CITY OF FOSTER CITY
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR
CIP 301-700 FUEL SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENTS (2021-2022)
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL DEADLINE: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2023, at 2:00 PM RETURN PROPOSAL TO:
City of Foster City
Public Works Department
Attn: Louis Sun
Public Works Director
610 Foster City Blvd.
Foster City, CA 94404
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
216
Request for Proposal
INDEX
SECTION
I. INTRODUCTION
II. GENERAL INFORMATION
III. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
IV. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
V. CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS
VI. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE AND
MANAGEMENT AND PROJECT CONTROLS
VII. STANDARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AND INSURANCE
REQUIREMENTS
ATTACHMENTS
A. DRAFT SCOPE OF SERVICES
B. STANDARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AND SAMPLE
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
C. COVID-19 AMENDMENT/ATTACHMENT
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
217
Request for Proposal
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR
CIP 301-700 FUEL SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENTS (2021-2022)
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Foster City (CITY) is seeking a qualified consulting firm to provide professional design services for CIP 301-700 Fuel Systems Improvements (2021-2022) project. To that end, the CITY invites qualified consulting firms to submit proposals.
Consultants shall examine all information in this Request for Proposal (RFP), including the attachments.
The deadline for submitting questions about the proposal is Thursday, February 16, 2023, at 5:00 pm. The CITY will consider proposals received on or before the proposal submittal deadline of Tuesday, February 21, 2023, at 2:00 pm.
SECTION II. GENERAL INFORMATION
Consultant shall provide a proposal for professional design services for CIP 301-700 Fuel Systems Improvements (2021-2022) project as described below.
CITY is searching for consultant with extensive experience in designing new fuel tanks and dispensing systems for this important project at the Foster City Corporation Yard.
The City has an unleaded fuel system and a diesel fuel system that provide fuel for the vehicles and equipment owned by the City and Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID), the lagoon pump station day tank, two lagoon pump engines, the emergency generator serving the Corporation Yard buildings and Lift Station 59.
1. Two 10,000 gallon underground unleaded fuel storage tanks (UGSTs), at the Corporation Yard entrance.
2. Two 5,000 gallon above ground diesel fuel storage tanks (AGSTs) in a covered, concrete vault immediately adjacent to and west of the lagoon pump station building.
3. One 210-gallon day tank for diesel fuel, located inside the lagoon pump station building.
4. One 1,000-gallon underground diesel fuel storage tank at East Hillsdale and Edgewater Boulevards, which provides fuel to the emergency generator at Lift Station No. 29 and the traffic signal at the intersection.
Staff anticipates recommending approval for the award of the agreement for professional design services for CIP 301-700 Fuel Systems Improvements (2021-2022) project at the City Council meeting on March 7, 2023.
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
218
Request for Proposal
Consultants shall bear all costs and assume all liability associated with developing and/or submitting proposals. CITY shall bear no costs and/or assume no liability for developing and/or submitting proposals.
SECTION III. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
To demonstrate the qualifications and experience necessary to perform the professional design services for the project, as described in the Attachment A, Draft Scope of Services, Consultant shall submit a proposal that includes the information described in this section.
If Consultants have questions regarding the proposal, submit questions to the Public Works Director, Mr. Louis Sun at [email protected] on or before Thursday, February 16, 2023, at 5:00 pm
The proposal shall be comprised of:
•Part 1 is comprised of electronic copy of document containing sections A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I described below.
•Part 2 is comprised of hard copy of document containing section J, Consultant Fee Schedule and Reimbursable Expenses.
The proposal shall be concise and address qualifications and experience. Consultant shall not include superfluous information or analytical work that would otherwise be performed during the course of work in the proposal. The body of the proposal, excluding appendices, should not exceed 15 pages. As an appendix, provide resumes for the proposed team members. Proposals should be bound with tabs identifying each section herein specified.
PART 1
A. Cover Letter
Consultant shall provide a cover letter. The person, who signs the cover letter, shall be authorized to contractually bind the Consultant. The cover letter shall include the following:
1) A statement that all the information in the Request for Proposal was examined.
2) A statement that the proposal is binding for a 90-calendar day period. 3) The name, title, address, email, and telephone number of the individual to whom correspondence and other communications should be directed during the consultant selection process.
4) The name, title, address, email, and telephone number of the individual who will negotiate the consulting agreement with CITY, if selected, and is authorized to contractually bind the firm.
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
219
Request for Proposal
B. Executive Summary
Consultant shall provide an executive summary. The executive summary shall include a statement that Consultant reviewed the draft scope of services and is able to provide the required professional services. The summary shall briefly summarize those Consultant qualifications and experience, contained in the proposal, which best highlights its ability to successfully deliver the work.
C. Project Approach
A summary presentation of the proposed approach for performing the services, describing how the firm would be organized and an approach structured to ensure:
1) Clearly specifying the scope of work; not to exceed amount; and schedule for the work that will be included in the contract for professional engineering services.
2) Monitoring and controlling the scope of work, communicating potential scope of work changes prior to performing that work, and managing the change in scope of work.
3) Monitoring and controlling costs of professional property interest acquisition services to ensure the services are performed within the negotiated not-to- exceed amount.
4) Monitoring the schedule and ensuring deliverables are completed on or before schedule milestones.
5) Monitoring the progress of the work to ensure that each submittal is complete and has been adequately reviewed prior to submitting deliverables.
6) Monitoring the quality of consultant’s deliverables to reduce the amount of City resources required to review the submittal.
7) Responsiveness to CITY Staff.
8) Facilitating communications.
9) No substituting of staff listed in the proposal and adding staff not listed in the proposal.
D. Proposal Schedule
The purpose of the proposal schedule is to ensure Consultant completes work in a timely manner and to ensure that labor projections are consistent with the proposal schedule.
Consultant shall prepare a schedule for the work described in Attachment A, Draft Scope of Services and shall show the key activities, their start dates, and end dates. The schedule should include a milestone for each Authorization to Proceed and each submittal identified in Attachment A, Draft Scope of Service. The durations required to reach milestones shown in the schedule will be incorporated
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
220
Request for Proposal
into Tasks 1 and 2 of Scope of Services for the Professional Services Agreement.
The proposal schedule shall have the sufficient details to achieve the above goals.
CITY will request additional detail from the highest ranked consultant which will be incorporated into the Professional Services Agreement.
Consultant shall use March 8, 2023 as the start date for the schedule.
E. Labor Projections
Consultant shall provide a schedule of hourly rates and an estimate of the number of hours by staff type to complete the work described in Attachment A, Draft Scope of Service that is consistent with the schedule created as part of Section D above. Provide descriptions of assumptions made in developing the labor hours.
F. Consultant Information
Consultant shall provide the following information for it and each of its sub- consultants, if any:
1) Legal name of firm.
2) Type of organization (partnership, corporation, etc.) and where incorporated, if applicable.
3) Firm’s Officers.
4) Date firm was established.
5) Address of firm’s headquarters.
6) Current number of people employed by the firm.
7) Name of consultant’s parent company, if any.
8) Name of consultant’s subsidiaries, wholly owned or fractionally owned, if any.
9) List of companies associated with the consultant whose work on the design or construction of the projects may potentially give rise to a conflict of interest, if any.
10) List of contracts terminated for convenience or default within the past three (3) years, if any. Include contract value, description of work, client's name and telephone number.
G. Consultant Experience and References
Consultant shall provide for it and each of its sub-consultants, if any, details of its experience working on similar projects over the last five (5) years.
Consultant shall provide for it and each of its sub-consultants, if any, details of not less than three (3) similar projects and the details shall include the following:
1) Project name.
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
221
Request for Proposal
2) Project Owner and contact information.
3) Project description including total project cost and location. 4) Description of the consultant’s role (Prime Consultant or sub-consultant to Prime Consultant’s Name).
5) Description of professional property interest acquisition service provided. 6) Cost Control for professional property interest acquisition services:
Describe the original and final contract amount and reasons for differences, if any.
7) Schedule Control for professional property interest acquisition services Contract: Original start date, actual start date, original end date, actual end date, description of reasons for differences. For dates, provide month and year.
8) Project Manager and other key personnel involved.
9) Sub-consultants on the proposed team that worked on the project, if any. 10) Contact information for the project owner.
If Consultant has a standard resume for projects, Consultant may provide the standard resumes with supplemental project information on a separate sheet.
Providing supplemental project information on a separate sheet will have no effect on the evaluation process.
CITY will contact Project Owners to discuss the Consultant’s current and/or past performance. For Project Owner’s contact information, provide Project Owner’s name and address, the name of a contact with knowledge of Consultant’s performance, as well as contact’s phone number and email.
H. Project Team Experience and References
The consulting team is key to delivering a successful project.
For purposes of the proposal and the selection process, the following terms are used to identify consulting team members: Project Manager, Other Key Personnel, and Other Team Members. The Project Manager is responsible for Consultant’s work and is CITY’s principal contact after the professional services contract is awarded, (2) Other Key Personnel are the keys to Consultant successfully executing the work; and (3) Other Team Members who will play a significant role in successfully executing the work.
Consultant shall provide the following information regarding the consulting team and its team members:
1) Consultant shall provide an organization chart showing the proposed relationships and the various roles and/or disciplines required to deliver the work. Within the organization chart, Consultant shall identify the project manager, other key personnel, and other team members. If a team member works for a sub-consultant, identify the sub-consultant. Consultant shall identify
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
222
Request for Proposal
at least one person for each role and/or discipline.
2) Provide a list of office(s) in which the proposed team members will work.
Provide its address, its general phone number, and the name of the principal(s) overseeing proposed staff at the office. Identify the proposed team members working at the office and their roles.
3)Project Manager. Provide the qualifications and experience of the Project Manager, his/her current commitments to other projects to confirm Consultant's ability to commit resources to the work, and not less than three (3) references for the Project Manager.
4)Other Key Personnel. Provide the qualifications and experience of the Other Key Personnel; their current commitments to other projects to confirm Consultant's ability to commit resources to the work; and not less than three (3) reference for each person who is identified as Other Key Personnel. 5)Other Team Members. Provide the qualifications and experience of the Other Team Members.
CITY will contact project owners who have worked with the project manager and other key personnel to discuss their current and/or past performance. For each reference, list the proposed team member, project name, project owner, project owner’s address, the name of contact with knowledge of performance, contact’s phone number, and contact’s email address. Provide references from different owners, if possible.
PART 2
I. Consultant Fee Schedule and Reimbursable Expenses
Provide the level of effort with reimbursable expenses and hourly rate schedule.
The level of effort and reimbursable expenses shall be broken down with a summary table for the entire proposal. CITY and the selected Consultant will endeavor to negotiate a consulting agreement which contains a not-to-exceed amount for professional services, reimbursable expenses, additional services, supplies, materials, and equipment.
To that end, Consultant shall provide for it and its sub-consultants, if any, a Consultant Fee Schedule and list of other costs for other reimbursable items, such as supplies, materials, equipment, other services, and/or other expenses.
SECTION V. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Consultant shall submit its proposal in accordance with the following requirements:
A. CITY will only consider proposals received by City at or before the proposal submittal deadline of Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 2:00 pm.
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
223
Request for Proposal
B. Consultant shall submit proposals to the following address:
City of Foster City
Public Works Department
Attn: Louis Sun
Public Works Director
610 Foster City Blvd.
Foster City, CA 94404
C. For e-mailed proposals, CITY encourages each Consultant to confirm that its proposal was received by CITY at or before the proposal submittal deadline.
Contact the Public Works Director, Mr. Louis Sun at [email protected] or (650) 286-3270 to confirm City’s receipt of the proposal.
D. For hand-delivered proposals, Consultant shall deliver the proposal to the information desk in the building lobby. Consultant shall ensure the proposal is time and date stamped by the attendant prior to leaving the building.
SECTION VI. CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS
CITY will review proposals and perform reference checks to evaluate consultants.
CITY may or may not conduct consultant interviews to evaluate Consultants. If CITY chooses to hold interviews as part of the selection process, CITY will notify Consultants approximately three (3) weeks after the proposal submittal deadline.
Principle criteria used to evaluate Consultants will include the following:
1) Experience/Qualifications: Firm’s experience on similar projects in the last five years.
a. Consultant’s and sub-consultant’s, if any, experience successfully providing professional design services on similar projects in the last five (5) years. 2) Personnel Assigned: Experience of key personnel assigned to the project, and experience of key team members who will be assigned to the project for its full duration.
a. Project Manager’s experience successfully providing professional design services and/or other related work on similar projects and their availability to perform work required by his/her role.
b. Other Key Personnel’s experience successfully providing professional design services and/or other related work on similar projects and their availability to perform the work required by his/her role. c. Other Team Members’ experience providing professional design services and/or other related work on similar projects.
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
224
Request for Proposal
3) Quality and Completeness of Proposal:
a. Clarity and relevance of information contained in the proposal. b. Consultant’s understanding of work.
c. Consultant’s approach to the work.
4) References
CITY may waive irregularities in any proposal, accept or reject all or any part of any proposal, or waive any requirements of the request for proposals, as may be deemed to be in the best interest of CITY.
After final evaluation, CITY will identify the highest ranked consultant, which appears to best meet the qualification criteria. CITY will attempt to negotiate a contract with the selected consultant. If the highest ranked consultant and CITY cannot reach agreement, CITY will terminate negotiations and, at its option, negotiate with the next ranked consultant.
Consultants shall bear all costs and assume all liability associated with negotiating a consultant agreement. CITY shall bear no costs and/or assume no liability for developing and/or submitting proposals.
SECTION VI. SCOPE OF SERVICES
A. Scope of Services:
A general draft scope of services is given in Attachment A. A detailed Scope of Services will be developed during negotiations. The scope of services presented herein is intended to cover the design services necessary and/or other related work to design services for the new fuel tanks and dispensing system at the Foster City Corporation Yard for FY2021- 2022 (CIP 301-700) project identified herein and shall be used as the basis of negotiations. In addition, Consultant shall agree to perform the management and project controls specified in the Draft Scope of Services.
