits or vegetables which are chopped, squeezed, or mixed. Recycled paper bag E."" means a paper bag provided at the check stand, cash register, point of sale, or other point of departure for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment that contains no old growth fiber and a minimum of forty percent post- consumer recycled content; is one hundred percent recyclable; and has printed in a highly visible manner on the outside of the bag the words "Reusable" and "Recyclable," the name and location of the manufacturer, and the percentage of post-consumer recycled content. "Public eating establishment F." means a restaurant, take-out food establishment, or any other business that receives ninety percent or more of its revenue from the sale ofpreparedfood to be eaten on or off its premises. Retail establishment G."" means any commercial establishment that sells perishable or nonperishable goods including, but not limited to, clothing, food, and personal items directly to the customer; and is located within or doing business within the geographical limits of the County of San Mateo. “Retail establishment” does not include public eating establishments or nonprofit charitable reusers. Reusable bag H."" means either a bag made of cloth or other machine washable fabric that has handles, or a durable plastic bag with handles that is at least 2.25 mil thick and is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse.A garment bagthat meets the above criteriaregardless if it has handles or not. 167 Single-use carry-out bag I."" means a bag other than a reusable bag provided at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other point of departure,including departments within a store,for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment.“Single-use carry-out bags” do not include bags without handles provided to the customer: (1) to transport prepared food, produce, bulk food or meat from a department within a store to the point of sale; (2) to hold prescription medication dispensed from a pharmacy; or (3) to segregate food or merchandise that could damage or contaminate other food or merchandise when placed together in a reusable bag or recycled paper bag Single-use carry-out bag. . A.No retail establishment shall provide a single-use carry-out bag to a customer, at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other point of departure for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment except as provided in this section. On or before December 31, 2014 B.a retail establishment may make available for sale to a customer a recycled paper bag or a reusable bag for a minimum charge of ten cents. On or after January 1, 2015 C.a retail establishment may make available for sale to a customer a recycled paper bag or a reusable bag for a minimum charge of twenty-five cents. D.Notwithstanding this section, no retail establishment may make available for sale a recycled paper bag or a reusable bag unless the amount of the sale of suchbagis separately itemized on the sale receipt. E.A retail establishment may provideone or more recycled paper bags at no cost to any of the following individuals:a customer participating in the California Special Supplement Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 123275) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code; and a customer participating in the Supplemental Food Program pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 15500) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, with one or more recycled paper bags at no cost through December 31,2014; and a customer participating inCalfresh pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 18900) of Part 6 of Division 9 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code. Recordkeeping and Inspection. Every retail establishment shall keep complete and accurate record or documents of the purchase and sale of any recycled paper bagor reusable bagby the retail establishment, for a minimum period of three years from the date of purchase and sale, which record shall be available for inspection at no cost to the countyduring regular business hours by any county employee authorized to enforce this part.Unless an alternative location or method of review is mutually agreed upon, the records or documents shall be available at the retail establishment address.The provision of false information including incomplete records or documents to the countyshall be a violation of this section. 168 Administrative fine. (a)Grounds for Fine. A fine may be imposed upon findings made by the Director of the Environmental Health Division, or his or her designee, that any retail establishmenthas provided a single-use carry-out bag to a customer in violation of this Chapter. (b)Amount of Fine. Upon findings made under subsection (a), the retail establishmentshall be subject to an administrative fine as follows: (1)A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.00) for a first violation; (2)A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200.00) for a second violation; (3)A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) for the third and subsequent violations; (4)Each day that a retail establishmenthas provided single-use carry-out bags to a customer constitutesa separate violation. (c)Fine Procedures. Notice of the fine shall be served on the retail establishment. The notice shall contain an advisement of the right to request a hearing before the Director of the Environmental Health Division or his or her designee contesting the imposition of the fine. The grounds for the contest shall be thatthe retail establishmentdid not provide a single-use carry- out bag to any customer.Said hearing must be requested within ten days of the date appearing on the notice of the fine. The decision of the Director of the Environmental Health Division shall be based upon a finding that the above listed groundfor a contest hasbeen met and shall be a final administrative order, with no administrative right of appeal. (d)Failure to Pay Fine. If said fine is not paid within 30 days from the date appearing on the notice of the fine or of the notice of determination of the Director of the Environmental Health Division or his or her designee after the hearing, the fine shall be referred to a collection agency. Severability. If any provision of this chapter or the application of such provision to any person or in any circumstances shall be held invalid, the remainder of this chapter, or the application of such provision to person or in circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby. Enforcement of this chapter when adopted. 169 The Environmental Health Division is hereby directed to enforce Chapter 4.114of Title 4within an incorporated area of the County of San Mateo if the governing body of that incorporated area does each of the following: (a) Adopts, and makes part of its municipal code: (1)Chapter4.114of Title 4in its entirety by reference; or (2)An ordinance that contains each of the provisions of Chapter4Chapter4.114of Title 4 (b)Authorizes, by ordinance or resolution, the Environmental Health Division to enforce the municipal code adopted pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, such authorization to include, without limitation, the authority to hold hearings and issue administrative fines within the incorporated area of the public entity. 170 Comparison of Pending and Adopted Bag Ordinances in California Incentives/ Establishments ExemptionsOutreach Scope of Ban Disincentives Affected Efforts Municipality (Fee amount) Plastic Paper Both Retailers & OnlyOnly Restaurantstypes BAY AREA San Mateo County City of Millbrae X -- -- 10 cents/perN All Retail Nonprofit paper bag Charitable Reusers Santa Clara County County of Santa X -- -- 15 cents/per N All Retail WIC Staff provided Clarapaper bag extensive outreach to residents on the environmental benefits of reusable bags and handed out more than 80,000 free reusable bags City of Sunnyvale X -- -- 10 cents/per N All Retail over Nonprofit paper bag; up to $2M/yr.Charitable 25 cents in 2014Reusers City of San Jose X -- -- 10 cents/per N All Retail Nonprofit paper bag; up to Charitable 25 cents in 2014Reusers 171 Comparison of Pending and Adopted Bag Ordinances in California Incentives/ Establishments ExemptionsOutreach Scope of Ban Disincentives Affected Efforts Municipality (Fee amount) Plastic Paper Both Retailers & OnlyOnly Restaurantstypes City of Palo Alto X -- -- -- N Non-Hardship supermarkets Supermarkets onlyshall offer paper and plastic or paper only City and County of San Francisco City of San Francisco Non -- -- 10 cents/per Y Y, All Retail Multi-lingual Unknown compostable paper bag outreach to store plastic only employees and customers Marin County City of Fairfax X -- -- Fines for violatorsY All retail -- County of Marin X -- -- 5 cents/per paper N All Retail over WIC Bring your own bag $2M/yr., store bag Marin Day, with pharmacy monthly over 10K sq. BYOBag Marin ft.,stores days at grocery selling stores, 172 Comparison of Pending and Adopted Bag Ordinances in California Incentives/ Establishments ExemptionsOutreach Scope of Ban Disincentives Affected Efforts Municipality (Fee amount) Plastic Paper Both Retailers & OnlyOnly Restaurantstypes perishable community itemsfestivals, and farmers markets, grassroots efforts by community advocates (youth volunteers), plastics education at supermarkets, door-to-door merchants Santa Cruz County County of Santa Cruz X -- -- 10 cents/per Y All Retail WIC Signs have been paper bag; after placed in parking 1 year increase lots to remind to 25 cents/per shoppers to bring bag (no charge their bags with for restaurants) them into the stores. The County also gave away 1,000 reusable bags during the first afternoon of the ban at two locations. Ads and fliers. 173 Comparison of Pending and Adopted Bag Ordinances in California Incentives/ Establishments ExemptionsOutreach Scope of Ban Disincentives Affected Efforts Municipality (Fee amount) Plastic Paper Both Retailers & OnlyOnly Restaurantstypes City of Santa Cruz X -- -- 10 cents/per N All Retail WIC paper bag Alameda County County of Alameda X -- -- 10 cents/per N All Retail over WIC paper bag; up to $2M/yr., store 25 cents in 2015with pharmacy over 10K sq. ft.,stores selling perishable items Monterey County City of Monterey X -- -- 10 cents/per N All Retail Nonprofit paper bag, after Charitable 1 yr. up to 25 Reusers, cents/per bag WIC SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA City of Calabasas X-- -- 10 cents/paper NFood & Drug WIC bag Stores, if $2M/yr., over 10K sf City of Carpinteria X (small -- X (large N/AYBoth for large Hardship retailers) retailers)(Over $5M), only plastic banned for small City of Dana Point X -- -- Fines for N All Retail over Hardship 174 Comparison of Pending and Adopted Bag Ordinances in California Incentives/ Establishments ExemptionsOutreach Scope of Ban Disincentives Affected Efforts Municipality (Fee amount) Plastic Paper Both Retailers & OnlyOnly Restaurantstypes violators $4M/yr. includes non- profit City of Laguna Beach X -- -- 10 cents/per N All Retail Hardship paper bag City of Long Beach X-- -- 10 cents/per NAll Retail over WIC paper bag $2M/yr., store with pharmacy over 10K sq. ft.,stores selling perishable items City of Los Angeles X-- -- Free for 1 yr., 10 NAll Retail Unknown Residential: cents/per paper Reusable Bag bag after Giveaway/Tabling Events with multilingual handouts City of MalibuX-- -- None YAll Retail Hardship 175 Comparison of Pending and Adopted Bag Ordinances in California Incentives/ Establishments ExemptionsOutreach Scope of Ban Disincentives Affected Efforts Municipality (Fee amount) Plastic Paper Both Retailers & OnlyOnly Restaurantstypes City of Manhattan X -- -- None Y All Retail Hardship Beach City of Ojai X-- -- 10 cents/per NAll Retail WIC paper bag City of Pasadena X-- -- 10 cents/per NAll Retail over No charge paper bag $2M/yr., store for paper at with pharmacy Farmers over 10K sq. Markets, ft.,stores City sellingfacilities perishable and events, itemsfood stamps program, City of Santa MonicaX-- -- 10 cents/per Y (but All Retail WIC paper bag exemption for take-out) County of Los X -- -- 10 cents/per N All Retail over WIC Educate store Angeles paper bag $2M/yr., store staff to promote with pharmacy re-usable bags over 10K sq. and post signs to ft.,stores encourage sellingcustomers to 176 Comparison of Pending and Adopted Bag Ordinances in California Incentives/ Establishments ExemptionsOutreach Scope of Ban Disincentives Affected Efforts Municipality (Fee amount) Plastic Paper Both Retailers & OnlyOnly Restaurantstypes perishable use re-usable itemsbags. County of San Luis X -- -- 10 cents/per N Supermarkets None Adopted January Obispo (City and paper bag over $2M/yr., County of San Luis stores over Obispo, Atascadero, 10K sq. Grover Beach, Morro ft.,pharmacies, Bay, Paso Robles, stores selling and Pismo Beach) perishable items Note: This table does not include all pending or adopted bag ordinances in California. Staff has only summarized outreach efforts for cities where information was readily available online. Source: Californians Against Waste, http://www.cawrecycles.org/issues/plastic_campaign/plastic_bags/local, accessed August 2012; websites of individual counties and cities listed above. 177 Attachment D Environmental Impact Classes: Class I Impacts are defined as significant, unavoidable adverse require a statement of overriding considerations to be issued pu CEQA Guidelines §15093 if the project is approved. Class II Impacts are significant adverse impacts that can be fea less than significant levels and which require findings to be ma 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. Class III Impacts are considered less than significant impacts. Class IV Impacts are beneficial impacts. Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts (Table ES-1 from FEIR) ImpactMitigation Significance MeasuresAfter Mitigation AIR QUALITY Impact AQ-1 Mitigation is not The impact would With a shift toward reusable bags, the Proposed required.be beneficial Ordinance is expected to substantially reduce the number without mitigation. of single-use carryout bags, thereby, reducing the total number of bags manufactured and the overall air pollutant emissions associated with bag manufacture and use. Therefore, air quality impacts related toalteration of processing activities would be Class IV, beneficial. Impact AQ-2 Mitigation is not Impacts would be With an expected increase in the use of paper bags,the required.less than Proposed Ordinance would generate air pollutant significant without emissions associated with an incremental increase in truck mitigation. trips to deliver recycled paper and reusable carryout bags to local retailers.However, emissions would not exceed BAAQMD operational significance thresholds. Therefore, operational air quality impacts would be Class III, less than significant. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact BIO-1 Mitigation is not The impact would Although the Proposed Ordinancewould incrementally required.be beneficial increase the number of recycled paper and reusable bags without mitigation. within the Study Area, the reduction in the amount of single-use plastic bags would be expected to reduce the overall amount of litter entering the coastal and bay habitat, thus, reducing litter-related impacts to sensitive wildlife species and sensitive habitats.This is a Class IV, 178 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts (Table ES-1 from FEIR) ImpactMitigation Significance MeasuresAfter Mitigation beneficial. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Impact GHG-1 Mitigation is not The impact would The Proposed Ordinance would increasethe number of required.be less than single-use paperbags used in the Study Area.significant without Implementation of the Proposed Ordinance would mitigation. incrementally increase GHG emissions compared to existingconditions.However, emissions would not exceed thresholds of significance.Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Impact GHG-2 Mitigation is not The impact would The Proposed Ordinance would not conflict with any required.be less than applicable plan, policyor regulation of an agency adopted significant without for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.mitigation. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY Impact HWQ-1 Mitigation is not The impact would The Proposed Ordinance would incrementally increase the required.be beneficial number of recycled paper and reusable bags used in the without mitigation. Study Area, but the reduction in theoverall number of single-use plastic bags used in the Study Area would reduce the amount of litter and waste entering storm drains.This would improve local surface water quality, a Class IV, beneficial. Impact HWQ-2 Mitigation is not Impactswould be A shift toward reusable bags and potential increasein the required.less than use of recyclable paper bags could potentially increase the significant without use of chemicals associated with their production, which mitigation. could degrade water quality in some instances and locations.However, bag manufacturers would be required to adhere to existing regulations, including NPDES Permit requirements, AB 258, and the California Health and Safety Code. Therefore, impacts to water qualityfrom altering bag processing activities would be Class III, less than significant. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Impact U-1 Mitigation is not Impacts would be The increase of reusable bags within the Study Area as a required.less than result of the Proposed Ordinance would incrementally significant without increase water demand by a negligible amount due to mitigation. washing ofreusable bags.However, sufficient water supplies are available to meet the demand created by 179 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts (Table ES-1 from FEIR) ImpactMitigation Significance MeasuresAfter Mitigation reusable bags.Therefore, water supply impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Impact U-2 Mitigation is not Impacts would be Water use associated with washing reusable bags would required.lessthan increase negligiblyresulting in an increase in wastewater significant without generation in theStudy Area. Projected wastewater flows mitigation. would remain within the capacity of the wastewater collection and treatment system of the Study Area, and would not exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Impact U-3 Mitigation is not Impacts would be The Proposed Ordinancewould alter the solid waste required.less than generation associated with increased paper bag use in the significant without Study Area.However, projected future solid wastemitigation. generation would remain within the capacity of regional landfills.Impacts would therefore be Class III, less than significant. 180 Attachment D 181 182 183 Attachment E ReusableBagOrdinanceFinalProgramEIR LeadAgency:CountyofSanMateo ParticipatingAgency: DateofOrdinanceAdoption: 184 185 EXHIBIT B Findings of Fact for Addendum to EIR SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION Statutory Requirements for Findings According to Pubic Resources Code Section 21166 (CEQA) and Sect Guidelines, a subsequent EIR is not required for the proposed ch determines on the basis of substantial evidence that one or more of the following condit are met: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project that require maj previous EIR due to involvement of new significant environmental increase in severity of previously identified significant effect 2. Substantial changes have occurred with respect to circumstances project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the p new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the identified significant effects; 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known a been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified, shows any of the following: The project will have one or more significant effects not discus previous EIR; Significant effects previously examined will be substantially mo identified in the previous EIR; Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be f fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more sig project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably differ analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or m on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, if any of the conditi but only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make t apply to the project in the changed situation, a supplemental EIR may be prepared. 6 186 Section 15164 of State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum t some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditi 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Thus, conditions are met, the City may not require preparation of a su Rather, the City can decide that no further environmental documecessary or can require an Addendum be prepared. The City of Cupertino finds tha previously certified County of San Mateo Reusable Bag Ordinance The rationale and the facts for this finding are provided in the The Addendum reviews changes to the County of San Mateo Reusable Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was adopted and certified by the County of San Mateo Board of Supervisors on October 23, 2012 (SCH #2012042 participating municipalities from the County of Santa Clara in t proposes an ordinance to ban plastic carryout bags consistent with the ordinance analyzed in examines the possible environmental effects associated with adop within Cupertino. It further examines whether, as a result of any changes or any new information, a subsequent or supplemental EIR may be required. T analysis of provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21166 an CEQA Guidelines and their applicability to the project. Record of Proceedings For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the reco wing County in conjunction with the Project; The Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance Draft Program EIR (June 2012) and Reusable Bag Ordinance (formerly Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance) Final Prog and all documents cited or referred to therein; All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public duri-day public comment period for the Draft Program EIR; All comments and correspondence submitted to the County with res Project, in addition to timely comments on the Draft Program EIR All findings and resolutions adopted by County decision makers i with the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein; All reports, studies, memoranda, staff reports, maps, exhibits, diagrams or other planning materials relating to the Project pre by consultants to the County, the applicant, or responsible or trustee agencies and 7 187 All documents submitted to the County by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the Project, up through the close October 23, 2012; Minutes, as available, of all public meetings and public hearing County in connection with the Project; Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the County at suc information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings; Matters of common knowledge to the County, including, but not li those cited above; and Any other materials required to be in the Record of Proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The custodian of the documents comprising the Record of Proceedi ed at: 455 County Center, Second Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063. The City Clerk of the City of Cupertino, located at 10300 Torre the Final Environmental Impact Report, the Draft Environmental I on file available for public review. The Santa Clara County Public Library located in Cupertino at 10 has copies of the Final Environmental Impact Report, the Draft E and Addendum on file available for public review. The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above Project. On October 23, 2012 the County of San Mateo Board of Supervisors Ordinance in San Mateo County, including the following actions: Approve and adopt an Ordinance Certification of the Final EIR Adoption of Findings SECTION 2: CUPERTINO SINGLE-USE CARRYOUT BAG ORDINANCE (PROPOSED PROJECT) Project Description and Objectives The proposed Cupertino Single-Use regulate the use of paper and plastic single-use carryout bags within Cupertino. The proposed Ordinance would apply to all retail establishments located withi including those selling clothing, food, and personal items directly to the cu 8 188 apply to restaurants. The proposed Ordinance would (1) prohibit - use carryout paper and plastic bags and (2) require retail estabo charge customers for recycled paper bags. The minimum charge would be ten cents bag. Reusable bags may be given by a retailer without a charge. The intent of the proposed Ordinance is to reduce the environmented to the use of single-use carryout bags, and to promote a shift toward the use of reus anticipated that by prohibiting single-use plastic carryout bags and requiring a mandatory charge for each paper bag distributed by retailers, the proposed Ordinance would provide a disincentive to customers to request paper bags when shopping at promote a shift to the use of reusable bags by retail customers, single-use plastic and paper bags within Cupertino. The proposed Ordinance would not apply to restaurants and other allowing them to provide plastic bags to customers for prepared -out food intended for As noted above, the proposed Ordinance would require regulated r mandatory charge for each recycled paper carryout bag provided. separately itemize on the sale receipt the sale of any recycled The County include the following: available by a retail establishment for a minimum charge of 10 c ordinance, there is no minimum charge for reusable bags. Reusabl by a retailer without charge. reusable bags would increase from 10 cents to 25 cents on January 1, 2015. This recycled paper bags would not increase to 25 cents. The minimum at 10 cents. affected by the ordinance must keep records of the purchase and sale of recycled paper or reusable b ce and County Ordinance as listed above are minor changes that would not result in any changes to the environmenta include: 9 189 Reducing the amount of single-use plastic bags in trash loads (e.g., landfills), in conformance with the trash load reduction requirements of the NPDES Municipal Regional Permit Reducing the environmental impacts related to single-use plastic carryout bags, such as impacts to