Consultant is encouraged to include in the proposal any additional tasks beyond the Draft Scope of Services that the Consultant may find necessary or beneficial in order to deliver a successful project.
CITY reserves the right to enter into agreements for none, a portion, modified portions, or all of the work listed in this Request for Proposal. CITY reserves the right to issue notice(s) to proceed for some or all the work up to 90 days after the CITY Council approves the agreement.
SECTION VII. STANDARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AND
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
225
Request for Proposal
The standard professional services agreement is attached as Attachment B.
The insurance requirements are described in Section 12 Insurance of CITY’s Standard Professional Services Agreement. All policies, endorsements, certificates, and/or binders shall be subject to approval by CITY as to form and content. The selected consultant shall agree to provide CITY with a copy of said policies, certificates, and/or endorsements.
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
226
Attachment A – Draft Scope of Services
ATTACHMENT A
DRAFT SCOPE OF SERVICES
FOR
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR CIP 301-700 FUEL SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENTS (2021-2022)
The purpose of the project is to assess the state of the City’s fuel systems and provide solutions with associated cost estimates for correcting deficiencies and achieving the City’s goals. The goal is to establish the final scope of work and budget for replacing the fuel systems.
Existing Fuel Systems
The City has the following five fuel systems at the following s:
1. Two-10,000 underground storage tanks (UGSTs) with two fuel dispensers in the Corporation Yard on East Third Avenue near Lincoln Centre Drive. The tanks hold unleaded gas for city vehicles.
2. Two-5,000-gallon storage tanks in a covered, concrete vault immediately adjacent to and west of the lagoon pump station building (pump station) at the Corporation Yard. The tanks provide diesel fuel for vehicles and equipment via a single fuel dispenser and for the day tank inside the pump station.
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
227
Attachment A – Draft Scope of Services
3. One-210-gallon day tank for diesel fuel inside the pump station. The day tank may be over 50 years old. The day tank provides fuel to the lagoon pump engines and
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
228
Attachment A – Draft Scope of Services
the Corporation Yard emergency generator including the pumps for lift station 59 at Location 4.
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
229
Attachment A – Draft Scope of Services
4. One-275-gallon day tank and 400-gallon subbase tank below the existing generator in an enclosure. The emergency generator powers the Corporation Yard including lift station 59.
5. One-1,000-gallon underground storage tank (UGST) for diesel fuel located in the Bank of America (B of A) parking lot on the northeast corner of the intersection of Edgewater Boulevard and E. Hillsdale Boulevard. A 25-gallon day tank and an emergency generator are inside the B of A building. The emergency generator powers the traffic signal at the intersection and pumps in lift station 29. (As built plans available.)
Turnkey Solution
Consultant shall create a turnkey solution that addresses the following items:
1. Assessment of Existing Fuel Systems.
a. Code Analysis. Identify existing federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and codes, as well as future mandates that affect the existing facilities. b. Identify whether the elements of each fuel system comply with Federal, State, and Local laws, regulations, codes, as well as known or anticipated
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
230
Attachment A – Draft Scope of Services
future mandates, and determine which elements require replacement, including but not limited to:
i. Fuel tanks at Locations 1 and 2 may or may not require replacement. ii. Day Tank at Location 3 may require replacement due to lack of containment currently provided.
iii. Fuel tanks at Location 4 may or may not require replacement. iv. UGST at Location 5 and piping likely require replacement as those elements may be single walled.
c. Recommend replacing or upgrading existing facilities to bring the facilities up to a good state of repair and/or consistent with current industry standards, including but limited to the following:
i.Fuel dispensers. The City is unable to maintain the fuel dispensers and associated software in good repair at Locations 1 and 2 as replacement parts are no longer available; therefore, all fuel dispensers, including the software and hardware to monitor fuel, should be replaced.
ii.Fuel tanks at Locations 1 and 2. If the tanks remain in place, identify any upgrades, such as, instrumentation, that are appropriate to bring the facilities up to current industry standards.
2. Design. Provide solutions for addressing deficiencies of the fueling system at each location and achieving the City’s goals. The design shall include CADD drawings of new facilities that are constructed in a different location, including the drawings identified below.
a.Code Analysis. Incorporate requirements of existing and anticipated federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and codes into the design of the new facilities.
b.Location 1. At a minimum, address the following options:
i. Upgrading the existing UGSTs including replacing or repairing spill bucket and associated sensors and replacing the existing dispensers with new dispensers.
ii. Replacing the existing tanks and dispensers with new above ground storage tanks (AGSTs) and dispenser(s). Provide CADD drawing showing layout of new tank(s).
iii. Replacing the UGSTs and dispensers with new UGSTs and dispensers. Provide CADD drawing showing layout of new tank(s).
All new tanks are to be installed in the area between water storage tank #3 and the pump station. If the existing tanks are replaced, is it allowable for the existing tanks to be abandoned in place? If so, address the pros and
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
231
Attachment A – Draft Scope of Services
cons of abandoning a tank in place versus. removing the tanks.
One or more alternative may require reconfiguring the entrance to the Corporation Yard from E. Third Avenue and/or the stairway from the bayside walkway of the pump station. Address options for fueling vehicles and equipment during construction.
For each design option, provide turning moving exhibits to ensure vehicle/equipment access and clearances through the new layout. c.Location 2. At a minimum, address the following options:
i. Upgrading the existing tanks and/or concrete vault and replacing the existing dispenser with a new dispenser(s), if appropriate, especially considering current industry practices.
ii. Replacing the existing tanks and dispenser with new ABSTs and dispenser(s). Provide CADD drawing showing layout of new tank(s). iii. Replacing the existing tanks and dispenser with new UGSTs and dispenser(s). Provide CADD drawing showing layout of new tank(s).
All new tanks are to be installed in the area between water storage tank #3 and the pump station. Replacing the existing tanks will include (1) removing and/or breaking up the concrete vault and canopy; (2) backfilling and repaving the area of the existing vault.
One or more alternative may require reconfiguring the entrance to the Corporation Yard from E. Third Avenue and/or the stairway from the bayside walkway of the pump station. Address options for fueling vehicles and equipment during construction.
Address the appropriateness of the current tank configuration, that is, tanks inside a half-buried concrete vault covered by a canopy with side openings.
For each design option, provide turning moving exhibits to ensure vehicle/equipment access and clearances through the new layout. d.Location 1 and 2 Combined. The replacing of fuel tanks and dispensers between water storage tanks #3 and the pump station introduces a lot of complexities, in particular vehicle ingress and egress, and vehicle movements in the fueling areas. Address the complexities of these options.
Provide CADD drawings of one or more layouts of the new ABSTs and/or new UGSTs with dispensers.
e.Location 3. At a minimum, address replacing the existing day tank with a new day tank.
i. Address the placement of a new day tank including the pros and cons
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
232
Attachment A – Draft Scope of Services
of installing a day tank inside versus outside of the pump station. The placement of the new day tank should consider how the Corporation Yard emergency generator is fueled by the existing, elevated day tank. The tank is elevated so fuel is gravity feed to the Corporation Yard emergency generator.
ii. Address how the new day tank will be fueled as the existing day tank is currently fueled from the tanks at Location #2.
iii. Address how the lagoon pump engines and the corporation yard emergency generator will be fueled continuously during construction. f.Location 4. At a minimum, address replacing the existing engine/generator with a Tier 4 engine/generator with a sub-base fuel tank within an enclosure and removing the piping between the pump station day tank and the existing engine/generator.
i. Address building and fire code requirements that could impact installing a new generator with a sub-base fuel tank.
ii. Address how the Corporation Yard emergency generator will be fueled continuously during construction.
g.Location 5. At a minimum address replacing the underground storage tank with a new UGST or AGST outside of the building.
i. Note that staff believes the required fuel storage capacity can be reduced from 1,000 gallons to between 200 gallons and 400 gallons. ii. If requested, address the replacing the UGST with a new generator with a sub-base full tank inside the building. Address building and fire code requirements that could impact installing a new generator with a sub-base fuel tank inside the building.
iii. Address how emergency power may be provided to the traffic signal and/or lift station during construction.
h.Relocation of Corporation Yard Facilities. To make room for new fueling facilities between water storage tank #3 and the pump station, it may be necessary to remove, relocate, or reconstruct facilities in other areas of the Corporation Yard, including but not limited to:
i. Six (6) material storage bins. The bins are paved areas with concrete walls on three sides with one side accessible for a loader. The bins currently hold soil, sand, aggregate, and similar material. ii. Dedicated area for a minimum of four (4) 3-yard trash dumpsters.
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
233
Attachment A – Draft Scope of Services
iii. Drying beds. Material in vacuum trucks is dumped on drying beds to separate the liquids from the solids. The liquids are discharged into the sanitary sewer system. The dry material is sorted by type and disposed. Currently there is only one (1) drying bed existing. The alternatives shall provide for one drying bed for material containing sewage and another separate drying bed for material without sewage.
iv. Provide a CADD drawing showing proposed new locations for these facilities.
3.Sizing Fuel Tanks. Address sizing tanks for the types listed above.
4.Soil Remediation. Address soil remediation requirements in general. Address whether it is necessary and/or beneficial to perform soil testing during the final design phase of the project. Address the approach to soil remediation at the UGSTs near Lincoln Centre Drive, if the tanks are removed. Address the approach to soil remediation around and under concrete vault near pump station and piping to dispenser.
5.Permitting. Address permitting requirements for the project.
6.Monitoring and Tracking Fuel Levels and Use. Address the various types of hardware and software currently available to remotely monitor and track fuel tank levels and fuel use. The agency currently tracks fuel use by vehicle, user, user’s department, user’s organization, date fuel was dispensed, time fuel was dispensed, and gallons dispensed.
7.Cost Estimates. Provide an estimate for the final scope of work.
Schedule For Turnkey Solution
Schedule for the turnkey solution work will include the following:
1. An on-site kickoff meeting with stakeholders no later than two weeks after the contract is executed. In advance of the meeting, identify existing and future requirements as described in the “Code Analysis” section above. One element of the kickoff meeting will be to assess the existing facilities comply with existing and future requirements as described in the “Existing Facilities Assessment.”
2. 30%, 60%, and 90% design plans, specifications, and construction cost estimates updates.
3. Final 100% plans, specifications, construction cost estimates, and construction phase schedule.
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
234
Attachment B – Template Agreement
ATTACHMENT B
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
CIP 301-700 FUEL SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENTS (2021-2022)
This Agreement is made and entered into as of the _____ day of ____________, 20___ by and between the City of Foster City hereinafter called "CITY" and ____________________ hereinafter called "CONSULTANT".
RECITALS
This Agreement is entered into with reference to the following facts and circumstances:
WHEREAS, CITY desires to retain CONSULTANT to provide Professional Design services and related services;
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform and has agreed to provide such services;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, terms and conditions hereinafter contained, the parties hereby agree as follows:
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Services. The services to be performed by CONSULTANT under this Agreement shall include those services set forth in Exhibit A, which is, by this reference, incorporated herein and made a part hereof as though it were fully set forth herein.
Performance of the work specified in said Exhibit A is hereby made an obligation of CONSULTANT under this Agreement, subject to any changes that may be made subsequently hereto upon the mutual written agreement of the said parties.
Where in conflict, the terms of this Agreement supersede and prevail over any terms set forth in Exhibit A.
1. Term; Termination. (a) The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the date hereinabove written and shall expire upon completion of performance of services hereunder by CONSULTANT. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of (a) above, CITY may with or without cause, direct CONSULTANT to suspend, delay or interrupt Services, in whole or in part, for such periods of time as CITY may determine in its sole discretion. (c) CITY may terminate performance of the Services under this Agreement in whole, or from time to time in part, for default, should CONSULTANT commit a material breach of this Agreement, or part thereof, and not cure such breach within ten (10) calendar days of the date of CITY’s written notice to CONSULTANT demanding such cure, in which case CONSULTANT shall be liable to CITY for all loss, cost, expense, damage and liability resulting from such breach and termination. (d) CITY may terminate performance of the
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
235
Attachment B – Template Agreement
Services under this Agreement in whole, or from time to time in part, for convenience, whenever CITY determines that such termination is in CITY’s best interests, in which case CONSULTANT shall be entitled to recover its costs expended up to the termination date plus reasonable profit thereon to the termination date as this Agreement would otherwise provide, but may recover no other cost, damage or expense. CONSULTANT shall continue its work throughout the course of any dispute, and CONSULTANT’s failure to continue work during a dispute shall be a material breach of this Agreement.
2. Compensation; Expenses; Payment. CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for all services performed by CONSULTANT hereunder in an amount based upon CONSULTANT’s hourly rates during the time of the performance of said services. A copy of CONSULTANT’s hourly rates for which services hereunder shall be performed are set forth in CONSULTANT’s fee schedule marked Exhibit “B” hereof, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the combined total of compensation and reimbursement of costs payable hereunder shall not exceed the sum _____________________ ($________________). Invoices for amounts in excess of _____________________ ($________________) shall not be paid unless the performance of services and/or reimbursement of costs and expenses in excess of said amounts have been approved in advance of performing such services or incurring such costs and expenses by CITY’s Manager (for contracts less than $50,000) or City Council (for contracts $50,000 or more) evidenced by motion duly made and carried and a written contract amendment having been executed.
Compensation and reimbursement of costs and expenses hereunder shall be payable upon monthly billing therefor by CONSULTANT to CITY, which billing shall include an itemized statement, briefly describing by task and labor category or cost/expense items billed. Final payment will be made when all Services required under this Agreement have been completed to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY including, without limitation, CONSULTANT's transmittal of all deliverables to CITY required by EXHIBIT A.
CITY shall not incur any charges under this Agreement, nor shall any payments become due to CONSULTANT for any payment period on the Project, until CITY receives all deliverables required under Exhibit A, SCOPE OF WORK AND SCHEDULE, for the payment period (if any) and reasonably accepts such deliverables as meeting the requirements of this Agreement. In cases where CONSULTANT has partially completed one or more deliverables due during a payment period, and if CONSULTANT demonstrates diligent progress thereon, then CITY may make a partial progress payment based upon percentage completion of the partially completed deliverables and diligent progress but taking into account any adverse impacts upon CITY. CITY shall not be liable for, and CONSULTANT shall not be entitled to, any payment for Services performed before this Agreement's execution.
4. Additional Services. In the event CITY desires the performance of additional services not otherwise included within the services described in Exhibit A, such services
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
236
Attachment B – Template Agreement
shall be authorized in advance of the performance thereof by CITY’s Manager (for contracts less than $50,000) or City Council (for contracts $50,000 or more) by motion duly made and carried. Such amendment to this Agreement shall include a description of the services to be performed thereunder, the maximum compensation and reimbursement of costs and expenses payable therefor, the time of performance thereof, and such other matters as the parties deem appropriate for the accomplishment of such services. Except to the extent modified by written amendment, all other terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed incorporated in each such amendment.
5. Records. CONSULTANT shall keep and maintain accurate records of all time expended and costs and expenses incurred relating to services to be performed by CONSULTANT hereunder. Said records shall be available to CITY for review and copying during regular business hours at CONSULTANT’s place of business or as otherwise agreed upon by the parties.
6. Authorization. This Agreement becomes effective when endorsed by both parties in the space provided below.
7. Reliance on Professional Skill of CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT represents that it has the necessary professional skills to perform the services required and the CITY shall rely on such skills of the CONSULTANT to do and perform the work. In performing services hereunder CONSULTANT shall adhere to the standards generally prevailing for the performance of expert consulting services similar to those to be performed by CONSULTANT hereunder.
CONSULTANT represents that it has reviewed Exhibit A and that in its professional judgment the Services to be performed under this Agreement can be performed for a fee within the maximum amount set forth in the Compensation Schedule established in Exhibit A and within the times specified for each individual Project.
CONSULTANT represents that it possesses all necessary training, licenses and permits to perform the Services and that its performance of the Services will conform to the standards of practice of a professional having experience and expertise in performing professional services of like nature and complexity of the Services working on similar, successfully completed projects.
The granting of any progress payment by CITY, or the receipt thereof by CONSULTANT, or any inspection, review, approval or oral statement by any representative of CITY or any other governmental entity, shall in no way waive or limit the obligations in this Paragraph 7 or lessen the liability of CONSULTANT for unsatisfactory Services, including but not limited to cases where the defective or below standard Services may not have been apparent or detected at the time of such payment, inspection, review or approval.
8. Documents. All documents, plans, drawings, renderings, and other papers, or copies thereof, as finally rendered, prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to the terms of
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
237
Attachment B – Template Agreement
this Agreement, shall, upon preparation and delivery to CITY, become the property of CITY.
9. Relationship of Parties. CONSULTANT is an independent Contractor and does not act as C’s agent in any capacity, whatsoever. CONSULTANT is not entitled to any benefits that CITY provides to CITY employees, including, without limitation, worker’s compensation benefits or payments, pension benefits, health benefits or insurance benefits. Terms within this Agreement regarding direction apply to and concern the result of the CONSULTANT’s provision of Services, not the means, methods, or scheduling of the CONSULTANT’s work. CONSULTANT shall be solely responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures with respect to its provision of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall pay all payroll taxes imposed by any governmental entity and shall pay all other taxes not specifically identified in this Agreement as CITY’s responsibility.
10. Schedule. CONSULTANT shall adhere to the schedule set forth in Exhibit A; provided, that CITY shall grant reasonable extensions of time for the performance of such services occasioned by governmental reviews of CONSULTANT’s work product or other unavoidable delays; provided, further, that such unavoidable delay shall not include strikes, lockouts, work stoppages, or other labor disturbances conducted by, or on behalf of, CONSULTANT’s officers or employees.
CONSULTANT acknowledges the importance to CITY of CITY’s Project schedule and agrees to put forth its best professional efforts to perform its services under this Agreement in a manner consistent with that schedule.
11. Indemnity. To the fullest extent allowed by law, CONSULTANT hereby agrees to defend, indemnify, and save harmless CITY and Estero Municipal Improvement District, its Council, boards, commissions, officers, employees, directors, volunteers and agents, from and against any and all claims, suits, actions liability, loss, damage, expense, injury (including, without limitation, economic harm, injury to or death of any person, including an employee of CONSULTANT or its Subconsultants), cost (including, without limitation, costs and fees of litigation) of every nature, kind or description, at law or equity, which may be brought against, or suffered or sustained by, City of Foster City or Estero Municipal Improvement District, its Council, boards, commissions, officers, employees, directors, volunteers or agents that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to any negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, any Subconsultant, anyone directly or indirectly employed or retained by them, or anyone that they control. In the event one or more defendants is unable to pay its share of defense costs due to bankruptcy or dissolution of the business, the CONSULTANT shall meet and confer with other parties regarding unpaid defense costs.
The duty of CONSULTANT to indemnify and save harmless, as set forth herein, shall include the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify City of Foster City and Estero Municipal Improvement
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
238
Attachment B – Template Agreement
District, its Council, boards, commissions, officers, employees and agents against any responsibility or liability in contravention of Section 2782 of the California Civil Code.
CONSULTANT’s responsibility for such defense and indemnity obligations shall survive the termination or completion of this Agreement for the full period of time allowed by law.
The defense and indemnification obligations of this agreement are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained within this Agreement.
12. Insurance. Prior to execution of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall furnish to CITY Certificates of Insurance showing satisfactory proof that it maintains the insurance required by this Contract as set forth in EXHIBIT C, Insurance, which are attached and made a part of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall maintain all required insurance throughout the term of this Agreement and as otherwise provided in EXHIBIT C. In the event CONSULTANT fails to maintain any required insurance, and notwithstanding Paragraph 3 above, CITY may (but is not obligated to) purchase such insurance and deduct or retain premium amounts from any sums due CONSULTANT under this Agreement (or CONSULTANT shall promptly reimburse CITY for such expense).
CONSULTANT shall maintain insurance as required by this Agreement to the fullest amount allowed by law and shall maintain insurance for a minimum of five (5) years following completion of this project or service. In the event CONSULTANT fails to obtain or maintain completed operations coverage as required by this Agreement, the CITY at its sole discretion may purchase the coverage required and the cost will be paid by CONSULTANT.
13. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. CONSULTANT certifies that he is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and CONSULTANT certifies that he will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this agreement.
14. NON-DISCRIMINATION. The CONSULTANT will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The CONSULTANT will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and the employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, advancement, demotion, transfer, recruitment, or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The CONSULTANT shall at all times be in compliance with the requirements of the Federal Americans With Disabilities Act (Public Law 101-336) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities.
The CONSULTANT agrees to post in conspicuous places available to employees and
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
239
Attachment B – Template Agreement
applicants for employment any notices provided by the CITY setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause.
15. Notice. All notices required by this Agreement shall be given to the CITY and CONSULTANT in writing, by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
CITY: City of Foster City
610 Foster City Boulevard
Foster City, CA 94404-2299
Attention: Louis Sun, Public Works Director
CONSULTANT: ____________________________
(Fill in CONSULTANT Name, Address, Phone Number, Project Manager and Email Address for CONSULTANT)
16. Non-Assignment. This Agreement is not assignable either in whole or in part.
17. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by written agreement signed by both parties.
18. Validity. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement.
19. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been executed in the County of San Mateo, California. The formation, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, excluding its conflict of laws rules. Any suit or action initiated by either party shall be brought in the County of San Mateo, California unless the parties agree otherwise in a written amendment to this Agreement. In the event of litigation between the parties hereto to enforce any provision of the Agreement, the unsuccessful party will pay the reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation of the successful party.
20. Mediation. Should any dispute arise out of this Agreement, the parties shall meet in mediation and attempt to reach a resolution with the assistance of a mutually acceptable mediator. Neither party shall be permitted to file legal action without first meeting in mediation and making a good faith attempt to reach a mediated resolution.
The costs of the mediator, if any, shall be paid equally by the parties. If a mediated settlement is reached neither party shall be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of the settlement and each party shall bear its own legal costs.
21. Conflict of Interest. CONSULTANT represents and warrants that it presently has no interest, and shall not have any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of work and services required under this Agreement.
Without limitation, CONSULTANT represents to and agrees with CITY that CONSULTANT has disclosed any potential conflict of interest, and will have no future conflict of interest, in providing CITY services hereunder, including but not limited to, any
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
240
Attachment B – Template Agreement
interest (financial, share ownership, shared management, shared directors, or reporting responsibilities) CONSULTANT may presently have, or will have in the future, with respect to any other person or entity (including but not limited to potential suppliers, vendors, consultants, contractors, or regulatory agency) which may have an interest in the subject matter of the Services.
22. Liability of CITY. Except as provided in Exhibit A, Services to be Provided by CONSULTANT and Exhibit C, Insurance, CITY's obligations under this Agreement shall be limited to the payment of the compensation provided for in Paragraphs 1, 3, and 4 of this Agreement,
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, in no event shall CITY be liable, regardless of whether any claim is based on contract, tort or otherwise, for any special, consequential, indirect or incidental damages, lost profits or revenue, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the Services, or the Project.
CITY shall not be responsible for any damage to persons or property as a result of the use, misuse or failure of any equipment used by CONSULTANT, or by any of its employees, even though such equipment be furnished, rented or loaned to CONSULTANT by CITY. The acceptance or use of such equipment by CONSULTANT or any of its employees shall be construed to mean that CONSULTANT accepts full responsibility for and shall exonerate, indemnify, defend and save harmless CITY from and against any and all claims for any damage or injury of any type, including attorneys' fees, arising from the use, misuse or failure of such equipment, whether such damage be to the CONSULTANT, its employees, CITY employees or third parties, or to property belonging to any of the above.
Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver or limitation of any right or remedy, whether in equity or at law, which CITY or CONSULTANT may have under this Agreement or any applicable law. All rights and remedies of CITY or CONSULTANT, whether under this Agreement or other applicable law, shall be cumulative.
23. Waiver of Default. Waiver of any default by either party to this Agreement shall not be deemed to be waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver or breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach, and shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of this Agreement unless this Agreement is modified as provided below.
24. Force Majeure. Except for defaults of subconsultants at any tier, CONSULTANT shall not be liable for any excess costs if the failure to perform the Agreement arises from causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of CONSULTANT, including without limitation failure to reasonably mitigate any adverse impacts (Force Majeure). Force Majeure events include the following:
Acts of God, fires, floods, earthquake, other natural disasters, epidemics and pandemics (other than COVID-19 or variants), abnormal weather conditions beyond the
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
241
Attachment B – Template Agreement
parameters otherwise set forth in this Article, nuclear accidents, strikes, lockouts, freight embargos, interruptions in service by a regulated utility, or governmental statutes or regulations enacted or imposed after the fact (together, “force majeure events”).
25. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including Exhibits A, B, C, and D comprises the entire Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date first above written by their respective officers duly authorized in that behalf.
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
Dated: _________________________________ ____________________, City Manager
(for contracts less than $50,000)
[REMOVE signature line if $50,000 or more]
Dated: _________________________________ __________________________, President
(for contracts $50,000 or more)
[REMOVE signature line if less than $50,000]
ATTEST:
Dated: ________________________________ Priscilla Schaus, City Clekr
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Dated:
Benjamin Stock, City Attorney
CONSULTANT
Dated:
Type Name & Title of CONSULTANT Authorized to Sign
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
242
Attachment B – Template Agreement
EXHIBIT A
SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED, PAYMENTS, PROJECTS AND SCHEDULE, AND
DELIVERABLES FOR
CIP 301-700 FUEL SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENTS (2021-2022)
[EITHER COMPLETE EXHIBIT A OR ATTACH A PROPOSAL/SCOPE OF WORK THAT CONTAINS ALL THE INFORMATION BELOW AND DELETE THE TEXT BELOW]
SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
This is an Exhibit attached to, and made a part of and incorporated by reference to the Agreement dated Date of Agreement, by and between Consultant Name, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT" and the City of Foster City hereinafter referred to as "CITY" providing for professional services.
1.Description of the Project:
1.1 DESCRIPTION: Description of Project
2.Basic Services:
The CITY has developed a general scope of work as described below.
2.1 Task 1 – Description of Task 1
2.2 Task 2 – Description of Task 2
2.3 Task 3 – Description of Task 3
PAYMENTS
1. The maximum payment to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for the Project shall be:
Maximum Payment Amount
2. METHODS OF PAYMENT FOR CONSULTANT’S SERVICES AND EXPENSES:
List Methods of Payment
3. TIMES OF PAYMENTS.
List Times of Payments
PROJECTS AND SCHEDULE
List Project Schedule
DELIVERABLES
CONSULTANT’s deliverables under the Agreement are enunciated throughout the Professional Services Agreement and include but are not limited to the following:
1. PROJECT DELIVERABLES
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
243
Attachment B – Template Agreement
1.1DELIVERABLES: List of Deliverables
1.2OTHER:
2.CONSULTANT SERVICES. The deliverables considered part of CONSULTANT’s professional services are defined as, but are not limited to, the following deliverables:
2.1SERVICES: List of Services
END OF EXHIBIT A
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
244
Attachment B – Template Agreement
EXHIBIT B
FEE SCHEDULE
[Specify Consultant’s hourly rates for which services hereunder shall be performed]
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
245
Attachment B – Template Agreement
EXHIBIT C
INSURANCE FORMS
CONSULTANT shall provide, in addition to the Certificates of Insurance, original Endorsement affecting the coverages specified herein on the attached form. No substitute form will be accepted.
This is an Exhibit to, and made a part of and incorporated by reference to the Agreement dated Date of Agreement, by and between Consultant Name, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant”, and City of Foster City, hereinafter referred to as "City", providing for professional services.