biological resources (including marine enviro and utilities (solid waste) Deterring the use of paper bags by customers in the respective j Promoting a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags by re the respective jurisdictions Avoiding litter and the associated adverse impacts to stormwater systems, aesthetics and the marine environment (San Francisco Bay and the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts proposed Cupertino Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance with the effects of the County of San Mateo Reusable Bag Ordinance that was the subject of the adopted Final carryout bag ban ordinance and the impacts associated with implementation of such an ordinance citywide. P of the proposed Cupertino Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance are addressed for each of the following areas: Air Quality Biological Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hydrology and Water Quality Utilities and Service Systems Final Program EIR Initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft Ordinance. As such, further discussion of these issues in the a analyses provide the City with a basis for its determination that no subs EIR will be required for the proposed Ordinance. SECTION 3: FINDINGS OF THIS ADDENDUM 10 190 The City is the Responsible Agency for the proposed Ordinance; San Mateo County is the Lead Agency for the purposes of the Program Environmental Impact Repo Ordinance. The City has determined that analyses of project envi provided through use of an Addendum because none of the conditio forth in Public Resource Code Section 21166 or Section 15162 of the State CEQA G preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR has been met. A the CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to a previously adopted Final EIR is the appropriate effects beyond those identified in an adopted Final EIR. The change being contemplated involves adopting a Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance in the City of Cupertino that is simi were included in the EIR analysis for the County of San Mateo Ordinance. The City would adopt significant env Ordinance, major revisions of the EIR analysis are not warranteds the following findings: 1. environmental effects or a substantial increase in Final Program EIR; 2. Program EIR to disclose new significant environmental effects or that wou 3. There is no new information of substantial importance, which washe ere determined to be There are additional mitigation measures or alternatives to the would substantially reduce one or more significant effects ident Final Program EIR; or 11 191 There are additional mitigation measures or alternatives that we Program EIR that would substantially reduce any significant impact identified in that EIR. As such, a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA warranted and an addendum is the appropriate environmental docum complete evaluation of potential environm 12 192 ORDINANCENO.13 ANORDINANCEOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITY OFCUPERTINOADDINGCHAPTER9.17TOTHE CUPERTINOMUNICIPALCODEREGARDING REGULATIONOFSINGLEUSECARRYOUTBAGS TheCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinoherbyordainsasfollows: Section1.AdditionofChapter9.17.Chapter9.17isherebyaddedtotheCupertino MunicipalCodetoreadasfollows: CUPERTINOMUNICIPALCODE CHAPTER 9.17 REGULATION OF SINGLE-USE CARRYOUT BAGS 9.17.100Findingsandpurpose TheCityCouncilfindsanddeterminesthat: (a)Theuseofsingleusecarryoutbagsbyconsumersatretailestablishmentsis detrimentaltotheenvironment,publichealthandwelfare. (b)Themanufactureanddistributionofsingleusecarryoutbagsrequiresutilization ofnaturalresourcesandresultsinthegenerationofgreenhousegasemissions. (c)Singleusecarryoutbagscontributetoenvironmentalproblems,includinglitterin stormdrains,creeks,thebayandtheocean. Singleusecarryoutbagsprovidedbyretailestablishmentsimposeunseencostson (d) consumers,localgovernments,thestateandtaxpayersandconstituteapublic nuisance. TheCityCouncilfindsanddeclaresthatitshouldrestrictthefreedistributionof singleusecarryoutbags. 9.17.110Definitions A.Customermeansanypersonobtaininggoodsfromaretailestablishment. B. &§¸³«´º¨§!meansatravelbagmadeofpliable,durablematerialwithor withoutahandle,designedtohangstraightorfolddoubleandusedtocarrysuits, 1 193 dresses,coats,orthelikewithoutcrushingorwrinklingthesame. C. &§¸³«´º©µ¼«¸!meansaprotectivetextilecoverwithorwithoutahandle, madeofplastic,paper,orothermaterialandusedasaprotectivecoveringforclothing, draperies,orsimilartextilesaftertheprofessionalcleaning,alteration,orrepairofsuch items. D.Nonprofitcharitablereusermeansacharitableorganization,asdefinedin Section501(c)(3)oftheInternalRevenueCodeof1986,oradistinctoperatingunitor divisionofthecharitableorganization,thatreusesandrecyclesdonatedgoodsor materialsandreceivesmorethanfiftypercentofitsrevenuesfromthehandlingand saleofthosedonatedgoodsormaterials. E.Personmeansanynaturalperson,firm,corporation,partnership,orother organizationorgrouphoweverorganized. F.Preparedfoodmeansfoodsorbeverageswhicharepreparedonthepremises bycooking,chopping,slicing,mixing,freezing,orsqueezing,andwhichrequireno furtherpreparationtobeconsumed. /¸«¶§¸«ª¬µµª!doesnotincludeanyraw, uncookedmeatproductorfruitsorvegetableswhicharechopped,squeezed,ormixed. G.Publiceatingestablishmentmeansarestaurant,takeoutfoodestablishment, oranyotherbusinessthatreceivesninetypercentormoreofitsrevenuefromthesale ofpreparedfoodtobeeatenonoroffitspremises. H.Recycledpaperbagmeansapaperbagprovidedatthecheckstand,cash register,pointofsale,orotherpointofdepartureforthepurposeoftransportingfood ormerchandiseoutoftheestablishmentthatcontainsnooldgrowthfiberanda minimumoffortypercentpostconsumerrecycledcontentandisonehundredpercent recyclable. I.Retailestablishmentmeansanycommercialestablishmentthatsellsperishable ornonperishablegoodsincluding,butnotlimitedto,clothing,food,andpersonalitems directlytothecustomer;andislocatedwithinordoingbusinesswithintheCityof Cupertino. 1«º§¯²«¹º§¨²¯¹®³«´º!doesnotincludepubliceatingestablishmentsor nonprofitcharitablereusers. J.Reusablebagmeanseitherabagmadeofclothorothermachinewashable fabricthathashandles,oradurableplasticbagwithhandlesthatisatleast2.25mils thickandisspecificallydesignedandmanufacturedformultiplereuse. 2 194 K.Singleusecarryoutbagmeansabagotherthanareusablebagprovidedatthe checkstand,cashregister,pointofsaleorotherpointofdeparture,including departmentswithinastore,forthepurposeoftransportingfoodormerchandiseoutof theestablishment. 2¯´²«usecarryout¨§¹!donotincludebagswithouthandles providedtothecustomer:(1)totransportpreparedfood,produce,bulkfoodormeat fromadepartmentwithinastoretothepointofsale;(2)toholdprescriptionmedication dispensedfromapharmacy;or(3)tosegregatefoodormerchandisethatcoulddamage orcontaminateotherfoodormerchandisewhenplacedtogetherinareusablebagor recycledpaperbag. 9.17.120Implementationdate ThisChaptershallbeimplementedasofOctober1,2013. 9.17.130Singleusecarryoutbag A.Nopersonorretailestablishmentshallprovideasingleusecarryoutbagtoa customer,atthecheckstand,cashregister,pointofsaleorotherpointofdeparturefor thepurposeoftransportingfoodormerchandiseoutoftheestablishmentexceptas providedinthissectionorinsection9.17.140. B.EffectiveOctober1,2013aretailestablishmentmayonlymakerecycledpaper bagsavailabletocustomersiftheretailerchargesaminimumoftencents.Reusable bagsmaybegivenbyretailerswithoutcharge. C.Notwithstandingthissection,noretailestablishmentmaymakeavailablefor salearecycledpaperbagunlesstheamountofthesaleofsuchbagisseparately itemizedonthesalereceipt. D.Aretailestablishmentmayprovideoneormorerecycledpaperbagsatnocost toanyofthefollowingindividuals:acustomerparticipatingintheCaliforniaSpecial SupplementFoodProgramforWomen,Infants,andChildrenpursuanttoArticle2 (commencingwithSection123275)ofChapter1ofPart2ofDivision106oftheHealth andSafetyCode;acustomerparticipatingintheSupplementalFoodProgrampursuant toChapter10(commencingwithSection15500)ofPart3ofDivision9oftheCalifornia WelfareandInstitutionsCode;andacustomerparticipatinginCalfreshpursuantto Chapter10(commencingwithSection18900)ofPart6ofDivision9oftheCalifornia WelfareandInstitutionsCode 3 195 9.17.140Exemptions TheprovisionsofthisChaptershallnotapplyinthefollowingcircumstanceswhere: 1.Aplasticorpapercarryoutbagwithorwithouthandlesisprovidedbyapublic eatingestablishmenttotransportpreparedfood; 2.Aplasticorpaperbagwithorwithouthandlesisprovidedbyanonprofit charitablereuser; 3.Aplasticorpaperbagwithouthandlesisprovidedtotransportpreparedfood, produce,bulkfood,ormeatfromadepartmentwithinastoretothepointofsale; 4.Aplasticorpaperbagwithouthandlesisprovidedtoholdprescription medicationdispensedfromapharmacy; 5.Aplasticorpaperbagwithouthandlesisusedtosegregatefoodormerchandise thatcoulddamageorcontaminateotherfoodormerchandisewhenplaced togetherinareusablebagorrecycledbag; 6.Agarmentbagorgarmentcoverusedtoprotectandtransportclothingorother textiles. 9.17.150Administrativecitationandfine (a)Groundsforanadministrativecitation.Anadministrativecitationmaybeissued uponfindingsmadebytheCityManager,orhisorherdesignee,whenanypersonor retailestablishmenthasprovidedasingleusecarryoutbagtoacustomerorviolated anyotherprovisionofthisChapter. (b)Administrativecitationfineamounts.Uponfindingsmadeundersubsection(a),the retailestablishmentshallbesubjecttoanadministrativecitationpursuanttoChapter 1.10ofthisCode.Finesfortheadministrativecitationareasfollows: (1)Firstcitation:Onehundreddollars($100.00) (2)Secondcitationforthesameviolationwithinthesametwelvemonthperiod: Twohundreddollars($200.00) (3)Thirdoranysubsequentcitationforthesameviolationwithinthesame twelvemonthperiod:Fivehundreddollars($500.00) (4)Eachdaythatanypersonorretailestablishmentviolatestheprovisionsofthis Chapteranewandseparateviolationoccurs. (c)Administrativecitationappealsanddispositionaddressedinaccordancewith Chapter1.10ofthisCode. 4 196 9.17.160Severability Ifanysection,subsection,subdivision,sentence,clause,orphraseofthisChapterisfor anyreasonheldtobeunconstitutionalorotherwisevoidorinvalid,byanycourtof competentjurisdictionthevalidityoftheremainingportionofthisChaptershallnotbe affectedthereby. TheCityClerkshallcertifytheadoptionofthisOrdinanceandshallgivenoticeofits adoptionasrequiredbylaw.PursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection36933,asummary ofthisOrdinancemaybepublishedandpostedinlieuofpublicationandpostingofthe entiretext. Section2.EffectiveDate.ThisOrdinanceshallbeeffectiveonOctober1,2013. Section3.CEQAReview.TheCountyofSanMateowastheleadagencyfor environmentalreviewundertheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)and preparedandcertifiedanEnvironmentalImpactreportanalyzingtheimpactsofa reusablebagordinance,banningsingleuse,carryoutbagsfromstores,whilerequiring storesthatproviderecycledcontentpaperbagstochargecustomersaminimumoften cents($.10)perbag.TheEIRspecificallyanalyzedtheimpactsofsuchanordinancein theCityofCupertino,andtheCupertinoCityCouncilindependentlyreviewedtheEIR anddeterminedthatitwasadequateforthe"¯º¿¹useinadoptinganordinance.In addition,theCitypreparedanAddendumanalyzingminorchangestotheordinance. TheCityCouncilreviewedtheEIRandAddendumandadoptedCEQAFindingsof FactonJanuary15andMarch5,2013andconcludedthatthattheproposedordinance (includingmodifications)willnotresultinanysignificantenvironmentaleffect. 