1.Consultant's Duty to Show Proof of Insurance. Consultant, in order to protect City and its Council members, officials, agents, officers, and employees against all claims and liability for death, injury, loss and damage as a result of Consultant's acts, errors, or omissions in connection with the performance of Consultant's obligations, as required in this Agreement, shall secure and maintain insurance as described below. Consultant shall not perform any work under this Agreement until Consultant has obtained all insurance required under this section and the required certificates of insurance and all required endorsements have been filed with the City's authorized insurance representative, insurance Tracking Services Inc. (ITS). Receipt of evidence of insurance that does not comply with all applicable insurance requirements shall not constitute a waiver of the insurance requirements set forth herein. The required documents must be signed by the authorized representative of the insurance company shown on the certificate. Upon request, Consultant shall supply proof that such person is an authorized representative thereof, and is authorized to bind the named underwriter(s) and their company to the coverage, limits and termination provisions shown thereon, Consultant shall promptly deliver to ITS a certificate of insurance, and all required endorsements, with respect to each renewal policy, as necessary to demonstrate the maintenance of the required insurance coverage for the term specified herein. Such certificates and endorsements shall be delivered to ITS prior to the expiration date of any policy and bear a notation evidencing payment of the premium thereof if so requested. Consultant shall immediately pay any deductibles and self-insured retentions under all required insurance policies upon the submission of any claim by Consultant or City as an additional insured.
1.1 Insurance Requirements
Commercial General Liability Insurance
Commercial General Liability Insurance including, but not limited to, Contractual Liability Insurance (specifically concerning the indemnity provisions of this Agreement with the City ), Products-Completed Operations Hazard, liability for slander, false arrest and invasion of privacy arising out of professional services rendered hereunder, Personal Injury (including bodily injury and death), and Property Damage for liability arising out of Consultant's performance of services under this Agreement. The Commercial General Liability insurance shall contain no exclusions or limitation for independent contractors working on the behalf of the named insured. Consultant shall maintain the Products-Completed Operations Hazard coverage for the longest period allowed by law following termination of this Agreement. The amount of said insurance coverage required by this Agreement shall be the policy limits, which shall be at least five million dollars ($5,000,000) each occurrence and five million dollars ($5,000,000) aggregate. *Please note, the City will require a separate additional insured endorsement for the Commercial General Liability policy, listing the “City of Foster City and Estero Municipal Improvement District, its Council members, officials, agents, officers, and employees”.
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
246
Attachment B – Template Agreement
[FOR THE FOLLOWING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, PLEASE CONSIDER IF EACH IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED AND FOR THE CONSULTANT. UNCHECK THE CHECKBOX FOR ANY INSURANCE REQUIREMENT THAT IS NOT APPLICABLE. PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE WITH ANY QUESTIONS.]
☒ Business Automobile Liability Insurance
Automobile Liability Insurance against claims of Personal Injury (including bodily injury and death) and Property Damage covering any vehicle and/or all owned, leased, hired and non-owned vehicles used in the performance of Services pursuant to this Agreement with coverage equal to the policy limits, which shall be at least two million dollars ($2,000,000) each occurrence. ☒ Workers' Compensation Insurance
Consultant shall submit written proof that Consultant is insured against liability for workers' compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 3700 of the California Labor Code. Consultant shall require any Subconsultants to provide workers' compensation for all of the Subconsultants' employees, unless the Subconsultants' employees are covered by the insurance afforded by Consultant. If any class of employees engaged in work or services performed under this Agreement is not covered by California Labor Code section 3700, Consultant shall provide and/or require each Subconsultant to provide adequate insurance for the coverage of employees not otherwise covered. Consultant shall also maintain employer's liability insurance with limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000) for bodily injury or disease. ☒ Professional Liability Insurance
Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance, for liability arising out of, or in connection with, all negligent acts, errors or omissions in connection with services to be provided under this Agreement, with no exclusion for claims of one insured against another insured, with coverage equal to the policy limits, which shall not be less than five million dollars ($5,000,000) per occurrence and five million dollars ($5,000,000) aggregate.
1.2 Self-Insured Retention
Any self-insured retentions in excess of $100,000 must be declared on the Certificate of insurance or other documentation provided to City and must be approved by the City Risk Manager.
1.3 Claims-Made Basis Coverage
If any of the insurance coverages required under this Agreement is written on a claims-made basis, Consultant, at Consultant's option, shall either (i) maintain said coverage for at least five (5) years following the termination of this Agreement with coverage extending back to the effective date of this Agreement; (ii) purchase an extended reporting period of not less than five (5) years following the termination of this Agreement; or (iii) acquire a full prior acts provision on any renewal or replacement policy.
2.City as Additional Insured
On Consultant's Commercial General Liability and Automobile policies, the City of Foster City and Estero Municipal Improvement District, its Council members, officers, directors, agents, employees, and volunteers, shall be named as additional insured's, but only with respect to liability arising out of the activities of the named insured. Any endorsement shall be provided using one of the following three options: (i) on ISO form CG 20 10 1 1 85; or (ii) on ISO form CG 20 37 10 01 plus either ISO form CG 20 10 10 01 or CG 20 33 10 01; or (iii) on such other forms which provide coverage at least equal to or better than form CG 20 10 1 1 85.
3.Insurance terms and conditions:
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
247
Attachment B – Template Agreement
3.1 Cancellation of Insurance
The above stated insurance coverages required to be maintained by Consultant shall be maintained until the completion of all of Consultant's obligations under this Agreement except as otherwise indicated herein.
Each insurance policy supplied by Consultant shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled or reduced in coverage or in limits except after ten (10) days written notice by Consultant in the case of non-payment of premiums, or thirty (30) days written notice in all other cases. This notice requirement does not waive the insurance requirements stated herein. Consultant shall immediately obtain replacement coverage for any insurance policy that is terminated, canceled, non-renewed, or whose policy limits have been exhausted or upon insolvency of the insurer that issued the policy.
3.2 All insurance shall be issued by a company or companies admitted to do business in California and listed in the current "Best's Key Rating Guide" publication with a minimum rating of A-; VII Any exception to these requirements must be approved by the City Risk Manager.
3.3 If Consultant is, or becomes during the term of this Agreement, self-insured or a member of a self-insurance pool, Consultant shall provide coverage equivalent to the insurance coverages and endorsements required above. The City will not accept such coverage unless the City determines, in its sole discretion and by written acceptance, that the coverage proposed to be provided by Consultant is equivalent to the above-required coverages.
3.4 For any claims related to the Agreement, the Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City and Estero Municipal Improvement District, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City or District, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3.5 Insurance coverages in the minimum amounts set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve Consultant for any liability, whether within, outside, or in excess of such coverage, and regardless of solvency or insolvency of the insurer that issues the coverage; nor shall it preclude the City from taking such other actions as are available to it under any other provision of this Agreement or otherwise in law.
3.6 Failure by Consultant to maintain all such insurance in effect at all times required by this Agreement shall be a material breach of this Agreement by Consultant. City , at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from Consultant resulting from said breach.
Alternatively, City may purchase such required insurance coverage, and without further notice to Consultant, City shall deduct from sums due to Consultant any premiums and associated costs advanced or paid by City for such insurance. If the balance of monies obligated to Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are insufficient to reimburse City for the premiums and any associated costs, Consultant agrees to reimburse City for the premiums and pay for all costs associated with the purchase of said insurance. Any failure by City to take this alternative action shall not relieve Consultant of its obligation to obtain and maintain the insurance coverages required by this Agreement.
3.7 Should any of the required insurance (other than errors and omissions insurance) be provided under a form of coverage that includes a general annual aggregate limit or provides that claims investigation or legal defenses costs be included in such general aggregate limit, such general annual aggregate limit shall be double the occurrence or claims limit specified above.
3.8 City may (but is under no obligation to) secure project-specific insurance, wrap-up insurance, or administer an owner controlled insurance program ("OCIP"), in which case Consultant and its subconsultants shall communicate this fact to their insurance carriers and request that the risk of this project be excluded from their practice policies. Consultant's fees under this Agreement (and the fee of its subconsultants under subconsultant agreements) shall be
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
248
Attachment B – Template Agreement
reduced by the amount of insurance premiums that may be avoided by Consultant and its subconsultants by virtue of the City's obtaining the project-specific insurance, wrap-up insurance or administering an OCIP, and the exclusion of this project from coverage of Consultant's and subconsultants policies. Construction Manager and its subconsultants shall afford City access to their books and records and cooperate with City in verifying the amount of savings realized.
ATTACHED
1. Insurance Coverage Form
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
249
Attachment B – Template Agreement
EXHIBIT C
This INSURANCE COVERAGE FORM modifies or documents insurance provided under the following:
Named Insured: Effective Work Date(s):
Description of Work/Locations/Vehicles:
ADDITIONAL INSURED: City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District (CITY) 610 Foster City Boulevard, Foster City, CA 94404
Attention: _________________________________ Contract Administrator Endorsement and Certificates of Insurance Required
The Additional Insured, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees and volunteers are included as insureds with regard to damages and defense of claims arising from: (Check all that apply) Insurer Policy No.
General Liability: (a) activities performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured, (b) products and completed operations of the Named Insured, (c) premises owned, leased occupied or used by the Named Insured, and/or (d) permits issued for operations performed by the Named Insured. {Note: MEETS OR EXCEEDS ISO Form # CG 20 10 11 85} Auto Liability: the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Named Insured, regardless of whether liability is attributable to the Named Insured or a combination of the Named Insured and the Additional Insured, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
Other:
Certificates of Insurance Required (no endorsement needed) (Check all that apply) Insurer Policy No.
Workers Compensation: work performed by employees of the Named Insured while those employees are engaged in work under the simultaneous directions and control of the Named Insured and the Additional Insured.
Professional Liability:
PRIMARY/NON-CONTRIBUTORY: This insurance is primary and is not additional to or contributing with any other insurance carried by or for the benefit of Additional Insureds.
SEVERABILITY OF INTEREST: The insurance afforded by this policy applies separately to each insured who is seeking coverage or against whom a claim is made or a suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limit of liability.
PROVISIONS REGARDING THE INSURED'S DUTIES AFTER ACCIDENT OR LOSS: Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to the Additional Insured, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, or volunteers.
CANCELLATION NOTICE. The insurance afforded by this policy shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice (ten (10) days if canceled due to non-payment) by regular mail return receipt requested has been given to the Additional Insured. Such notice shall be addressed as shown above.
WAIVER OF SUBROGATION: The insurer(s) named above agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the CITY, its elected or appointed officers, officials, agents, volunteers and employees for losses paid under the terms of this policy which arise from work performed by the Named Insured for the CITY.
Nothing herein contained shall vary, alter or extend any provision or condition of the Policy other than as above stated.
SIGNATURE OF INSURER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INSURER I, ______________________________________________________________(print/type name), warrant that I have authority to bind the above-named insurance company and by my signature hereon do so bind this company.
SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (original signature required) ORGANIZATION: TITLE:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE: ( ) DATE ISSUED:
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
250
Attachment B – Template Agreement
ATTACHMENT C
COVID-19 AMENDMENT
(Consulting Agreement Form)
This COVID-19 Amendment/Attachment amends the Agreement between the City of Foster City (“City”) and ____________________________ (“Consultant”) dated ___________________________.
1. Definitions
A. The 2019 novel coronavirus and the disease it causes are collectively referred to herein as “COVID-19”.
B. A “COVID-19 Condition” is something attributable to COVID-19 not caused by the Consultant (which for purposes herein includes all subconsultants) and beyond its reasonable control including but not limited to COVID-19 Proclamations and supply chain disruptions due to COVID-19, and other circumstances concerning COVID-19 not caused by the Consultant and which are beyond its reasonable control.
C. A “COVID-19 Proclamation” includes but is not limited to orders, directives and guidance concerning COVID-19 that have been issued, and which may be issued from time to time, by public agencies or regulatory bodies, the CDC or OSHA or Cal/OSHA, including without limitation the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards. Consultant acknowledges that those orders, directives and guidance may require the Project to shut down or otherwise increase the Consultant’s cost or time of performance by calling for things such as social distancing and the use of personal protective equipment. In the event of conflicting COVID-19 Proclamations, the Consultant shall follow the most applicable, restrictive and newest COVID-19 Proclamations.
D. An “Unknown COVID-19 Condition” is a COVID-19 Condition the Consultant did not know about, and reasonably should not have known about, as of the date the Consultant submitted its proposal.
The requirements contained in COVID-19 Proclamations issued before submission of a proposal are not Unknown COVID-19 Conditions, and the Consultant will be deemed to have knowledge of those requirements.
E. An “Unknown COVID-19 Cost” is a cost that: (i) is solely attributable to an Unknown COVID- 19 Condition; (ii) is reasonable and unavoidable under the circumstances; (iii) is not the result of the Consultant’s failure to comply with the contract documents or a COVID-19 Proclamation; and (iv) is not the result of a subconsultants failure to comply with a COVID-19 Proclamation in connection with the performance of the Services.
2. COVID-19 Conditions and Proposal. Consultant is expected to know and is deemed to have known about COVID-19 Conditions when it submits its proposal, and COVID-19 Conditions must be accounted for in the Consultant’s price and schedule. In order to be entitled to any relief from a COVID-19 Condition, the Consultant must demonstrate that the issue, cost or delay is due to an Unknown COVID-19 Condition.
3. Compliance with COVID-19 Proclamations.
A. Consultant shall comply with COVID-19 Proclamations in the performance of the Services, irrespective of when the COVID-19 Proclamations are issued, and as they pertains to performance of the Services. The cost of such compliance is non-compensable, except as otherwise expressly stated herein.
B. Consultant is responsible to ensure that its subconsultants and suppliers comply with COVID- 19 Proclamations at all times in connection with the performance of their Services.
4. Delay. The Consultant is entitled to a reasonable time extension for an Unknown COVID-19 Condition.
Such time extension is non-compensable.
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
251
Attachment B – Template Agreement
5. City Directed Suspension. The City may suspend Services due to COVID-19 health concerns, even though the Consultant may be allowed to proceed with the Services based on COVID-19 Proclamations.
The City may suspend the Services for its convenience. The Consultant is entitled to a time extension for a City Directed Suspension, and the contract amount will be equitably adjusted if and to the extent Consultant incurs increased costs that are Unknown COVID-19 Costs.
6. Compensation for COVID-19 Costs. City will reimburse the Consultant for Unknown COVID-19 Costs that are not included in the schedule of values.
7. Safe Work Practices. Consultant shall implement safe work practices recommended by CDC or OSHA or Cal/OSHA, which may include, inter alia, screening all employees, subconsultants, or others (“worker(s)”) at all locations where Services are performed for signs and symptoms of COVID-19; adopting staggered work schedules, e.g., providing alternating workdays or extra shifts, to reduce the total number of employees on a site at any given time and to ensure physical distancing; identifying choke points where workers are forced to stand together, such as hallways and elevators, ingress and egress points, break areas, and buses, and implement policies to maintain social distancing; coordinating deliveries in line with the employer's minimal contact and cleaning protocols; and instituting a rigorous housekeeping program to reduce dust levels at all exterior locations. Consultant remains fully responsible for following and complying with changes to recommended safe work practices from time to time.
8. Monitoring and Reporting. City may require the Consultant to actively monitor the health of its workers through temperature checks and questionnaires of major COVID-19 symptoms, including but not limited to cough, fever above 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit and shortness of breath. Consultant shall immediately report to City any outbreaks of COVID-19 among its workers. The Consultant shall not knowingly allow any worker who has tested positive with COVID-19 to enter a City building. In the event of an outbreak or an exposure to COVID-19, the City may impose appropriate mitigation strategies which may be in consultation with the public health officer.
9. Conflicts. In the event of an inconsistency between this COVID-19 Amendment and the Agreement, this Addendum shall control.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Covid-19 Amendment as of the date set forth above.
CONSULTANT: CITY:
________________________ ____________________________
Signature Signature
________________________ ______________________________ Print Name & Title Print Name & Title
6.8 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal
252
Attachment 4
RFP Distribution List for CIP 700-Fuel Systems Improvement Project Firm/Exchange Contact Title Address 1 Address 2 Contact 1 Contact 2 AECOM Technical Services, Inc Steve Leach Vice President 300 Lakeside Drive STE 400 Oakland, CA 94612 [email protected]; [email protected] Aurum Consulting Najib Anwary [email protected] (408) 564‐7925 Barghausen Omar Vasquez Fuel Division Manager/Principal/Project Manager [email protected] (425) 656‐7485 Bay Area Builders Exchange [email protected] (510) 483‐8880 Belcan Architect & Engineers Elizabeth Milenkovic Architect 885 Oak Grove Ave, Suite 209 Menlo Park, CA 94025 elizabeth@belcan‐ae.com (650) 329‐9251, ext. 1 Bellecci & Associates Daniel Leary Principal 7077 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 210 Pleasanton, CA 94566 [email protected]; [email protected]; BKF Engineers Jason Mansfield Associate Redwood City, CA [email protected] BKF Engineers Brian Scott Principal/Vice President 255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 200 Redwood City, CA 94065 [email protected]; Blymyer Engineers, Inc. Bjorn Enstrom Project Manager/Mechanical Engineer [email protected] (510) 747‐3062 Blymyer Engineers, Inc. Alex Brezman Mechanical Engineer [email protected] (510) 747‐3060 Brown and Caldwell Will K. Faisst Vice President 201 North Civic Center Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Builders’ Exchange of Santa Clara County [email protected] (408) 727‐4000 Construction Bidboard, Inc. (eBidboard) James Moriarty [email protected] (800) 479‐5314 CSG Consultants. Inc. Cyrus Kianpour President 550 Pilgrim Drive Foster City, CA 94404 [email protected]; [email protected]; Dodge Data & Analytics (McGraw‐Hill Construction) [email protected] (877) 784‐9556 EKI Environmental & Water, Inc. Anona Dutton [email protected] Hazen Sawyer Luke Wang [email protected]
HydroScience Engineers, Inc. Eric Petrel 741 Allston Way Berkeley, CA 94710 [email protected] Kennedy Jenks Peter Symonds 1676 N. California Boulevard Walnut Creek, CA 94596 [email protected] Kimley‐Horn and Associates Brian Sowers Sr. Vice President 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Mike.Mowery@kimley‐horn.com; brian.sowers@kimley‐horn.com Lee & Ro, Inc Tony Park, P.E. 1515 Oakland Blvd., Suite 240 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 tony.park@lee‐ro.com Lotus Water Robert Dusenbury Vice President 660 Mission street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected]; [email protected]; Marin Builders Association [email protected] (415) 462‐1220 Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. Sasha Dansky Principal/Vice President 3000 Oak Road #6 Walnut Creek, CA 94697 [email protected]; [email protected]; NCE J. Ryan Shafer Principal 501 Canal Blvd., Suite I Pt. Richmond, CA 94804 [email protected]; Peninsula Builders Exchange [email protected] (650) 591‐4486 Quincy Engineering, Inc. Brent Lemon Regional Manager 2950 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 122 Walnut Creek, CA 94547 [email protected]; [email protected]; Randall Lamb Associates, Inc. Christopher W. Lloyd, PE President/CEO 500 Washington St, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94111 [email protected]; [email protected]; Ruggeri‐Jensen‐Azar Eddie Sieu Prinicipal 4690 Chabot Drive, #200 Pleasanton, CA 94588 esieu@rja‐gps.com; jazar@rja‐gps.com; San Francisco Builders Exchange [email protected] (415) 282‐8220 Schaaf & Wheeler Chuck Anderson 1171 Homestead Road, Suite 255 Santa Clara, CA 95050 [email protected] SRT Consultants Tim Monahan, P.E. 90 New Montgomery Street, Suite 905 San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] Tait Environmenal Services Dennis Tweedy Vice President Business Development 11280 Trade Center Drive Rancho Cordova, CA 95742 [email protected] (209) 321‐8628 Tait Environmenal Services Jim Streitz [email protected] Water Resources Engineers Inc. [email protected]
Waterworks Engineers Cindy Bertsch, P.E. 1730 S. El Camino Real, Suite 280 San Mateo, CA 94402 [email protected] West Yost Mike Zacharia [email protected]
Wilsey Ham Jeff Peterson President 3130 La Selva Street, Ste. 100 San Mateo, CA 94403 [email protected]; Wood Rodgers, Inc. Mark Rayback Vice President 3301 C Street, Building 100B Sacramento, CA 95814 [email protected]; [email protected]; Woodard & Curran Ms. Holly Spaulding 2175 N. California Boulevard, Suite 315 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 [email protected] Woodard & Curran Ms. Andree Johnson 2175 N. California Boulevard, Suite 315 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 [email protected] WRECO Han‐Bin Liang President 1243 Alpine Road, Suite 108 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 [email protected]; [email protected]; YEI Engineers, Inc. Patrick Mallillin President/CEO 7677 Oakport St., Ste. 200 Oakland, CA 94621 [email protected]; [email protected];
6.8 Attachment 4 - Proposed RFP Distribution
253
DATE: January 17, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) Board of Directors
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City/District Manager
FROM: Julie Paping, Principal Management Analyst
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: EXTENDING THE PROCLAMATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A
LOCAL EMERGENCY, THE CONTINUING NEED FOR CITY
COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND COMMITTEES
TO MEET BY TELECONFERENCE FOR INCREASED
ACCESSIBILITY, AND A GENERAL UPDATE ON THE NOVEL
CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council/EMID Board of Directors adopt the attached resolutions extending the proclamation of the existence of a local emergency caused by the threat of the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), and proclaiming the continuing need for City Council/EMID Board of Directors, Planning Commission, and Committees to meet by teleconference and allow for increased meeting accessibility via in person and teleconference meeting participation (Attachments 1 and 2). The general update is informational only and no further action is required.
BACKGROUND
On March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency in response to the outbreak of respiratory illness due to the novel Coronavirus (COVID19).
On March 5, 2020, San Mateo County declared a Local Health Emergency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 101080 due to the introduction of COVID19 in San Mateo County. On March 16, 2020, the County of San Mateo Public Health Officer
6.9 6.9 Staff Report
254
issued an order to "shelter in place", effective March 17, 2020 at 12:01 am. This order, amongst other things, ceased non-essential activities in the County in an effort to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19. Essential City operations like police, fire, and wastewater treatment services, as well as the maintenance of critical infrastructure, are continuing to be provided. Most other City services have returned to pre-pandemic levels or have been reasonably modified (for a limited basis) in conjunction with the Health Officer’s order or to administer City operations.
The City Manager, acting as the City’s Director of Emergency Services, was authorized to make and issue rules and regulations on matters reasonably related to the protection of life and property as affected by such emergency. As a result, on March 16, 2020, the City Manager acting as Director of Emergency Services proclaimed the existence of a local emergency due to conditions and threatened conditions of peril due to the expansion of the COVID-19 virus. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 8630, the City Council ratified the proclamation made by the Director of Emergency services on March 18, 2020 per Resolution No. 2020-23, within the required seven (7) days of the proclamation.
Local Emergency
Since the proclamation of the existence of a local emergency back in March, the City Council has continued to receive updates at its meetings on the operational impacts and actions taken by the City related to COVID-19. The City Council had also received an overview of the City's recovery plan at its Vision & Policy Summit on June 4, 2020 and a presentation from the County of San Mateo on its Recovery Initiative on October 5, 2020. On October 6, 2020, the County Board of Supervisors accepted the final report on the SMC Recovery Initiative, which outlines a path toward a more equitable, healthy and connected community in the recovery from COVID-19.
To-date, the City Council had approved the continuation of the proclamation of the existence of a local emergency at its meetings on April 6, June 1, July 20, September 8, November 2, 2020, January 4, March 1, May 17, July 19, September 20, November 15, December 13, 2021, January 18, February 22, March 21, April 18, May 16, June 20, July 18, August 15, September 19, October 17, November 21, and December 5, 2022.
Per Government Code Section 8630, the City Council must reevaluate whether to continue the proclamation of the existence of a local emergency every sixty (60) days until the emergency is terminated. Given the conditions creating the local emergency have not entirely abated, one of the items for City Council consideration is to extend the proclamation.
Continuing In-Person/Teleconference Hybrid Meetings
Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) was signed into law by the Governor on September 16, 2021. AB 361 comes as the provisions of Executive Order No. N-29-20 (as revised by Executive Order No. N-08-21), which modifies the requirements for conducting meetings via teleconference during the COVID-19 pandemic, expired on September 30,
6.9 6.9 Staff Report
255
2021. While the intent of Executive Order No. N-29-20 and AB 361 are both to facilitate public access to meetings via teleconferencing options, there are differences between the two. AB 361 amends the Brown Act to allow local legislative bodies to continue using teleconferencing and virtual meeting technology after the September 30, 2021 expiration of the current Brown Act exemptions as long as there is a “proclaimed state of emergency” by the Governor and certain findings are made regarding the need to conduct teleconferenced meetings.
On October 18, 2021, the City Council/Board of Directors approved resolutions to implement and utilize teleconference accessibility to conduct public meetings, pursuant to AB 361. Findings must be made every thirty (30) days to continue to the practice of such. By approving the resolutions attached, the City Council/EMID Board, Planning Commission, and Committees may continue to conduct meetings as they have been without interruption, allowing for increased accessibility to the public and meeting participants to join in person or via teleconference, as applicable. Approving the resolutions under AB 361 would also allow the continued flexibility that was provided by Executive Order No. N-29-20 to allow Councilmembers/EMID Board Members or Planning Commissioners and other Committee Members to attend the meeting via teleconference without following the normal teleconference requirements under the Brown Act, which include listing the teleconference location on the published agenda and posting the agenda at the site of the teleconference. If circumstances change and it is determined that safety concerns prohibit in-person meeting participation entirely, members may pivot to teleconferencing only without the preparation that is otherwise required under the Brown Act, while maintaining accessible public meetings.
Timeline
A summarized timeline of the various directives and orders as it pertains to the County of San Mateo, from the start of the pandemic to-date, is outlined in Attachment 3. At the outset of the pandemic, health orders were frequently changing in response to the varying COVID-19 case/transmission rates. City staff has since then provided updates to City Council at its regular meetings to keep both the City Council and the community abreast of any new developments on COVID-19 that may arise. The frequency of these updates transitioned to a monthly basis on March 2020. In alignment with the State's reopening, as well as the County of San Mateo ceasing its biweekly briefings, these updates are provided (for informational purposes only) on an as needed basis or every thirty (30) days when the proclamation of the existence of a local emergency is brought back to City Council for renewal (until no longer necessary) in conjunction with the findings of continuing the need to conduct teleconferenced meetings until no longer applicable. Timely updates and information will continue to be issued and available through the County of San Mateo directly, or on the City website and via the weekly eNewsletter.
Latest Updates
Health officials continue to recommend that residents keep up to date with vaccinations
6.9 6.9 Staff Report
256
and boosters, get tested if they have symptoms, and wear high-quality masks (N95/KN95) in settings where ventilation is poor or for those are at high risk for severe disease or illness. Wearing high-quality masks indoors is especially important now with multiple respiratory viruses circulating in San Mateo County.
COVID-19 vaccines are available for those 6 months and older and boosters are available for those 5 years and older. San Mateo County Health urges residents age 5 years and older who have completed the primary vaccine series or received their most recent booster at least two months ago to get the updated COVID-19 bivalent booster.
People cannot receive the bivalent booster until after completing at least a primary COVID-19 vaccination series. As of November 30, only 25% of all county residents have obtained the updated COVID-19 bivalent booster.
Updated, bivalent boosters are being offered by San Mateo County Health at its community clinics. To find a vaccination clinic, please visit https://www.smchealth.org/vaccine-clinic-calendar. Appointments can be made at https://myturn.ca.gov or by calling the CA COVID-19 Hotline at 1-833-422-4255.
Appointments are encouraged, but not required. Bivalent boosters are also available from primary health care providers and at some pharmacies.
ANALYSIS
With the disruption in normal operations due to COVID-19 and the Public Health Order to “Shelter in Place”, City operations were implemented based on essential functions identified in the City's Continuity of Operations (COOP) and Continuity of Government (COG) Plan.
In the City's response to COVID-19, the main objective is to keep the community safe, reduce the risk of transmission, and help slow the spread of the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). Outlined in the COVID-19 Response Plan Summary are six broad priority areas in which the City has focused its efforts to-date (Attachment 4).