5 197 INTRODUCEDataregularmeetingoftheCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinothe 15thdayofJanuary2013andENACTEDataregularmeetingoftheCityCouncilofthe CityofCupertinothe5thdayofMarch2013,bythefollowingvote: PASSED: Vote:MembersoftheCityCouncil Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST:APPROVED: ____________________________________________ GraceSchmidt,CityClerkOrrinMahoney,Mayor 6 198 ORDINANCE NO. 13- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ADDING CHAPTER 9.17 TO THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING REGULATION OF SINGLE-USE CARRYOUT BAGS Attachment C The City Council of the City of Cupertino herby ordains as follows: Section 1. Addition of Chapter 9.17. Chapter 9.17 is hereby added to the Cupertino Municipal Code to read as follows : CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.17 REGULATION OF SINGLE-USE CARRYOUT BAGS 9.17.100 Findings and purpose The City Council finds and determines that: (a) The use of single-use carryout bags by consumers at retail establishments is detrimental to the environment, public health and welfare. (b) The manufacture and distribution of single-use carryout bags requires utilization of natural resources and results in the generation of greenhouse (c) Single-use carryout bags contribute to environmental problems, includin stormdrains, creeks, the bay and the ocean. (d) Single-use carryout bags provided by retail establishments impose unsee consumers, local governments, the state and taxpayers and consti nuisance. The City Council finds and declares that it should restrict the free distributionof single-use carryout bags. 9.17.110 Definitions A. "Customer" means any person obtaining goods from a retail establ B. baga travel bag made of pliable, durable material with or without a handle, designed to hang straight or fold double and used to carry suits 1 199 dresses, coats, or the like without crushing or wrinkling the sa C. rotective textile cover with or without a handle, made of plastic, paper, or other material and used as a protecti draperies, or similar textiles after the professional cleaning, ion, or repair of such items. D. "Nonprofit charitable reuser" means a charitable organization, as defined in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or a dis division of the charitable organization, that reuses and recycle materials and receives more than fifty percent of its revenues from the handling and sale of those donated goods or materials. E. "Person" means any natural person, firm, corporation, partnershi organization or group however organized. F. "Prepared food" means foods or beverages which are prepared on the premises by cooking, chopping, slicing, mixing, freezing, or squeezing, a further preparation to be consumed. uncooked meat product or fruits or vegetables which are chopped,ueezed, or mixed. G. "Public eating establishment" means a restaurant, take-out food establishment, or any other business that receives ninety percent or more of it of prepared food to be eaten on or off its premises. H. "Recycled paper bag" means a paper bag provided at the check sta register, point of sale, or other point of departure for the pur or merchandise out of the establishment that contains no old gro minimum of forty percent post-consumer recycled content and is one hundred percent recyclable. I. "Retail establishment" means any commercial establishment that s or nonperishable goods including, but not limited to, clothing, onal items directly to the customer; and is located within or doing businesthe City of Cupertino. nonprofit charitable reusers. J. "Reusable bag" means either a bag made of cloth or other machine washable fabric that has handles, or a durable plastic bag with handles t 2 200 millimetersmilsthick and is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple K. "Single-use carryout bag" means a bag other than a reusable bag provided at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other point of depa departments within a store, for the purpose of transporting food the establishment. -use carryout provided to the customer: (1) to transport prepared food, produc from a department within a store to the point of sale; (2) to ho dispensed from a pharmacy; or (3) to segregate food or merchandise that could damage or contaminate other food or merchandise when placed together in recycled paper bag. 9.17.120 Implementation date This Chapter shall be implemented as of October 1, 2013. 9.17.130 Single-use carryout bag A. No person orretail establishment shall provide a single-use carryout bag to a customer, at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or ot the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment except as provided in this section or in section 9.17.140. B. Effective October 1, 2013 a retail establishment may only make recycled paper bags or reusable bags available to customers if the retailer charges a minimum of ten cents. Reusable bags may be given by retailer without charge. C. Effective January 1, 2015 a retail establishment may only make recycled paper bags or reusable bags available to customers if the retailer cha twenty-five cents. DC. Notwithstanding this section, no retail establishment may make a sale a recycled paper bag or a reusable bag unless the amount of the sale of such bag is separately itemized on the sale receipt. ED. A retail establishment may provide one or more recycled paper bags at no cost to any of the following individuals: a customer participating in the California Special Supplement Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children pursuan (commencing with Section 123275) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 1 and Safety Code; a customer participating in the Supplemental Fo to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 15500) of Part 3 of Divis 3 201 Welfare and Institutions Code; and a customer participating inCalfresh pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 18900) of Part 6 of Division Welfare and Institutions Code . 9.17.140 Exemptions The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply in the following circumstances where: 1.A plastic or paper carryout bag with or without handles is provided by a public eating establishment to transport prepared food; 2.A plastic or paper bag with or without handles is provided by a nonprofit charitable reuser; 3.A plastic or paper bag without handles is provided to transport prepared food, produce, bulk food, or meat from a department within a store to 4.A plastic or paper bag without handles is provided to hold prescription medication dispensed from a pharmacy; 5.A plastic or paper bag without handles is used to segregate food or merchandise that could damage or contaminate other food or merchandise when together in a reusable bag or recycled bag; 6.A garment bag or garment cover used to protect and transport clothing or other textiles. , 9.17.150 Enforcementrecordkeeping and inspection Every retail establishment shall keep complete and accurate reco purchase and sale of any recycled paper bag or reusable bag by the retail establishment, for a minimum period of three years from the date of purchase an shall be available for inspection at no cost to the City during regular business hours by any City employee authorized to enforce this Chapter. Unless an alternative location or method of review is mutually agreed upon, the records or documen at the retail establishment address. The provision of false information including incomplete records or documents to the City shall be a violation of this Chapter. 9.17.160 150 Administrative citation and fine (a) Grounds for an administrative citation. An administrative citation may be issued upon findings made by the City Manager, or his or her designee, when any person or retail establishment has provided a single-use carryout bag to a customer or violated any other provisionof this Chapter. 4 202 (b) Administrative citation fine amounts.Upon findings made under subsection (a), the retail establishment shall be subject to an administrative citation pursuant to Chapter 1.10 of this Code. Fines for the administrative citation are as follows: (1) First citation: One hundred dollars ($100.00) (2) Second citation for the same violation within the same twelv Two hundred dollars ($200.00) (3) Third or any subsequent citation for the same violation with twelve month period: Five hundred dollars ($500.00) (4) Each day that any person orretail establishment violates the provisions of this Chaptera new and separate violation occurs. (c) Administrative citation appeals and disposition addressed in Chapter 1.10 of this Code. 9.17.170 160 Severability If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, or ph any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise void or inva competent jurisdiction the validity of the remaining portion of all not be affected thereby. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and posting of the entire text. Section 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective on October 1, 2013. Section 3. CEQA Review. The County of San Mateo was the lead agency for environmental review under the California Environmental Quality and prepared and certified an Environmental Impact report analyzing a reusable bag ordinance, banning single-use, carryout bags from stores, while requiring stores that provide recycled-content paper bags to charge customers a minimum of ten cents($.10) per bag. The EIR specifically analyzed the impacts of such an ordinance i the City of Cupertino, and the Cupertino City Council independently reviewed the EIR and determined that it was adequate for the City addition, the City prepared an Addendum analyzing minor changes to the ordinance. 5 203 The CityCouncilreviewed the EIR and Addendum andadopted CEQA findingsof fact on January 15 and March 5, 2013 and concluded that that the proposed ordinance (including modifications) will not result in any significant env. * * * * * * * * INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 15th day of January 2013 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 5th day of FebruaryMarch_________ 2013, by the following vote: PASSED: Vote: Members of the City Council Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________ ______________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Orrin Mahoney, Mayor 6 204 ORDINANCE NO. 13- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 9.18 (STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION AND WATERSHED PROTECTION) OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADDRESS LITTER MANAGEMENT AND ANTI-LITTER ENFORCEMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY’S STORMWATER PERMIT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1SECTION 9.18.020 AMENDED .. SECTION 9.18.020 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection 45. to read as follows: 9.18.020 Definitions. 45. “Litter.” As used in this chapter, litter may be, but is not limited to, plastic, paper, cigarette butts, floor sweepings, trash, rubbish, food, cloth, metal, recyclable material, or waste matter of whatever character. Section 2.SECTION 9.18.210 AMENDED . SECTION 9.18.210 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of subsection 4.P. to read as follows: 9.18.210 Stormwater Pollutant Source Controls and BMPs. [1. through 3. unchanged] 4. All dischargers must implement and maintain minimum best management practices. The Director of Public Works may require submission of information to evaluate the implementation and/or require the implementation of BMPs to prevent pollutant sources from entering the City's storm drain collection system associated with outdoor process and manufacturing areas, outdoor material storage areas, outdoor waste storage and disposal areas, outdoor vehicle and equipment storage and maintenance areas, outdoor parking and access roads, outdoor wash areas, outdoor drainage from indoor areas, rooftop equipment, contaminated and erodible surfaces, or other sources determined by the director to have a reasonable potential to contribute to pollution of stormwater runoff. Minimum BMPs and source control measures for all dischargersinclude, but are not limited to the following: 205 [A. through O. unchanged] P. Outdoor Recycling, Composting and Trash Receptacle Sets Required for Public Use at New and Redeveloped Commercial and Retail Sites. 1.To help prevent littering, a set of outdoor receptacles consisting of three separate containers one each for recyclable, compostable and garbage materials must be provided by the property owner and placed together in collection areas for public use at all new and redeveloped commercial and retail sites. The receptacles shall be maintained by the property owner or the property owner’s designee. One set of these receptacles may satisfy the requirement for up to four adjacent u businesses at one shopping center. The number of receptacle sets that are required will be determined by the Director of Public Works and are intended to be sufficient to contain the amount of litter and debris that is reasonably expected to be generated from the type and size of the businesses at each commercial or retail site. The requirement for outdoor litter receptacles shall be a condition of approval that u will be reviewed within the permit application process. The condition may be amended if an alternative set of bins will provide equal containment of public litter, or waived by the Director of Public Works if the potential impact from litter in the vicinity of the business is negligible. Section 3.SECTION 9.18.215 ADDED. A new Section, Section 9.18.215, is hereby added to the Cupertino Municipal Code to read as follows: 9.18.215 Litter Prevention and Enforcement. A. Violations 1.It is unlawful for any person to sweep, throw, deposit, place, or drop without picking up, any litter into or upon any public street, way, sidewalk, parking lot or other public place, or in or upon private property in the City into or upon which the public is admitted by easement or license. 2.It is unlawful for any person to throw or deposit litter in any fountain, pond, creek, stream or other body of water in a park or elsewhere within the City. 3.It is unlawful for any person to collect any garbage, mixed recyclables, or other materials from public or privately authorized outdoor receptacles, kept or accumulated within the City, unless such person is an agent or employee of the 206 City acting within the course and scope of his or her employment, or is acting pursuant to a franchise awarded by the City to act as garbage collector. 4.It is unlawful for any person to throw or deposit litter on any occupied private property within the City, whether owned by such person or not. 5.It is unlawful for any person to throw or deposit litter on any open or vacant private property within the City whether or not the property is owned by such person. 6.It is unlawful for any person to drive or move any open vehicle or trailer within the City unless there is a tarp over the contents or the material is constructed and loaded so as to ensure that all litter is prevented from being blown or deposited upon any street, alley or other public or private place. B. Collection and Maintenance 1. Persons placing material intended for disposal or recycling in public receptacles or in authorized private receptacles shall do so in such a manner as to prevent it from being scattered, carried or deposited by the elements or animal scavengers upon any street, sidewalk, parking lot, creek, park or other public or private place. 