California Environmental Quality Act
Not Applicable
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with adoption of the resolutions.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
City Council Operations and Improved Community Engagement Public Safety and Social Equity
6.9 6.9 Staff Report
257
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - City Resolution (Extending the Local Emergency and Continuing the Need for Teleconferencing)
Attachment 2 - EMID Resolution (Continuing the Need for Teleconferencing) Attachment 3 - COVID-19 Timeline (as of January 6, 2023) Attachment 4 - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
6.9 6.9 Staff Report
258
RESOLUTION NO.____________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY
EXTENDING THE PROCLAMATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY CAUSED BY THE THREAT OF THE NOVEL COVID-19 VIRUS, AND PROCLAIMING
THE CONTINUING NEED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND
COMMITTEES TO MEET BY TELECONFERENCE AND ALLOWING FOR INCREASED
MEETING ACCESSIBILITY VIA IN PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE MEETING
PARTICIPATION
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2020, due to confirmed cases of a severe acute respiratory illness caused by a new coronavirus (“COVID-19”), the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared the COVID-19 outbreak a public health emergency of international concern, and on January 31, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared a Public Health Emergency for the United States of America; and
WHEREAS, on or about March 4, 2020, as part of the State of California's response to address the global COVID-19 outbreak, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the state prepare for broader spread of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2020, San Mateo County declared a Local Health Emergency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 101080 due to the potential introduction of COVID-19 in San Mateo County; and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2020, the President of the United States declared a National Emergency in response to the spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, Section 2.40.070(A) of the Foster City Municipal Code empowers the City Manager, as the Director of Emergency Services, to proclaim (subject to ratification by the City Council within seven days) the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City is affected or likely to be affected by a public calamity and the City Council is not in session; and
WHEREAS, based on the expanding threat of the novel COVID-19 virus, the City Manager, Acting as Director of Emergency Services, of the City of Foster City proclaimed the existence of a local emergency within the City on March 16, 2020; and WHEREAS, on March 18, 2020, per Resolution No. 2020-23, the City Council of the City of Foster City ratified the proclamation of the Director of Emergency Services and
6.9 Attachment 1 - City Resolution
259
extended the period of the existence of a Local Emergency for an additional 30 days or unless sooner terminated; and
WHEREAS, on April 6, 2020, June 1, 2020, July 20, 2020, September 8, 2020, November 2, 2020, January 4, 2021, March 1, 2021, May 17, 2021, July 19, 2021, September 20, 2021, November 15, 2021, December 13, 2021, January 18, February 22, March 21, April 18, May 16, June 20, July 18, August 15, September 19, October 17, November 21, December 5, 2022, per Resolutions No. 2020-33, 2020-50, 2020-75, 2020- 96, 2020-113, 2021-9, 2021-24, 2021-63, 2021-103, 2021-129, 2021-172, 2021-185, 2022-5, 2022-15, 2022-28, 2022-39, 2022-52, 2022-71, 2022-88, 2022-104, 2022-110, 2022-122, 2022-129, and 2022-136 respectively, the City Council of the City of Foster City extended the period of the existence of a Local Emergency for an additional 60 days or unless sooner terminated; and
WHEREAS, San Mateo County had completed the variance process as set forth by the California Department of Public Health on June 15, 2020, allowing the County for a gradual re-opening to match the maximum as allowed by the State’s Resilience Roadmap; and
WHEREAS, although collective efforts taken to date regarding this public health emergency have slowed the virus’ trajectory, the emergency and the attendant risk to public health remain significant; and
WHEREAS, San Mateo County was added to the State’s monitoring list on July 29, 2020 and since then ranked in the Purple or Widespread risk level on August 28, 2020, in the Red or Substantial risk level on September 22, 2020, in the Orange or Moderate risk level on October 27, 2020, and in the Red or Substantial risk level on November 17, 2020; and
WHEREAS, San Mateo County then rolled back to the Purple or Widespread risk level on November 29, 2020 and a Limited Stay at Home order went into effect on November 30, 2020, with a Regional Stay at Home order to follow on December 17, 2020; and
WHEREAS, once the Regional Stay at Home order was lifted, San Mateo County rolled back to the Purple or Widespread risk level on January 25, 2021, moving into the Red or Substantial risk level on February 24, and then into the Orange or “Moderate” risk level on March 17; and
WHEREAS, the State has transitioned away from the Blueprint for a Safer Economy beginning June 15, 2021; however, the conditions creating the local emergency have not entirely abated, COVID-19 continues to threaten the health and lives of Foster City residents and Delta variant and other variants continue to emerge and are highly transmissible in indoor settings; and
WHEREAS, San Mateo County continues to experience COVID-19 cases and
6.9 Attachment 1 - City Resolution
260
related hospitalizations; and
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act allows local legislative bodies to meet by teleconference so long as the enumerated requirements are met (California Government Code section 54953); and
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2020, and every 60 days thereafter, the City of Foster City passed a resolution proclaiming a Local Emergency, as defined by the California Emergency Services Act (California Government Code section 8558) as a result of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic; and
WHEREAS, the recently amended Ralph M. Brown Act allows local legislative bodies to continue meeting by teleconference during a gubernatorial proclaimed state of emergency if the local legislative body determines, by majority vote, that as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees (California Government Code section 54953(e)(1)(B)); and WHEREAS, on October 18, 2021 the City Council adopted City Resolution No. 2021-155 proclaiming the continuing need for the City Council, Planning Commission and Committees to meet by teleconference and allowing for increased meeting accessibility via in person and teleconference meeting participation; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Foster City:
1. The proclamation of a local emergency is hereby extended for at least an additional 60 days, or until the proclamation is next extended by resolution. Per Government Code Section 8630, the City Council shall review and renew this declaration every 60 days until the emergency is terminated.
2. The City Council of the City of Foster City hereby declares that the recitals set forth above are true and correct, and incorporated into this resolution as findings of the City Council.
3. Due to COVID-19, holding meetings in-person only will present imminent risks to the health and safety to attendees; and
4. The City Council/EMID Board of Directors and Planning Commission have safety measures and technology in place to allow hybrid meetings which allow in-person and teleconferenced appearances at meetings, which reduces the risks to health and safety of appearing in person for meetings because the number of attendees is reduced. Committees have conducted meetings remotely during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic and have began conducting hybrid meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e).
6.9 Attachment 1 - City Resolution
261
5. The State of California and the City of Foster City continue to follow safety measures in response to COVID-19 as ordered or recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), California Department of Public Health (DPH), and/or County of San Mateo, as applicable, including facial coverings when required. Based upon that guidance, in-person attendance indoors at public meetings continues to present a health risk for certain segments of the population, necessitating the need to reduce the number of in-person meeting attendees.
6. The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to the findings listed in this Resolution, that the City Council/EMID Board of Directors and the City Council/EMID Board appointed Commissions and Committees are authorized to utilize teleconferencing to conduct public meetings pursuant to AB 361 and Government Code § 54953, as amended thereby.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council determines that, every 30 days, it will reconsider the circumstances of the emergency and review whether it continues to directly impact the ability of the Council/EMID Board and appointed Committee and Commission members to meet safely in person.
PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City at the special meeting held on the 17th day of January, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JON FROOMIN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK
6.9 Attachment 1 - City Resolution
262
RESOLUTION NO.____________
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ESTERO MUNICIPAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROCLAIMING THE CONTINUING NEED FOR THE
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
PLANNING COMMISSION, AND COMMITTEES TO MEET BY TELECONFERENCE
AND ALLOWING FOR INCREASED MEETING ACCESSIBILITY VIA IN PERSON AND
TELECONFERENCE MEETING PARTICIPATION
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act allows local legislative bodies to meet by teleconference so long as the enumerated requirements are met (California Government Code section 54953); and
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2020, and every 60 days thereafter, the City of Foster City passed a resolution proclaiming a Local Emergency, as defined by the California Emergency Services Act (California Government Code section 8558) as a result of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic; and
WHEREAS, the recently amended Ralph M. Brown Act allows local legislative bodies to continue meeting by teleconference during a gubernatorial proclaimed state of emergency if the local legislative body determines, by majority vote, that as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees (California Government Code section 54953(e)(1)(B)); and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and such State of Emergency remains in effect; and
WHEREAS, COVID-19 continues to threaten the health and lives of Foster City residents and Delta variant and other variants continue to emerge and are highly transmissible in indoor settings; and
WHEREAS, on October 28, November 15, December 13, 2021, January 18, February 22, March 21, April 18, May 16, June 20, July 18, August 15, September 19, October 17, November 21, and December 5, 2022 per Resolutions No. 3610, 3621, 3624, 3630, 3634, 3637, 3644, 3646, 3655, 3666, 3675, 3680, 3685, 3691, and 3695 respectively, the EMID Board of Directors proclaimed the continuing need for the Estero Municipal Improvement District Board of Directors, Planning Commission, and Committees to meet by teleconference and allowed for increased meeting accessibility via in person and teleconference meeting participation; and WHEREAS, San Mateo County continues to experience COVID-19 cases and related hospitalizations.
6.9 Attachment 2 - EMID Resolution
263
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District finds that:
1. The Estero Municipal Improvement District Board of Directors (EMID Board) hereby declares that the recitals set forth above are true and correct, and incorporated into this resolution as findings of the EMID Board.
2. Due to COVID-19, holding meetings in-person only will present imminent risks to the health and safety to attendees; and
3.The City Council/EMID Board of Directors and Planning Commission have safety measures and technology in place to allow hybrid meetings which allow in-person and teleconferenced appearances at meetings, which reduces the risks to health and safety of appearing in person for meetings because the number of attendees is reduced. Committees have conducted meetings remotely during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, and have began conducting hybrid meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e).
4. The State of California and the City of Foster City continue to follow safety measures in response to COVID-19 as ordered or recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), California Department of Public Health (DPH), and/or County of San Mateo, as applicable, including facial coverings when required. Based upon that guidance, in-person attendance indoors at public meetings continues to present a health risk for certain segments of the population, necessitating the need to reduce the number of in-person meeting attendees.
5. The EMID Board of Directors hereby declares that, pursuant to the findings listed in this Resolution, that the City Council/EMID Board of Directors and the City Council/EMID Board appointed Commissions and Committees are authorized to utilize teleconferencing to conduct public meetings pursuant to AB 361 and Government Code § 54953, as amended thereby.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the EMID Board of Directors determines that, every 30 days, it will reconsider the circumstances of the emergency and review whether it continues to directly impact the ability of the Council/EMID Board and appointed Committee and Commission members to meet safely in person.
6.9 Attachment 2 - EMID Resolution
264
PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District at the special meeting held on the 17 th day of January, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JON FROOMIN, PRESIDENT
ATTEST:
PRISCILLA SCHAUS, DISTRICT SECRETARY
6.9 Attachment 2 - EMID Resolution
265
NOVEL CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) TIMELINE
Last Updated: Friday, January 6 , 2023
DATE ACTIVITY/DESCRIPTION
March 4, 2020 Governor Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency in response to the outbreak of respiratory illness due to the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19).
March 5, 2020 County of San Mateo declared a Local Health Emergency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 101080 due to the introduction of COVID-19 in San Mateo County.
March 31, 2020 County of San Mateo Public Health Officer issued a new order extending the "shelter in place" period through May 3, 2020, which was a complement to the indefinite statewide stay -at- home order issued by Governor Gavin Newsom earlier in March.
April 29, 2020 County of San Mateo Public Health Officer issued a new order (alongside the other Bay Area Health Officers) extending the shelter in place orders through May 31, 2020.
May 15, 2020 A revised order was issued, superseding the last order, bringing County of San Mateo into alignment with early Phase 2 of Governor Gavin Newsom’s Resilience Roadmap. The order maintained that all individuals continue to shelter in place and continues to restrict most activity, travel, and governmental and business functions to essential n eeds, outdoor activities, and outdoor businesses but adds additional businesses and activities to the list of permitted functions.
May 28, 2020 A revised order was issued with a few modifications to the previous order to allow places of worship to hold services and retail stores to allow customers inside. It also provided guidelines for additional activities such as car parades and protests.
June 4, 2020 A revised order was issued to allow outdoor dining and charter boat operations, as well as amending the guidelines for funerals.
June 17, 2020 The County of San Mateo Public Health Officer rescinded the shelter in place order and replaced it with the Safer Community Order. The Safer Community Order align ed County of San Mateo with the State’s Resilience Roadmap and limits gatherings to no more than 50 people, outline d social distancing and face covering requirements, allow ed for "social bubbles," and requir ed businesses to implement a social distancing protocol and written health and safety plans.
July 29, 2020 County of San Mateo was added to the state's monitoring list due to an increase in the rate of COVID-19 cases in the County and as a result, specific indoor businesses were required to cease operations starting August 2, unless they could be modified to operate outside or by pick-up.
August 28, 2020 County of San Mateo was placed in the purple tier rank or "widespread" county risk level under the State's new color-coded reopening system.
September 22, 2020 County of San Mateo moved to the red tier rank or "substantial" county risk level.
October 27, 2020 County of San Mateo moved to the orange tier rank or "moderate" county risk level.
November 17, 2020 As COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations surged and ICU capacity levels declined, County of San Mateo rolled back to the red tier rank or "substantial" county risk level.
November 29, 2020 County of San Mateo then rolled back to the purple tier rank or "widespread" county risk level.
November 30, 2020 A Limited Stay at Home order went into effect.
December 17, 2020 A Regional Stay at Home order then went into effect.
January 25, 2021 The Regional Stay at Home order ended and the County of San Mateo returned to the purple tier rank or “widespread” county risk level.
February 24, 2021 County of San Mateo moved into the red tier rank or "substantial" county risk level.
March 17, 2021 County of San Mateo moved into the orange tier rank or "moderate" county risk level.
6.9 Attachment 3 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Timeline (as of January 6, 2023)
266
April 2, 2021 The California Department of Public Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released updated guidance recommending delaying travel until persons are fully vaccinated.
Fully vaccinated travelers should follow CDC travel guidance and are not required to test or quarantine before or after travel unless they have symptoms concerning for COVID-19 disease.