2.Persons placing material intended for disposal or recycling in any public or privately authorized outdoor receptacle shall ensure that the lid is left completely closed. The over-filling of any outdoor receptacle intended for, but not limited to, trash, compostable organics and recyclables, in a manner that does not allow the lid to be completely closed is prohibited. The lid of a residential yard waste bin may be left partially open so long as the greater part of the yard and tree trimmings are contained if it is necessary to leave the lid partially open due to the branches or limbs not fitting completely into the bin with the lid closed. Yard waste bins containing food waste must be left with lids completely closed when not being serviced. 3.Uncontained large items originating from single-family homes that will not fit into a receptacle may be placed at the curb for scheduled collection within 24 hours of such collection by an agent or employee of the City or by the awardee of a franchise by the City to act as garbage and recycling collector. 4.Persons owning or occupying property shall maintain the premises, including the perimeter and the sidewalk in front of their premises, free of loose litter. 5.Persons sharing receptacles placed outside of retail areas for public use, as required in section 9.18.210.4.P., must also share equally in the responsibility of 207 emptying the receptacles so that they do not overflow and maintaining the area around the receptacles so that it is free of loose litter. C. Exceptions The provisions of this section shall not apply to the distribution of mail by the United States, nor to newspapers of general circulation as defined by general law, nor any periodical or current magazine regularly published; provided, however, that no newspaper shall be thrown, deposited or distributed upon any premises where the owner or inhabitant thereof shall have previously advised, in writing, the publisher or distributor of such newspaper not to do so; and no newspaper shall be thrown, deposited or distributed upon any premises where two (2) or more editions of the same newspaper remain unclaimed by the owner or occupant thereof. 9.18.260 Administrative Penalties–Payment of Funds to Account. Whenever the City Manager or his/her designee finds that any person has violated any provision of this chapter or has violated any notice requiring compliance with any provision of this chapter, the City Manager or designee may issue an administrative citation pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.10 of this code and assess an administrative penalty in a sum not to exceed the amounts provided in Government Code § 54740.5. The remedy provided in this section is cumulative and not exclusive, and shall be in addition to all other remedies available to the City under state and federal law and local ordinances. Funds collected pursuant to this section shall be paid to City's Environmental Storm Management Account. Section 4. Statement of Purpose. This Ordinance is intended to support the City’s enforcement of the State of California’s anti-littering laws - California Penal Code Section 374.4 and to require waste receptacles at all new and redeveloped commercial and retail sites within the City of Cupertino. In the absence of this amendment, it would be difficult for the City to engage the assistance of the public in implementing new State requirements to reduce litter that is generated within the City and which could reasonably be expected to make its way to the City’s storm drainage system, local creeks and waters of the State. Section 5. CEQA Exemption. The Class 8 exemption, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment, applies to this ordinance, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15308. Section 6. Severability. Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any 208 other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable. Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937. Section 8. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and posting of the entire text. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the 15th day of th January 2013, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the 5 day of March 2013, by the following vote: VoteMembersoftheCityCouncil Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST :APPROVED: ____________ GraceSchmidt,CityClerkOrrinMahoney,Mayor 209 PUBLICWORKSDEPARTMENT CITYHALL 1010300TORREAVENUE'CUPERTINO,CA950143255 TELEPHONE:(408)7773354www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:March5,2013 Subject Secondreadingofanordinanceprovidinganexceptiontoallowoffleashprofessional dogservicesforCityauthorizedwaterfowlmanagementatCityParks. RecommendedAction ConductthesecondreadingandenactOrdinanceNo.132105. Discussion OnFebruary5,2013,theCityCouncilconductedthefirstreadingofOrdinanceNo.13 2105amendingsections8.03.010and13.04.130(d)oftheCupertinoMunicipalCodewith nochanges. ThenumberandassociatednuisancescreatedbyCanadaGeeseatCityparkshasbeen increasing.OnOctober16,2012,staffpresentedtoCityCouncilvariousoptionsto mitigatethesenuisancesatMemorialPark.Theoptionswerebasedinpartuponthe bestpracticesrecommendedbytheHumaneSocietyoftheUnitedStatesand GeesePeace."µ»´©¯²¹directionattheOctober16meetingwastoproceedwitha th managementprogramtoincludedogservices,lasers,andpossiblyradiocontrolled boats.OnJanuary15,2013,theCityCouncilalsoenactedanofeedordinance,settinga fineforfeedingwaterfowl.Inordertoimplementdirectiontousetrainedherdingdogs intheharassmentofgeese,themunicipalcodemustbeamendedtoallowthese professionaloffleashdogservices. InDecember,staffpreparedarequestforproposalsforGooseManagementServices andpubliclyinvitedbothbusinessesandcitizenstosubmitproposals.Intotal,three proposalswerereceivedandprofessionaldogservicesarescheduledtobeginin MemorialParkinMay2013uptothemoltingseason(typicallyJune/July)andthen resumethroughtoNovember.Geesewillnotbeharassedduringthemoltingseason becausetheyareunabletofly.Intheperformanceoftheseservices,traineddogswill beoffleashandundercontroloftrainedhandlers.Publicoutreachwilloccurwellin 210 advanceofthecommencementofprofessionaldogservicessothatparkuserswill knowwhattoexpectwhilethehandleranddogsareworkingatthesite. Section8.03.010GoftheMunicipalCodewillbeaddedtoextendtheexistingexceptions ofoffleashdogstoCityauthorizedeventsorprograms.Section8.03.010Fwillbe amendedtorecognizetheadditionof8.03.10G.Section13.04.130Dwillbeamendedto allowanexceptionforCityauthorizedeventsorprograms. FiscalImpact: Nofiscalimpactisexpectedfromthisproposedordinanceadditionoramendments. _____________________________________ Preparedby:RogerLee,AssistantDirectorofPublicWorks Reviewedby:TimmBorden,DirectorofPublicWorks ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: ADraftOrdinance BRedlineVersionofOrdinance 211 ORDINANCENO.132105 ANORDINANCEOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCUPERTINO AMENDINGSECTIONS8.03.010AND13.04.130(D)OFTHECUPERTINO MUNICIPALCODETOALLOWFORWATERFOWLMANAGEMENTBY ADDINGANOFFLEASHDOGEXCEPTIONFORCITYAUTHORIZED EVENTSANDPROGRAMS THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCUPERTINODOESHEREBY ORDAINASFOLLOWS: Section1.CodeAmendment.Section8.03.010oftheCupertino MunicipalCodeisherebyamendedtoreadasfollows: 8.03.010RestraintofDogs. Theownerorpersonwiththerighttocontrolanydogshallkeep suchdogunderhisorherownphysicalrestraintbymeansofa leashorshallkeepsuchdogconfinedbehindafencenotlessthan sixfeethighexceptforanyofthefollowing: A.Guidedogsfortheblindordeafwhileperformingtheir duties; B.Dogsparticipatinginfieldorobediencetrialsor conformationexhibitions; C.Dogsassistingtheirowner/handlerinlegalhunting activitiesorintheherdingoflivestock; D.Dogsassistingasecurityguardorassistingapeaceofficer engagedinlawenforcementactivities; E.Dogsassistinginsearchandrescueactivities; F.DogsparticipatinginCityauthorizedeventsorprograms; and G.Dogsbeingtrainedforanyoftheabovedescribedpurposes onprivatepropertywiththepermissionofthelandowner,solong asthesedogsareunderthedirectcontrolofthetrainer/handler. Anypersonwhoviolatestheprovisionsofthissectionshallbe guiltyofaninfractionanduponconvictionthereofshallbe punishedasprovidedinChapter1.12. 212 Ordinance No. 13-2105 Section2.CodeAmendment.Subsection13.04.130(D)oftheCupertino MunicipalCodeisherebyamendedtoreadasfollows: Nopersonhavingthecontrolorcareofanydog,shallsufferor permitsuchdogtoenterorremaininaparkorsportfield,unless postedforsuchuse,andthenonlyifitisledbyaleashofsuitable strengthnotmorethansixfeetinlength,unlessitispermittedtobe offleashbytheCityaspartofaCityauthorizedeventorprogram; andtheownerandtheattendantshallberesponsibleforany damagecaused,inanyevent,bysuchdog,evenifonleash; Section3.StatementofPurpose.MunicipalCodesection8.03.010 currentlyallowsdogstobeoffleashundercertainconditions.Thisamendment tosection8.03.010wouldaddanoffleashexceptionforCityauthorizedevents andprograms,whichcouldincludemanagementofgeeseandotherwaterfowlat MemorialParkandotherpotentiallocationsintheCitythroughtheuseof trainedoffleashherdingdogs.Similarly,theamendmenttoMunicipalCode section13.04.130(D)ensuresconsistencyinoffleashdogexceptionsbyclarifying thatoffleashdogsmaybeallowedinCityparkswhenauthorizedbytheCityas partofaCitysponsoredeventorprogram,suchasaprogramtopromote waterfowlmanagement. Section4.Severability.ShouldanyprovisionofthisOrdinance,orits applicationtoanypersonorcircumstance,bedeterminedbyacourtof competentjurisdictiontobeunlawful,unenforceableorotherwisevoid,that determinationshallhavenoeffectonanyotherprovisionofthisOrdinanceor theapplicationofthisOrdinancetoanyotherpersonorcircumstanceand,tothat end,theprovisionshereofareseverable. ThisOrdinanceshalltakeeffectthirtydays Section5.EffectiveDate. afteradoptionasprovidedbyGovernmentCodeSection36937. Section6.Certification.TheCityClerkshallcertifytothepassageand adoptionofthisOrdinanceandshallgivenoticeofitsadoptionasrequiredby law.PursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection36933,asummaryofthisOrdinance maybepublishedandpostedinlieuofpublicationandpostingoftheentiretext. 213 Ordinance No. 13-2105 INTRODUCEDataregularmeetingoftheCupertinoCityCouncilthe5th dayofFebruaryandENACTEDataregularmeetingoftheCupertinoCity Councilthe__5th_dayof__March__2013bythefollowingvote: VoteMembersoftheCityCouncil Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST :APPROVED: GraceSchmidt,CityClerkOrrinMahoney,Mayor 214 ORDINANCE NO. 13-2105 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING SECTIONS 8.03.010 AND 13.04.130(D) OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW FOR WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT BY ADDING AN OFF LEASH DOG EXCEPTION FOR CITY-AUTHORIZED EVENTS AND PROGRAMS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Code Amendment. Section 8.03.010 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 8.03.010 Restraint of Dogs. The owner or person with the right to control any dog shall keep such dog under his or her own physical restraint by means of a leash or shall keep such dog confined behind a fence not less th six feet high except for any of the following: A. Guide dogs for the blind or deaf while performing their duties; B. Dogs participating in field or obedience trials or conformation exhibitions; C. Dogs assisting their owner/handler in legal hunting activities or in the herding of livestock; D. Dogs assisting a security guard or assisting a peace officer engaged in law enforcement activities; E. Dogs assisting in search and rescue activities; F. Dogs participating in City-authorized events or programs; and G. Dogs being trained for any of the above described purposes F Deleted: on private property with the permission of the landowner, so long as these dogs are under the direct control of the trainer/handler. Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an infraction and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in Chapter 1.12. 215 Ordinance No. 13-2105 Page 2 Section 2. Code Amendment. Subsection 13.04.130(D) of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: No person having the control or care of any dog, shall suffer or permit such dog to enter or remain in a park or sport field, unless posted for such use, and then only if it is led by a leash of su strength not more than six feet in length, unless it is permitted to be off-leash by the City as part of a City-authorized event or program; and the owner and the attendant shall be responsible for any damage caused, in any event, by such dog, even if on leash; Section 3. Statement of Purpose. Municipal Code section 8.03.010 currently allows dogs to be off leash under certain conditions. This amendment to section 8.03.010 would add an off-leash exception for City-authorized events and programs, which could include management of geese and other waterfowl at Memorial Park and other potential locations in the City through the use of trained off-leash herding dogs. Similarly, the amendment to Municipal Code section 13.04.130(D) ensures consistency in off-leash dog exceptions by clarifying that off-leash dogs may be allowed in City parks when authorized by the City as part of a City-sponsored event or program, such as a program to promote waterfowl management. Section 4. Severability. Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwis determination shall have no effect on any other provision of thi the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circums end, the provisions hereof are severable. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937. Section 6. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as requi law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of th may be published and posted in lieu of publication and posting o 216 Ordinance No. 13-2105 Page 3 INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the 5th day of February and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the _5th____day of _March______ 2013 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: APPROVED: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Orrin Mahoney, Mayor 217 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:March5,2013 Subject SecondreadingandenactmentofanordinancemovingthedateoftheCitysgeneral municipalelectiontoconsolidateitwiththestatewidegeneralelectioncommencingin November2014. RecommendedAction ConductthesecondreadingofOrdinanceNo.132106:AnOrdinanceoftheCity CounciloftheCityofCupertinomovingthedateofitsgeneralmunicipalelectiontothe firstTuesdayafterthefirstMondayinNovemberofevennumberedyearsbeginningin November2014. Discussion OnFebruary19,2013,theCityCouncilconductedthefirstreadingofOrdinanceNo.13 2106movingthedateoftheCitysgeneralmunicipalelectiontoconsolidateitwiththe statewidegeneralelectioncommencinginNovember2014.Thisisthesecondreadingof thatordinance.IfCouncilenactstheordinance,itwouldbesubmittedtotheRegistrar ofVoterstobeplacedontheSantaClaraCountyBoardofSupervisorsagendaforApril 23,2013. Alocal°»¸¯¹ª¯©º¯µ´¹costsofholdingitselectionsisconsiderablylowerifelectionsare consolidatedwiththestatewidegeneralelectionsthanifitselectionsareheldinodd numberedyears.Currently,onlytheCitiesofCupertinoandSunnyvaleandthe CupertinoUnion,SunnyvaleandOrchardSchoolDistrictsholdelectionsonoddyears. TheCityofSunnyvalehasplacedameasureamendingitsChartertoshiftelectionsto evenyearsonits2013ballot.GeneralLawCitiessuchasCupertinoareprohibitedfrom puttingsuchbindingmeasuresontheballotandmustmakeshiftsintheelection calendarbyOrdinance. ElectionCodeSection1303(b)(1)authorizestheCityCounciltoenactanordinance requiringthegeneralmunicipalelectionstobeheldonthesamedayasthestatewide generalelections,providedtheordinanceisapprovedbytheCountyofSantaClara BoardofSupervisors. 218 Asidefromthepositivefiscalimpactsofthechangetoevenyearstatewidegeneral elections,thereareanumberofotherfactorstoconsider.First,consolidatinglocal electionswiththestatewidegeneralelection,typicallyresultsinagreatervoterturnout inthelocalelections.Manyvotersthatmaynotnormallyparticipateinlocalelections heldinoddnumberedyearsdoparticipateinthestatewidegeneralelections.Achart showingCupertinovoterturnoutforthepast10yearsisattached. 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$20,000totheCounty RegistrarofVoters. _____________________________________ GraceSchmidt,CityClerk Preparedby: CarolKorade,CityAttorney Reviewedby: ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: AKDraftordinance BKCupertinoelectionstatisticschart 219 ORDINANCENO.132106 ANORDINANCEOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCUPERTINOMOVING THEDATEOFITSGENERALMUNICIPALELECTIONTOTHEFIRSTTUESDAY AFTERTHEFIRSTMONDAYINNOVEMBEROFEVENNUMBEREDYEARS BEGINNINGINNOVEMBER2014 WHEREAS,The"¯º¿¹generalmunicipalelection(hereinafter ,»´¯©¯¶§²$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 ! 220 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). Section7.Certification.CityClerkshallcertifytothepassageandadoptionof thisOrdinanceandshallcausethesametobepublishedinthemannerrequiredbylaw. TheCityManagershallforwardacopyofthisOrdinancetotheSantaClaraCountyBoard ofSupervisorswitharequestthatitbeapprovedpursuanttoCaliforniaElectionsCode Sections1301and10403.5. INTRODUCEDataregularmeetingoftheCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinothis19th dayofFebruary,2013,andENACTEDataregularmeetingoftheCityCounciloftheCity ofCupertinothis5thdayofMarch,2013,bythefollowingvote: VoteMembersoftheCityCouncil AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:APPROVED: ___________ GraceSchmidt,CityClerkOrrinMahoney,MayorCityofCupertino 221 "»¶«¸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© 222 CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:March5,2013 Subject :MunicipalCodeAmendmenttoChapter14.18,ProtectedTrees(continueto March19) NOWRITTENMATERIALSINPACKET 223 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:March5,2012 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. 224 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 Alllegalnoticingasrequired o 225 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. 226 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) 4.(DorisYeh)Mirapath 227 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. However,staffhasdraftedthesecontractstogivetheCitytheoptiontoauthorizethe VallcoShoppingDistrictSpecificPlanandseparateEIRwithin6monthsofstartingthe 228 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 229 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 230 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 231 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 232 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 233 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 234 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 235 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 236 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 237 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 238 (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 239 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 240 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 241 # 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 242 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 243 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 244 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 245 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 246 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 247 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 248 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 249 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 250 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 251 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 252 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 ItemDescriptionFormat(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 253 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 254 p r o j e c t b u d g e t | g e n e MIG, Inc. Daniel IacofanoChris BeynonAmsdenJamillah JordanMalhotraLaura Shipman Principal-in-ChargePolicy PlannerUrban Design Assoc.Outreach AsProject ManagerUrban DesignerProject Admin. Hrs@$295Hrs@$195Hrs@$195Hrs@$135Hrs@$100Hrs@$90Hrs@$125 Phase 1: Project Kick-Off and Existing Conditions Analysis Project Kick-Off Meeting and Opportunity Sites Tour 8$2,3608$1,5600$08$1,0808$8000$08$1,000 1.1 Refined Work Plan 1$2954$7800$00$00$00$08$1,000 1.2 Community Participation and Outreach Plan 20$5,90044$8,5800$024$3,24050$5,00090$8,10012$1,500 1.3 Decision Maker and City Staff Retreat 6$1,7706$1,1700$010$1,35020$2,0000$02$250 1.4 Stakeholder Group Formation and Interviews 12$3,54030$5,8500$06$8100$030$2,7000$0 1.5 Project Website Development and Maintenance 0$02$3900$024$3,24060$6,00060$5,40030$3,750 1.6 Base Mapping and GIS 0$00$00$02$27030$3,0000$00$0 1.7 Settings and Opportunities Report 6$1,77018$3,5100$020$2,70070$7,0000$08$1,000 1.8 Stakeholder Group Meeting (1) 4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$250 1.9 Planning Commission Study Session (1) 4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$250 1.10 City Council Study Session (1) 4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$250 1.11 Subtotal 65$19,175112$21,8400$0112$15,120238$23,800204$18,36074$9,250 Phase 2: Visioning and Alternatives Stakeholder Group Meeting (1) 4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$250 2.1 Community Workshop Visioning 12$3,54012$2,3400$012$1,62024$2,40024$2,1602$250 2.2 Vision and Transformative Strategies Framework 4$1,18012$2,3400$00$012$1,20012$1,0800$0 2.3 Market Study 0$02$3900$02$2700$00$00$0 2.4 Allocation Analysis Report 0$02$3900$02$2700$00$00$0 2.5 Retail Strategy Report 0$02$3900$02$2700$00$00$0 2.6 Concept Alternatives 8$2,36012$2,34010$1,95010$1,350120$12,0000$04$500 2.7 Concept Alternatives Report 6$1,77016$3,1200$020$2,700100$10,00020$1,8004$500 2.8 Stakeholder Group Meeting (1) 4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$250 2.9 Community Workshop Alternatives 12$3,54012$2,3400$012$1,62024$2,40024$2,1602$250 2.10 Planning Commission Study Session (1) 4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$250 2.11 City Council Study Session (1) 4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$250 2.12 Subtotal 58$17,11070$13,65010$1,95084$11,340280$28,000112$10,08020$2,500 Phase 3: Draft General Plan Amendment Existing General Plan Analysis and Policy Framework 1$2952$3900$024$3,24012$1,2000$00$0 3.1 Draft General Plan Amendment 4$1,18024$4,6808$1,56050$6,75080$8,00040$3,6008$1,000 3.2 Stakeholder Group Meeting (1) 4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$250 3.3 Planning Commission Study Session (1) 4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$250 3.4 City Council Study Session (1) 4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$250 3.5 Revised Draft General Plan Amendment 4$1,1802$3900$024$3,24048$4,80012$1,0804$500 3.6 Community Open House 12$3,54012$2,3400$012$1,62024$2,40024$2,1602$250 3.7 Subtotal 33$9,73540$7,8008$1,560128$17,280164$16,400100$9,00020$2,500 Phase 4: Public Hearings and Adoption Planning Commission Public Hearings (2) 8$2,3600$00$012$1,6200$016$1,4404$500 4.1 City Council Public Hearings (2) 8$2,3600$00$012$1,6200$016$1,4404$500 4.2 City Council Adoption Hearing (1) 4$1,1800$00$012$1,6200$016$1,4404$500 4.3 Final Project Documents 0$02$3900$012$1,62024$2,4000$02$250 4.4 Subtotal 20$5,9002$3900$048$6,48024$2,40048$4,32014$1,750 Phase 5: Coordination and Management Other Agency Coordination 8$2,36024$4,6800$028$3,7800$030$2,7000$0 5.1 Community Organization Coordination 8$2,36012$2,3400$046$6,2100$030$2,7000$0 5.2 EIR Team Coordination 0$012$2,3400$046$6,21030$3,0000$00$0 5.3 Project Management 24$7,08060$11,7000$00$00$00$050$6,250 5.4 Subtotal 40$11,800108$21,0600$0120$16,20030$3,00060$5,40050$6,250 SUBTOTAL FEE216$63,720332$64,74018$3,510492$66,420736$73,600524$47,160178$22 Direct Costs* SUBTOTAL FEE & DIRECT COSTS Subconsultant Administrative Fee FINAL TOTAL * 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 Community Workshop (1) 12$3,54012$2,3400$012$1,62024$2,40024$2,1602$250 Planning Commission Meeting (1) 4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$250 City Council Meeting (1) 4$1,1800$00$06$8100$08$7202$250 MIG, Inc. p r o j e c t b u d g e t | s o u ta n MIG, Inc. Daniel IacofanoChris BeynonMalhotraAmsdenLaura ShipmanJamillah J Principal-in-ChargeProject ManagerUrban DesignerPolicy PlannerProject Admin.Urban Design Assoc.Outreach Associate Hrs@$295Hrs@$195Hrs@$195Hrs@$135Hrs@$100Hrs@$90Hrs@$125Hrs Phase 1: South Vallco Specific Plan Stakeholder Meetings (3)6$1,77024$4,6800$024$3,2400$024$2,1606$750 1.1 South Vallco Visioning Workshop 4$1,18012$2,3400$024$3,24012$1,20024$2,1602$250 1.2 Vallco Strategy Report 0$02$3900$04$5400$00$00$0 1.3 Draft South Vallco Specific Plan 8$2,36026$5,07010$1,95080$10,800140$14,00040$3,60024$3,000 1.4 Stakeholder Meetings (2) 4$1,18016$3,1200$016$2,1600$016$1,4404$500 1.5 Community Workshop 2$59012$2,3400$016$2,1608$80024$2,1602$250 1.6 Planning Commission Study Sessions (2)2$5908$1,5600$012$1,6200$016$1,4404$500 1.7 City Council Study Sessions (2)2$5908$1,5600$012$1,6200$016$1,4404$500 1.8 City Council Adoption Hearings (2)2$5908$1,5600$012$1,6200$016$1,4404$500 1.9 Final South Vallco Specific Plan 4$1,18012$2,3400$024$3,24070$7,00020$1,80016$2,000 1.10 Subtotal 34$10,030128$24,96010$1,950224$30,240230$23,000196$17,64066$8,250 Phase 2: Coordination and Management EIR Team Coordination 2$59024$4,6800$050$6,75024$2,4000$00$0 2.1 Project Management 4$1,18020$3,9000$040$5,4000$00$036$4,500 2.2 Subtotal 6$1,77044$8,5800$090$12,15024$2,4000$036$4,500 SUBTOTAL FEE 40$11,800172$33,54010$1,950314$42,390254$25,400196$17,640102$12, Direct Costs* SUBTOTAL FEE & DIRECT COSTS Subconsultant Administrative Fee FINAL TOTAL * 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 Community Workshop (1) 4$1,18012$2,3400$024$3,24012$1,20024$2,1602$250 Planning Commission Meeting (1) 1$2954$7800$06$8100$08$7202$250 City Council Meeting (1) 1$2954$7800$06$8100$08$7202$250 MIG, Inc. 