April 6, 2021 Governor Gavin Newsom outlines the State’s next step in the COVID-19 pandemic recovery, moving beyond the Blueprint for a Safer Economy, and announces that on June 15, California will fully reopen if criteria are met.
April 15, 2021 The California Department of Public Health adjusted its Orange Tier 3 guidance for gatherings, private events and indoor seated live events and performances. O utdoor gathering size increases to 50 people. For private events or meetings such as receptions or conferences, outdoor gatherings are limited to 100 people. Indoor live events or performances are allowed with capacity limits and modifications including physical distancing, advance ticket purchases, designated areas for eating and drinking, and attendance limited to in-state visitors.
May 3, 2021 The California Department of Public Health provides updated guidance on use of face coverings, which essentially provides exceptions for those fully vaccinated in outdoor settings.
May 12, 2021 County of San Mateo moved into the yellow tier rank or "minimal" county risk level.
May 19, 2021 Bay Area Health Officers release statement in support of the California Department of Public Health’s strategy to continue with current masking guidance until June 15, when the State will align with the CDC’s updated masking guidance.
June 3, 2021 Bay Area Health Officers release statement in support the opening of California schools for full time in-person instruction for all grades in the fall of 2021.
June 15, 2021 State of California officially reopens and moves “Beyond the Blueprint” which ends the color- coded reopening tier systems and lifts most restrictions on businesses. Most County of San Mateo offices reopen in-person as well.
July 16, 2021 County of San Mateo Joins Bay Area Counties in recommending masking indoors as precaution against COVID-19, particularly the increased circulation of the Delta variant.
July 19, 2021 City of Foster City began hybrid in-person and virtual City Council meetings.
July 26, 2021 County of San Mateo announces face coverings are required solely at County -operated facilities.
July 26, 2021 City of Foster City reopened City Hall to the general public for walk-ins during regular business hours from 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, Monday to Friday.
July 29, 2021 City of Foster City announces face coverings are required at all times indoors when visiting City facilities.
August 3, 2021 County of San Mateo issues a health order requiring all individuals, regardless of vaccination status, to wear face coverings when indoors in public settings, with limited exceptions.
August 9, 2021 City of Foster City reopened Recreation Center and began offering indoor programs again.
August 26, 2021 Bay Area Health Officers release statement reaffirming support for full in-person school, given safety measures and flexibility for different approaches to meet the needs and capacities of a of schools and districts.
September 16, 2021 Governor Gavin Newsom signs Assembly Bill 361, as the provisions of Executive Order No. N- 29-20 (as revised by Executive Order No. N -08-21), which modifies the requirements for conducting meetings via teleconference during the COVID -19 pandemic, expire s on September 30, 2021. AB 361 amends the Brown Act to allow local legislative bodies to continue using teleconferencing and virtual meeting technology as long as there is a “proclaimed state of emergency” by the Governor and certain findings are made regarding the need to conduct teleconferenced meetings.
September 30, 2021 San Mateo County Health announces it will be launching Booster Clinics at the Event Center October 7, 2021 Bay Area Health Officers issue criteria for lifting COVID-19 indoor masking requirements to allow organizations to set those requirements independently.
October 18, 2021 City of Foster City/EMID adopts resolutions so the City Council/EMID Board, Planning Commission, and Committees may continue to conduct meetings as they have been without
6.9 Attachment 3 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Timeline (as of January 6, 2023)
267
interruption, allowing for increased accessibility to the public and meeting participants to join in person or via teleconference, as applicable, under AB 361.
December 1, 2021 The California Department of Public Health has published a fact sheet about the Omicron variant. County Health is working with the state to understand potential local impacts.
December 15, 2021 The California Department of Public Health has mandated that everyone in California wear a mask in indoor public spaces and workpl aces. The order is in effect December 15, 2021 to January 15, 2022.
January 5, 2022 The California Department of Public Health announces the extension of its mask mandate. The order is in effect December 15, 2021 to February 15, 2022.
January 5, 2022 City of Foster City/EMID announces that City Council, Planning Commission, citizen advisory committees, and other public meetings will be held virtually for the months of January and February starting January 13, 2022.
February 16, 2022 Indoor masking is no longer required by the State or County, except for unvaccinated individuals. Everyone, regardless of vaccination status, must continue to mask indoors in high- risk settings, including public transportation, health care settings, congregate settings like correctional facilities and homeless shelters, long-term care facilities, and in K-12 schools and childcare settings.
March 7, 2022 The City Council returned to in-person hybrid public meetings.
March 14, 2022 Indoor masking is no longer required, though strongly encouraged, at City facilities.
April 6, 2022 California Department of Public Health updated is guidance so that masking in schools is no longer required, though strongly encouraged.
April 18, 2022 Federal judge issues r uling that masks are no longer required on public transportation conveyances and at transportation hubs.
June 18, 2022 The CDC approved COVID-19 vaccinations for children at least 6 months of age.
June 30, 2022 San Mateo County was moved from the Medium/Yellow to the High/Red CDC COVID -19 Community Level category.
August 18, 2022 San Mateo County was moved from High/Red to Low/Green CDC COVID-19 Community Level category.
September 13, 2022 Updated, bivalent boosters, which are effective against t he primary and Omicron strains of COVID-19, became available through San Mateo County Health.
October 17, 2022 Governor Newsom announced the declared COVID -19 State of Emergency would end on February 28, 2023.
6.9 Attachment 3 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Timeline (as of January 6, 2023)
268
NOVEL CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) RESPONSE PLAN SUMMARY
Last Update d: Friday, January 6 , 2023
OVERALL OBJECTIVE: To keep the community safe, reduce the risk of transmission, and help slow the spread novel Coronavirus (COVID -19)
OBJECTIVE ACTION ITEMS STATUS
TO MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC
HEALTH ORDERS FROM THE COUNTY AND
STATE (SHELTER IN PLACE/STAY AT HOME)
Monitor the evolving COVID -19 situation and work closely with the County and neighboring jurisdictions
• Update Countywide Matrix with operational changes (Last Updated 03/18/20) • Participate in conference calls which includes Elected Officials, City Managers, City Attorneys, Public Safety (Daily Until 03/25/20; Monday, Wednesday, Friday Until 05/18/20; Wednesday & Friday Until 06/24 /20; Wednesday Until 10/21/20; Transitioned to Every 2 Wednesdays Until 06/09/21, Ending Thereafter) • Participate in Special Briefings which includes Elected Officials, City Managers, and Public Safety as needed (01/13/22)
• Nexus with City Attorney/County Counsel for Guidance (As Needed) • Update 211 Bay Area (a program of United Way Bay Area) with City Updates Ongoing
Work in alignment with SMC Fire (Member Agencies) to coordinate response • Proclamation of Local Emergency (City Manager/Director of Emergency Services Proclaimed on 03/16/20; City Council Ratified on 03/18/20 ; Extended on 04/06/20 , 06/01/20, 07/20/20, 09/08/20, 11/02/20, 01/04/21, 03/01/21, 05/17/21, 07/19/21 , 09/20/21, 11/15/21, 12/13/21 , 01/18/22, 2/22/22 , 3/21/22, 4/18/22, 5/16/22 , 6/20/22, 7/18/22, 8/15/22, 9/19/22, 10/17/22, 11/21/22, and 12/5/22. • Joint, Multiagency Emergency Operation Center (Activated on 03/16/20; Transitioned from Assigned Foster City Liaison to Multiple Staffed Positions; Transitioned to Virtual EOC on 05/11/20; Closed EOC on 05/29/20)
o Daily Emergency Action Plan (EAP) prepared and distributed by EOC o Daily Situation Status Report (SIT STAT) created and distributed by EOC Ongoing
6.9 Attachment 4 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
269
Implement adjustments to City services and operations in response to Public Health Orders • Order No. c19-2, dated March 12, 2020
o Cancelled all non-essential meetings, events, and large gatherings through month of March
o Issued refunds for voluntary cancellations
o No longer accepted new facility reservation requests
o Implemented social distancing measures for any upcoming, essential meetings
o Restricted non-essential travel for all employees
o Encouraged public to utilize City services available online, over-the -phone, and/or email
• Order No. c19-5, dated March 16, 2020
o City Facilities Closure through April 7, 2020, including park amenities such a playgrounds, restrooms, fenced/gated facilities
o Transitioned all future City Council and Planning Commission meetings to be conducted via teleconference/video conference
o Cancelled all classes and programs through April 7, 2020 o Transitioned employees to telework/remote
• Order No. c19-5b (Revised), dated March 31, 2020
o City Facilities Closure through May 3, 2020, including park amenities such a playgrounds, restrooms, fenced/gated facilities
o Extended limitations to recreational activity spaces, with only park pathways and open green space (nonathletic fields) remaining opening o Cancelled all non-essential meetings and events through May 3, 2020 o Issued stop work orders to cease all non -essential construction activity immediately
o Posted required Social Distancing Protocol and Signage • Health Recommendation (to Cover Face), dated April 2, 2020 o All essential workers on-site, in-field to follow same recommendations and be an example to the community by wearing appropriate coverings at all times • Order No. c19-8, dated April 17, 2020
o All employees to have face c overings at all times, when working with others and in areas that are frequented by your co -workers, including hallways, restrooms, stairways, lunch and break rooms, and other shared spaces. • Order No. c19-5c (Revised), dated April 29, 2020
o City Facilities Closure through May 31, 2020, including park amenities such a playgrounds, restrooms, fenced/gated facilities
o Cancelled all non-essential meetings and events through May 31, 2020 Ongoing
6.9 Attachment 4 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
270
o Construction, landscaping and gardening work allowed to resume o Posted required, updated Social Distancing Protocol and Signage o Developing phased reopening of City facilities based on evaluation of easing of restrictions within Order
• Order No. c19-5d (Revised), dated May 15, 2020
o Developed phased reopening of City facilities based on evaluation of easing of restrictions within Order , with outlined protocols and best practices on preventative measures, site- specific changes, reconfigurations, screening, cleaning/disinfecting, communication & posting, etc.
o Outdoor facilities with high -touch equipment or that encourage gathering must remain closed to public access. Such facilities include playgrounds, gym equipment, climbing walls, picnic areas, dog parks, spas, and barbecue areas. o Removal of previous order’s limit on travel for recreational activities to within 10 miles from home
• Order No. c19-8b (Revised), dated May 19, 2020
o All members of the public and workers to wear face coverings at all times • Order No. c19-5e (Revised), dated May 28, 2020
o Additional activities allowed, including places of worship, retail, car parades, and protests
o Reopened four (4) pickleball and two (9) tennis courts; implementing reservation system and active monitoring by City staff
o Cancelled all non-essential meetings and events through June 30, 2020 o Reevaluated all major City special events (such as Fourth of July, Summer Concerts, and Summer Days) and proposed plans for events in virtual, modified formats
• Order No. c19-5f (Revised), dated June 4, 2020
o Additional activities allowed, including outdoor dining, charter boat operations, and funerals
o Reopened beach parks, boat docks, two (2) walking tracks, and parking lots of all (except one) park sites
o Developed visitor protocols to provide guidance on requirements and expectations of those seeking in-person services, with outlined protocols and best practices on preventative measures, self -health assessments, face covering and social distance requirements, capacity levels, etc. o More employees reintroduced into the workplace; implementation of appointment scheduling software to allow in- person services beginning June 15, 2020
• Order No. c19-11, dated June 17, 2020
6.9 Attachment 4 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
271
o Limits gatherings to no more than 50 people, outlines social distancing and face covering requirements, allows for social bubbles of no more than 12, and requires businesses to implement a social distancing protocol and written health and safety plans
o Reopened all pickleball and tennis courts, as well as removed reservation system and active monitoring by City staff
o Reopened bocce ball courts and volleyball courts
o Reopened park restrooms at five (5) locations
o More employees to be reintroduced into the workplace; however reopening of all City facilities postponed until further notice
• County Added to State Monitoring List, July 29, 2020
o Shut down of certain i ndustries or activities, unless modified to operate outside
o City temporarily suspends code enforcement actions against businesses such as salons/barbers, personal care services, gyms/fitness centers, and offices that are not currently permitted to provide outdoor operations o Skate park reopened on August 14, 2020
• County Ranked Purple in State’s New Color-Coded Reopening System, August 28, 2020 o Effective August 31, all retail and shopping centers can open at 25% capacity, and all hair salons and barbershops can resume indoor operations • County Ranked Red in State’s New Color -Coded Reopening System, September 22, 2020
o Restaurants indoors (max 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever is fewer) o All retail indoors (max 50% capacity)
o Shopping centers, swap meets indoors (max 50% capacity, closed common areas)
o Personal care services – hair and nail salons, barbershops (open with modifications)
o Museums, zoos and aquariums (max 25% capacity)
o Places of worship (max 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever is fewer) o Movie theaters in doors (max 25% capacity or 100 people) o Schools one step closer to reopening (only after two weeks in Tier 2/Red) • CA Department of Public Health New Guidance on Playgrounds and Outdoor Recreational Facilities, September 28, 2020
o Playgrounds, basketball courts, all park bathrooms, the Fitness Court, and the Skate Park to reopen, with restrictions, on October 8
o Parks staff preparing for reopening of amenities by sanitizing all playgrounds and removing fencing
6.9 Attachment 4 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
272
• County Ranked Orange in State’s Color-Coded Reopening System, October 27, 2020 o Indoor family entertainment centers, outdoor bars and breweries not o serving food, indoor climbing walls and certain other businesses and activities to open with capacity restrictions
o Dine-in restaurants, movie theaters, places of worship and additional businesses can boost their indoor capacities as well
• Order No. c19-7c (Revised), dated October 29, 2020
o Updated orders for individuals who are close contacts of a positive case (for quarantine) or who have tested positive for COVID -19 (for isolation), along with instructions for home quarantine and home isolation o Specific rules applicable to health care workers and first responders • County Ranked Red in State’s Color-Coded Reopening System, November 17, 2020 o Restaurants indoors (max 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever is fewer) o All retail indoors (max 50% capacity)
o Shopping centers, swap meets indoors (max 50% capacity, closed common areas)
o Personal care services – hair and nail salons, barbershops (open with modifications)
o Museums, zoos and aquariums (max 25% capacity)
o Places of worship (max 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever is fewer) o Movie theaters in doors (max 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever is fewer) o Gyms and fitness centers indoors (max 10% capacity)
• County Ranked Purple in State’s Color-Coded Reopening System, November 29, 2020 and Limited Stay at Home Order, starting November 30, 2020 o Businesses and activities that may have been operating indoors – including places of worship, movie theaters, gyms and museums – must move outdoors or close.
o Shopping malls and all retail must operate at no more than 25 percent capacity.
o Prohibited residents from leaving their homes to gather with other households from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m.