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 2013 MarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugust GENERALPLANAMENDMENT 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 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: $222,024 258 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-OffMeeting 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 259 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.HexagonWork 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.ProjectDescription The Planning Center|DC&E will prepare a detailed project description forthe EIRusing 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.NoticeofPreparation 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.PublicScopingMeeting The Planning Center|DC&E Project Managerwill attend one scoping meeting to gather input and comments from interested agencies, organization, City officials, 6.GeneralPlanAmendmentExistingConditionsReports 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 260 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 261 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/VisualResources TheGeneral 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.AirQuality 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 262 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 263 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,andSeismicity 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.GreenhouseGasEmissions 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 264 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 willassess the project as a General Plan Updatein 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 adopteAdjust- 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.HazardsandHazardousMaterials 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 265 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 Useand 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&Ewill 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 266 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 267 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.UtilitiesandServiceSystems 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.OtherEnvironmentalIssues 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 268 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. ProjectDescription.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. AlternativesEvaluation.The alternatives evaluation completedin Task Cwill be incorpo- rated into the EIR. This chapter will include a tabular comparimpacts. CEQARequiredAssessmentConclusions.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 ReportPreparers.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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 269 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.DraftEIR The Planning Center|DC&Ewill 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.PublicHearings The Planning Center|DC&Eand Hexagon will attend up to twopublic 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&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. 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 270 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 Cupertinoin 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 271 CC ITY OF UPERTINO MEETINGS Steve Noackand Joanna Jansen of The Planning Center|DC&E andGary Blackof 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 30progress 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 272 CC ITY OF UPERTINO F3S IGURE CHEDULE GPA&REIR ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING CC ITY OF UPERTINO 16 2. Detailed Work Plan 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 275 CC ITY OF UPERTINO No more than 80hoursof 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 276 CC ITY OF UPERTINO Table 1 The Planning Center | DC&E General Plan Amendm Cost Es The Planning Center | DC&EHexagon Trans Associate Senior Project GraphicsGraphics/Principal Hours per Task PrincipalPrincipal Associate AssociatePlanner PlannerManager WP Associate A A. Project Initiation 2 7 4 5 1 8 8 2 - 1 00 - - 5 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 6. Parcel Plat Maps and Legal Descriptions (cost TBD) 2 7. General Plan Amendment Alternatives Assessment 2 8 12 24 24 46 B.EnvironmentalReview225588224461624 C. EIR Alternatives Evaluation 2 9 1 0 2 8 4 1 0 D.AdministrativeDraftEIR328029018021220 E. Draft EIR and Public Review 1 0 2 4 - 2 2 - 4 0 - 8 5 1. Draft EIR 2 12 22 32 8 5 2. Public Hearings 8 12 8 F. Administrative Response to Comments and Final EIR 4 8 8 8 4 4 8 2 G. Final EIR 8 2 4 1 0 4 0 4 4 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 Hours1704204640744684840116 Hourly Rate$190 $175 $165 $135 $105 $85 $115 $80 $195 Labor Cost$32,300 $73,500 $7,590 $54,945 $4,620 $58,140 $920 $3,200 $22,620 Total Firm Labor Cost $235,215 EXPENSES Mileage (@ $0.555 per mile) 1,232 Subconsultant Management (10%) 13,513 Office Expenses (Phone, Fax, Copies, etc. @ 2% of Labor) 4,704 Traffic Counts Report Printing 1,750 Presentation Materials/Large Format Maps 1,200 Instrumentation and Data Fees 750 Total Expenses$23,149 Total Each Firm$258,364 GPA EIR Total$393,490 5. References GPA&REIR ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 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 HoursperTaskTask Task PER TASK A.ProjectInitiation71,34921,64692,995 B.EnvironmentalReview101,6805,857107,537 C. EIR Alternatives Evaluation 1 0,235 590 1 0,825 D. Administrative Draft EIR 6 1,962 6 ,069 6 8,031 E.DraftEIRandPublicReview18,8572,01220,869 F. Administrative Response to Comments and Final EIR 1 3,347 1 ,144 1 4,491 G.FinalEIR17,3211,37318,694 H. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3 ,880 223 4 ,103 I.AdoptionandCertification4,3004244,724 ProjectManagement24,3001,10025,400 Progress Meetings 1 6,800 968 1 7,768 WorkshopsandHearings6,9501,1048,054 Totals$350,981 $42,509 $393,490 GPA EIR Total$393,490 2/8/2013 279 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-OffMeeting 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 ALLCOPECIFICLAN 280 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.HexagonWork 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.ProjectDescription 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 ScopingMeeting The Planning Center | DC&E Project Manager will attend one scoping meeting to gather input and comments from interested agencies, organization, City officials, 6.VallcoSpecificPlanExistingConditionsReports 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 ALLCOPECIFICLAN 281 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 PlanAlternatives 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 ALLCOPECIFICLAN 282 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.AirQuality 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 ALLCOPECIFICLAN 283 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 conand 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.BiologicalResources 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 ALLCOPECIFICLAN 284 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.GreenhouseGasEmissions 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 ALLCOPECIFICLAN 285 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&Ewill 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 ALLCOPECIFICLAN 286 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.TransportationandTraffic 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 ALLCOPECIFICLAN 287 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.OtherEnvironmentalIssues 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 ALLCOPECIFICLAN 288 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&Ewill 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: ExecutiveSummary.The Planning Center|DC&Ewill 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. ProjectDescription.The ADEIR will include the project description drafted for the poject as part of Task A.1, Project Description. Setting,Impacts,andMitigationMeasures.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. AlternativesEvaluation.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. CEQARequiredAssessmentConclusions.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 ALLCOPECIFICLAN 289 CC ITY OF UPERTINO ReportPreparers.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.PublicHearings The Planning Center|DC&Eand Hexagon will attend up to twopublic 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 ALLCOPECIFICLAN 290 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 ALLCOPECIFICLAN 291 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 ALLCOPECIFICLAN 292 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 ALLCOPECIFICLAN 293 CC ITY OF UPERTINO No more than 80hoursof 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 ALLCOPECIFICLAN 294 CC ITY OF UPERTINO Table 3 The Planning Center | DC&E Vallco District Specific Plan Environmental Review Cost Es The Planning Center | DC&E Associate Senior Project Grap HoursperTask PrincipalPrincipal Associate AssociatePlanner PlannerMana A.ProjectInitiation620542410438 1. Kick-Off Meeting 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 6. Alternatives Assessment 184040 7. Preferred Alternative 22824 B. Environmental Review 4 1 6 2 4 4 0 8 0 C. EIR Alternatives Evaluation 1 4 8 1 6 D. Administrative Draft EIR - - - - - E. Draft EIR and Public Review - 1 - - - - 1. Draft EIR 2. Public Hearings 1 F. Administrative Response to Comments and Final EIR 4 8 8 8 4 4 8 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 Hours8824896193148226 Hourly Rate$190 $175 $165 $135 $105 $85 Labor Cost$16,720 $43,400 $15,840 $26,055 $15,540 $19,210 Total Firm Labor Cost EXPENSES Mileage (@ $0.555 per mile) Subconsultant Management (10%) Office Expenses (Phone, Fax, Copies, etc. @ 2% of Labor) Traffic Counts - ASSUME USE SAME COUNTS FROM GPA Report Printing Presentation Materials/Large Format Maps Total Expenses Total Each Firm Grand Total for Separate EIR Vallco Specific PlanEIR Table 3A The Planning Center | DC&E Vallco District Specific Plan Environmental Review Costs By Task Labor Cost per Expenses per TOTAL cost HoursperTaskTask Task per task A. Project Initiation 7 1,432 3 ,669 75,101 - B.EnvironmentalReview28,4101,38829,798 C.EIRAlternativesEvaluation5,5902735,863 D.AdministrativeDraftEIR2,0321,8493,881 E.DraftEIRandPublicReview3,9931,1255,118 F.AdministrativeResponsetoCommentsandFinalEIR12,426982 13,408 G. Final EIR 1 6,510 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 2 4,300 885 25,185 Progress Meetings 1 6,800 820 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 297 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-OffMeeting 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 298 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.HexagonWork 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.ProjectDescription The Planning Center|DC&E will prepare a detailed project description forthe EIRusing 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.PublicScopingMeeting The Planning Center|DC&E Project Managerwill attend one scoping meeting to gather input and comments from interested agencies, organization, City officials, 6.GeneralPlanAmendmentExistingConditionsReports 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 299 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 300 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/VisualResources TheGeneral 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 301 CC ITY OF UPERTINO 2.AirQuality 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 302 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.BiologicalResources Environmental Collaborativewillreview 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.CulturalResources 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,andSeismicity 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.GreenhouseGasEmissions 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 303 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 willbe 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 304 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.HydrologyandWaterQuality 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.LandUseandPlanning The Planning Center|DC&Ewill 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&Ewill 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 305 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,OtherPublicServices,andRecreation The Planning Center|DC&Ewill 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 306 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.OtherEnvironmentalIssues 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 307 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&Ewill 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: ExecutiveSummary.The Planning Center|DC&Ewill 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. ProjectDescription.The ADEIR will include the project description drafted for the poject as part of Task A.1, Project Description. Setting,Impacts,andMitigationMeasures.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. AlternativesEvaluation.The alternatives evaluation completed in Task Cwill be incorpo- rated into the EIR. This chapter will include a tabular comparison of the alternatives impacts. CEQARequiredAssessmentConclusions.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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 308 CC ITY OF UPERTINO ReportPreparers.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.PublicHearings The Planning Center|DC&Eand Hexagon will attend up to twopublic 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 309 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 310 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 311 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 312 CC ITY OF UPERTINO F3S IGURE CHEDULE 16 2. Detailed Work Plan GPA&REIR ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 315 CC ITY OF UPERTINO All products will be submitted to City of Cupertinoin 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 ENERALLANMENDMENTEZONING 316 CC ITY OF UPERTINO 317 Table 2 The Planning Center | DC&E General Plan Amendm Cost Es The Planning Center | DC&EHexagon Transpo Associate Senior Project GraphicsGraphics/ Principal Hours per Task PrincipalPrincipal Associate AssociatePlanner PlannerManager WP Associate Ass A. Project Initiation 3 3 6 5 7 2 1 06 1 04 1 38 - 1 6 9 8 1. Kick-Off Meeting 4 4 8 16 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 6. Parcel Plat Maps and Legal Descriptions (cost TBD) 2 7. General Plan Amendment Alternatives Assessment 5 18 60 24 64 24 16 74 B.EnvironmentalReview267132122324122432 C. EIR Alternatives Evaluation 3 1 3 1 8 4 4 8 1 4 D.AdministrativeDraftEIR328029018021221 E. Draft EIR and Public Review 1 0 2 5 - 2 2 - 4 0 - 8 5 1. Draft EIR 2 12 22 32 8 5 2. Public Hearings 8 13 8 F. Administrative Response to Comments and Final EIR 4 8 8 8 4 4 8 2 G. Final EIR 8 2 4 1 0 4 0 4 4 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 Totals1814611244791488181468173 Hourly Rate$190 $175 $165 $135 $105 $85 $115 $80 $195 Labor Cost$34,390 $80,675 $20,460 $64,665 $15,540 $69,530 $1,610 $5,440 $33,735 Total Firm Labor Cost $292,310 EXPENSES Mileage (@ $0.555 per mile) 1,232 Subconsultant Management (10%) 18,792 Office Expenses (Phone, Fax, Copies, etc. @ 2% of Labor) 5,846 Traffic Counts Deliveries Report Printing 1,750 Presentation Materials/Large Format Maps 1,200 Instrumentation and Data Fees 787 Total Expenses$29,607 Total Each Firm$321,917 GRAND TOTAL$509,839 Table 2A The Planning Center | DC&E Vallco District Specific Plan Environmental Review Combined with General Plan Amendement EIR Cost Es The Planning Center | DC&E AssociateSeniorProjectGrap HoursperTask Principal Principal Associate Associate Planner Planner Mana A. Project Initiation 6 2 0 5 4 2 4 1 04 3 8 1. Kick-Off Meeting 2. Project Description 1288 3. Notice of Preparation 4. Public Scoping Meetings 5. Plan Area Existing Conditions Reports 2 8 6 16 40 30 6. Alternatives Development 1 8 40 40 7. Preferred Alternative 22824 B. Environmental Review 4 1 6 2 4 4 0 8 0 C. EIR Alternatives Evaluation 1 4 8 1 6 D. Administrative Draft EIR - - - - - E. Draft EIR and Public Review - 1 - - - - 1. Draft EIR 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 Hours11417872104134 Hourly Rate$190 $175 $165 $135 $105 $85 Labor Cost$2,090 $7,175 $12,870 $9,720 $10,920 $11,390 Total Firm Labor Cost EXPENSES Mileage (@ $0.555 per mile) Per diem travel expenses (___@ $__ per night) Subconsultant Management (10%) Office Expenses (Phone, Fax, Copies, etc. @ 2% of Labor) Traffic Counts Deliveries Report Printing Presentation Materials/Large Format Maps Instrumentation and Data Fees Total Expenses Total Each Firm Grand Total for Vallco Specific Plan in Combined EIR 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 HoursperTaskTask Task TASK A. Project Initiation 1 42,781 2 6,118 1 68,899 B. Environmental Review 1 30,090 7 ,819 1 37,909 C. EIR Alternatives Evaluation 1 5,825 9 51 1 6,776 D.AdministrativeDraftEIR63,9946,38470,378 E.DraftEIRandPublicReview20,2842,14522,429 F. Administrative Response to Comments and Final EIR 1 3,347 1 ,177 1 4,524 G. Final EIR 1 7,321 1 ,417 1 8,738 H. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3 ,880 2 32 4 ,112 I.AdoptionandCertification4,3004364,736 ProjectManagement24,3001,15825,458 ProgressMeetings16,8001,00917,809 WorkshopsandHearings6,9501,1218,071 Totals$459,872$49,967$509,839 GRANDTOTAL$509,839 2/8/2013 320 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 321 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 322 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 323 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 324 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 325 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 326 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. 327 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 328 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 329 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 330 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 331 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 332 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 333 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 334 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 335 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 336 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 337 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 338 (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 339 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 340 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 341 # 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 342 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 343 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 344 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 345 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 346 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 347 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. 348 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 349 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 350 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 351 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 352 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 353 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 ItemDescriptionFormat(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 354 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 355 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. 356 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: $222,024 357 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 358 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. 359 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:$125 per hour Invoices Inorder to request payment, Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including anidentification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, task(s) for which work was performed, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon Consultant’s billing rates. Additional Services Consultant shall provide additional services outside of the services identified in Exhibit A only by advance written authorization from the City’sProject Manager prior to commencement of any additional services. Consultant shall submit, at the Project Manager’s request, a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of additional services, schedule, and proposed maximum compensation. 360 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND THE PLANNING CENTER/DC&E FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW THIS AGREEMENT, for reference dated <<date>>,is by and between CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as"City"), and The Planning Center/DC&E, a California corporation,whose address is 1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300, Berkeley, California 94709 (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A.City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the Constitution and the statutes of the State of California and the Cupertino Municipal Code. B.Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement; and C.City and Consultant desire to enter into an agreement for$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. 361 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. 362 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 363 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 364 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. 365 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 366 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. 367 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 ByByGary Chao TitleTitleCity Planner Date___________________Date____________________ RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By TitleDirector, Community Development APPROVED AS TO FORM: By City Attorney ATTEST: By: City Clerk 368 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTEIR 369 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. 370 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 371 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. 372 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. 373 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? 1 374 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) 2 375 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) 3 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 2013 GPA Opportunity Site Map Homestead Road 1 2 3d 3e 3c 3 3b 3a Stevens Creek Blvd 1. Church site at Stelling and Homestead- coml overlay 2. PG&E site at Blaney & Homestead- coml overlay 3. Vallco Shopping District 3a. Sears /3b. Vallco Mall /3c. JCP/ 3d. Simeon/ 3e. KCR 390 2013 GPA Additional Opportunity Site Map Homestead Road 5 6 3 21 Stevens Creek Blvd 4 1. Target/Bottegas Center/Leong (Fatima) 4. City Center 2. Stevens Creek Business Center 5. Mirapath (near the PG&E site) 3. Cupertino Inn 6. Cupertino Village 391 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.PropertiesBaseAreaChangeHeightLandUseChangeLandUseAllocationLarge CGoverlayResidential2.5acres, acres, 0.2for 0.25 1 CitywideAllocation 0.200.750.50 2 PG&Esites 0.200.150.15 3 ChurchatStellingandHomestead 0.200.150.15 4 Volckman 0.200.150.300.300.20 5 CupertinoInn 0.200.150.450.20 6 PrometheusCityCente 0.200.150.450.20 r 7 Mirapath 0.200.15 8 KimcoCupertinoVillage 0.200.150.450.10 9 VallcoShoppingDistrict1.000.451.201.201.00 aSears0.200.150.300.300.20 bVallcoMall0.200.150.300.300.20 cJCPenneys0.200.150.300.300.20 dSimeon0.200.150.150.20 eKCR0.200.150.150.20 392 GPA/SPECIFICPLANCOST No.ItemCost(GPA)Cost(SpecificPlan)Total(SeparateGPA andSpecificPlan) SeparateCombinedw/GPA GPA/SpecificPlan /·Å r $222,024 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 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$1,428,755 393 PAYMENTSCHEDULEGPAandEIRonly No.PropertiesPercentagePointsGPAandEIRCostPer GPAandEIRcost$1,036,545$ TotalHrs100.00%13.55$1,036,545 1 CitywideAllocation10.70%1.45110,922 2 PG&Esites5.54%0.7557,373 3 ChurchatStellingandHomestead4.80%0.6549,724 4 Volckman9.59%1.3099,447 5 CupertinoInn8.12%1.1084,148 6 PrometheusCityCenter8.49%1.1587,972 7 Mirapath2.58%0.3526,774 8 KimcoCupertinoVillage8.12%1.1084,148 9 VallcoShoppingDistrict42.07%5.70436,037 {;© u V r ,-a u V r -W/t;;äuV r 7{z;uV ur ;Y/wu r TotalCost$1,036,545 TotalPledged$436,037 Balance$600,507 AllocatedFY201213$350,000 Balancetobefunded$250,507 APPLICANTSHARE No.ApplicantUpfrontCostsConsultantCost+ 10% PG&Esites$63,111 2 ChurchatStellingandHomestead$54,696 3 Volckman109,392$ 4 CupertinoInn92,562$ 5 PrometheusCityCenter$96,770 6 Mirapath29,452$ 7 KimcoCupertinoVillage$92,562 8 VallcoShoppingDistrict$479,641 9 {;© Å ,-a Å -W/t;;äÅ r 7{z; Å ;Y/wr Å b·;t t©¦;©·äÞ;©ÞwwÝ;ÝÒ·;;©;7·-·©z,Ò·;·-Ò··-·Ò¦E©· 394 PAYMENTSCHEDULEGPA/EIRandSeparateSpecificPlan/EIR No.PropertiesPercentagePointsGPAandEIRSpecificPlanandTotalConsultant EIRCost GPAandEIRcost1,036,545$$ VallcoSpecificPlancost$495,407$ 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$$434,567$685,075 APPLICANTSHARE No.ApplicantUpfrontCosts ConsultantCost+10% PG&Esites63,111$ 2 ChurchatStellingandHomestead$54,696 3 Volckman109,392$ 4 CupertinoInn92,562$ 5 PrometheusCityCenter$96,770 6 Mirapath29,452$ 7 KimcoCupertinoVillage$92,562 8 VallcoShoppingDistrict$1,024,588 9 {;© Å ,-aÅ r -W/t;;ä rÅ 7{z; Å ;Y/w Å b·;t t©¦;©·äÞ;©ÞwwÝ;ÝÒ·;;©;7·-·©z,Ò·;·-Ò··-·Ò¦E©· 395 GENERALPLANPAYMENTSCHEDULECombinedGPA,SpecificPlanandEIR No.PropertiesHours(notincl.staffPercentagePointsGPAandEIRSpecificPlanTotalConsultantCostPer time)andEIRCost GPAandEIRcost$1,036,545$ VallcoSpecificPlancost$392,210$ TotalHrs7,970100.00%13.55$1,036,545$392,210$1,428,755 1 CitywideAllocation85310.70%1.45$110,922$110,922 2 PG&Esites4415.54%0.75$57,373$57,373 3 ChurchatStellingandHomestead3824.80%0.65$49,724$49,724 4 Volckman7659.59%1.30$99,447$99,447 5 CupertinoInn6478.12%1.10$84,148$84,148 6 PrometheusCityCenter6768.49%1.15$87,972$87,972 7 Mirapath2062.58%0.35$26,774$26,774 8 KimcoCupertinoVillage6478.12%1.10$84,148$84,148 9 VallcoShoppingDistrict3,35342.07%5.70$436,037$392,210$828,248 {;© u V Å År Å r ,-a u V Å År Å r -W/t;;ä uV Å ÅrÅ r 7{z; uV uÅr År Å r ;Y/w u Å r Å r Å r TotalCost$1,036,545$392,210$1,428,755 TotalPledged$436,037$48,166$484,203 Balance$600,507$344,044$944,552 AllocatedFY201213$350,000$$350,000 Balancetobefunded$250,507$344,044$594,552 APPLICANTSHARE No.ApplicantUpfrontCosts ConsultantCost+10% PG&Esites63,111$ 2 ChurchatStellingandHomestead54,696$ 3 Volckman109,392$ 4 CupertinoInn92,562$ 5 PrometheusCityCenter$96,770 6 Mirapath29,452$ 7 KimcoCupertinoVillage92,562$ 8 VallcoShoppingDistrict$911,072 9 {;© 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©· 396