• Regional Stay at Home Order, starting December 17, 2020 o Prohibits private gatherings of any size, except for outdoor church services and political demonstrations.
o Restaurants must stop offering in -person dining and can offer only take -out and delivery.
o Many businesses and activities must close, including salons and barbershops. o Retail can remain open at 20 percent capacity.
6.9 Attachment 4 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
273
o Nonessential travel and the use of hotels or short -term rentals for leisure is banned.
• County Ranked Purple in State’s Color-Coded Reopening System, January 25, 2021 o Businesses and activities that may have been operating indoors – including places of worship, movie theaters, gyms and museums – must move outdoors or close.
o Shopping malls and all retail must operate at no more than 25 percent capacity.
• County Ranked Red in State’s Color-Coded Reopening System, February 24, 2021 o Restaurants indoors (max 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever is fewer) o All retail indoors (max 50% capacity)
o Shopping centers, swap meets indoors (max 50% capacity, c losed common areas)
o Personal care services – hair and nail salons, barbershops (open with modifications)
o Museums, zoos and aquariums (max 25% capacity)
o Places of worship (max 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever is fewer) o Movie theaters in doors (max 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever is fewer) o Gyms and fitness centers indoors (max 10% capacity)
• County Ranked Orange in State’s Color-Coded Reopening System, March 17, 2021 o Restaurants indoors (max 50% capacity or 200 people, whichever is fewer) o All retail/shopping indoors (open with modifications, closed common areas and reduced capacity in food courts)
o Museums, zoos and aquariums (max 50% capacity)
o Places of worship (max 50% capacity or 200 people, whichever is fewer) o Movie theaters indoors (open with modifications)
o Gyms and fitness centers indoors (max 25% capacity, indoor pools and climbing walls open)
• CA Department of Public Health New Guidance on Travel, April 2, 2021 o CDPH and the CDC recommend delaying travel until persons are fully vaccinated. Fully vaccinated travelers should follow CDC travel guidance and are not required to test or quarantine before or after travel unless they have symptoms concerning for COVID-19 disease.
• Governor Gavin Newsom outlines the State’s next step in the COVID- 19 pandemic recovery, moving beyond the Blueprint for a Safer Economy, and announces that on June 15, California will fully reopen if criteria are met. • CA Department of Public Health New Guidance on Gatherings and Live Events, April 15, 2021
6.9 Attachment 4 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
274
o For the Orange Tier starting on April 15, outdoor gathering size increases to 50 people.
o For private events or meetings such as receptions or conferences, outdoor gatherings are limited to 100 people.
o Indoor live events or performances are allowed with capacity limits and modifications including physic al distancing, advance ticket purchases, designated areas for eating and drinking, and attendance limited to in -state visitors.
• CA Department of Public Health New Guidance on Use of Face Coverings, May 3, 2021 o For fully vaccinated persons, face coverings are not required outdoors except when attending crowded outdoor events, such as live performances, parades, fairs, festivals, sports events, or other similar settings. o For unvaccinated persons, face coverings are required outdoors any time physical distancing cannot be maintained, including when attending crowded outdoor events, such as live performances, parades, fairs, festivals, sports events, or other similar settings.
o In indoor settings outside of one's home, including public transportation, face coverings continue to be required regardless of vaccination status, except as outlined below.
• County Ranked Yellow in State’s Color-Coded Reopening System, May 12, 2021 o Allows expanded capacity at restaurants, gyms, movie theaters, indoor businesses and a host of other operations.
o Bars that do not serve food can reopen indoors with a maximum capacity of 25 percent or 100 people, whichever is fewer.
• California officially reopens and moves “ Beyond the Blueprint ,” which ends the the color-coded reopening tier systems and lifts most restrictions on businesses. The County of San Mateo fully aligns with all state COVID -19 health and safety guidelines and has no plans to impose separate guidance.
o Most County of San Mateo offices opened to the public on June 15, 2021. o City of Foster City reopens Council Chambers and begins hybrid in-person and virtual City Council meetings on July 19, 2021.
o City of Foster City reopens City Hall to general public for walk -ins du ring regular business hours from 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, Monday to Friday, on July 26, 2021.
o City of Foster City reopens Recreation Center and begins offering indoor programs again on August 9, 2021.
• Order No. c19-12, dated August 3, 2021
6.9 Attachment 4 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
275
o Directs that face coverings shall be worn, regardless of vaccination status, over the mouth and nose, in all indoor public settings, venues, gatherings, and workplaces, such as, but not limited to: offices, retail stores, restaurants and bars, theaters, family entertainment centers, conference centers and government offices serving the public.
• Governor Gavin Newsom sig ns Assembly Bill 361 on September 16, 2021, as the provisions of Executive Order No. N- 29-20 (as revised by Executive Order No. N-08- 21), which modifies the requirements for conduct ing meetings via teleconference during the COVID-19 pandemic, expires on September 30, 2021. • County Health issues criteria for lifting COVID -19 indoor masking requirements to allow organizations to set those requirements independently , when all of the following are achieved, October 7, 2021:
o The rate of COVID-19 transmission reaches the “moderate” or yellow tier and remains there for at least three weeks; AND
o The number of people hospitalized for COVID -19 is low and stable in the judgement of local health officials; AND
o The percent of the total population that is fully vaccinated – two doses of Pfizer or Moderna or one dose of Johnson & Johnson – reaches 80 percent OR eight weeks have passed since a COVID -19 vaccine has been authorized for emergency use by federal and state authorities for 5- to 11-year-olds. • CA Department of Public Health Statewide Mandate on Masks, December 15, 2021 o Requiring masks to be worn in all indoor public setting s, irrespective of vaccine status, until February 15, 2022
• In alignment with the State, San Mateo County will rescind indoor mask r equirements effective February 16, 2022 . Unvaccinated individuals will still be required to mask indoors. Everyone, regardless of vaccination status, will be required to mask indoors in high-risk settings, including public transportation, health care settings, congregate settings like correctional facilities and homeless shelters, long-term care facilities, and in K-12 schools and childcare settings.
o City of Foster City reopens Council Chambers and returns to hybrid in-person and virtual City Council meetings on March 7, 2022.
o Indoor masking, though strongly encouraged, is no longer required at City facilities effective March 14, 2022.
• On April 6, 2022, the California Department of Public Health updated its guidance so that masking is no longer required in schools, though strongly encouraged. • On April 18, f ederal judge issues ruling that masks are no longer required on transportation conveyances and at transportation hubs.
6.9 Attachment 4 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
276
• On October 17, 2022, Governor Newsom announced the declared COVID-19 State of Emergency will end on February 28, 2022.
OBJECTIVE ACTION ITEMS STATUS
TO P ROVIDE ESSENTIAL SERVICES AND
CONTINUITY OF CITY OPERATIONS WITH
MINIMAL DISRUPTION (TO EXTENT
POSSIBLE)
Implement Continuity of Operations/Government (COOP/COG) Plans • Identify essential services; includes public safety, water and wastewater, critical infrastructure maintenance, etc. (Detailed by Department in Separate Document) • Identify essential workers and establish staffing levels necessary to carry out essential functions (Detailed by Department in Separate Document) Ongoing; Changes
with Progress
Establish and coordinate COVID-19 Response Team
• Includes Department Heads and 1-2 Essential Employees from Each Department • Centralized Point of Contact with Joint, Multiagency Emergency Operations Center • Check-In Meetings (Transitioned from Weekly, to Biweekly, and to As Needed) • After Action Debrief Meeting on 06/24/20
Ongoing
Establish and coordinate COVID-19 Return to Work Taskforce • Organized by City Manager and Human Resources Departments, and Includes 1 -2 Employees from Each Department
• Developed ‘Employee Return to Work’ Policy as well as Visitor Policy & Protocols • Developed ‘Adaptable Work Schedule Program’
Ongoing
OBJECTIVE ACTION ITEMS STATUS
TO EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE,
EDUCATE, AND INFORM THE COMMUNITY
Provide reliable information to the community that is uniform and consistent with the County & State guidelines
• Participate in PIO conference calls
• Share information as released by County in an effort to centralize resources • Coordinate messaging with SMC Fire (Member Agencies) for consistency • Create landing page of COVID -19 general information on City website – https://www.fostercity.org/covid19
• Create landing page of COVID-19 available City services online and by appointment on City website – https://www.fostercity.org/citymanager/page/citywide-services • Create landing page of COVID -19 response/programs on City website – https://www.fostercity.org/citymanager/page/foster-city-covid-19-response • Create landing page of COVID -19 business resources on City website – https://www.fostercity.org/citymanager/page/covid-19-business-resources • Enable alert on top header of City website with latest City update on COVID-19 • Enable spotlight on City website main page directing to COVID-19 landing page Ongoing
Provide messaging that increases public awareness of mandatory precautionary measures and available resources for the community
Ongoing
6.9 Attachment 4 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
277
• Signage –
o City Facilities Closures – Posted at Building Entrances, Gated Park Facilities, Playgrounds, Bathrooms, etc.
o Electronic Board (for Social Distancing) – Placed on Levee Pedway o Chalk Markings (for Social Distancing) – 6 Feet Markers on Levee Pedway o Metal Signage (for Social Distancing) – Posted Along Levee Pedway o City Facilities Requirements – Face Coverings, Social Distancing Guidelines/Floor Markers, Limited Capacity in Common Spaces, etc. • FCTV Bulletin – Updated with COVID-19 Information
• Electronic Marquee – Updated with COVID-19 Information • Press Releases –
o March 11, 2020
o March 13, 2020
o March 15, 2020
o March 16, 2020
o April 3, 2020
o April 8, 2020
o April 22, 2020
o April 23, 2020
o April 30, 2020
o May 27, 2020
o June 3, 2020
o October 7, 2020
o June 2, 2021
o June 17, 2021
o July 16, 2021
o July 28, 2021
o October 28, 2021
o January 5, 2022
o February 18, 2022
o March 8, 2022
• Videos/Public Service Announcements –
o Letter from Mayor (Released 03/18/20)
o Video from Mayor (Released 03/26/20)
o Letter from Mayor (Released 03/31/20)
o Joint PSA with SMC Fire Member Agencies (Released on 04/10/20) o COVID-19 Relief Program (Released 05/14/20)
o Summer Safety Message from City Council (Released 06/04/20)
6.9 Attachment 4 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
278
o Congratulations to Class of 2020 (Released on 06/09/20) o Visit City Hall Online (Released 07/01/20)
o Submit Permits Online (Released 07/01/20)
o Wear a Mask (Released 08/11/20)
• E-Newsletter/Weekly City Update –
o March 26, 2020
o April 1, 2020
o April 10, 2020
o April 16, 2020
o April 23, 2020
o May 1, 2020
o May 7, 2020
o May 14, 2020
o May 21, 2020
o May 28, 2020
o June 4, 2020
o June 11, 2020
o June 18, 2020
o June 25, 2020
o July 1, 2020
o July 9, 2020
o July 16, 2020
o July 23, 2020
o July 30, 2020
o August 6, 2020
o August 13, 2020
o August 20, 2020
o August 27, 2020
o September 3, 2020
o September 10, 2020
o September 17, 2020
o September 24, 2020
o October 1, 2020
o October 8, 2020
o October 15, 2020
o October 22, 2020
o October 29, 2020
o November 5, 2020
6.9 Attachment 4 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
279
o November 12, 2020
o November 19, 2020
o November 26, 2020
o December 3, 2020
o December 10, 2020
o December 16, 2020
o December 31, 2020
o January 7, 2021
o January 15, 2021
o January 21, 2021
o January 28, 2021
o February 4, 2021
o February 11, 2021
o February 18, 2021
o February 25, 2021
o March 4, 2021
o March 11, 2021
o March 18, 2021
o March 25, 2021
o April 1, 2021
o April 8, 2021
o April 15, 2021
o April 22, 2021
o April 29, 2021
o May 6, 2021
o May 13, 2021
o May 20, 2021
o May 27, 2021
o June 3, 2021
o June 10, 2021
o June 17, 2021
o June 24, 2021
o July 1, 2021
o July 8, 2021
o July 15, 2021
o July 22, 2021
o July 29, 2021
o August 5, 2021
6.9 Attachment 4 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
280
o August 12, 2021
o August 19, 2021
o August 26, 2021
o September 2, 2021
o September 9, 2021
o September 16, 2021
o September 23, 2021
o September 30, 2021
o October 7, 2021
o October 14, 2021
o October 21, 2021
o October 28, 2021
o November 4, 2021
o November 10, 2021
o November 18, 2021
o November 24, 2021
o December 2, 2021
o December 9, 2021
o December 16, 2021
o December 22, 2021
o December 29, 2021
o January 13, 2022
o January 27, 2022
o February 10, 2022
o February 24, 2022
o March 10, 2022
o March 24, 2022
o April 14, 2022
o April 28, 2022
o May 12, 2022
o May 26, 2022
o June 9, 2022
o June 23, 2022
o July 14, 2022
o July 28, 2022
o August 11, 2022
o August 25, 2022
o September 8, 2022
6.9 Attachment 4 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
281
o September 22, 2022
o October 13, 2022
o October 27, 2022
o November 10, 2022
o November 23, 2022
o December 8, 2022
o December 22, 2022
• Recology Billing Mailer –
o June: “We’re in this together, Foster City! Thank you for helping slow the spread of COVID-19. Practice social distancing of at least 6 feet, wear a face covering, and wash your hands frequently. Follow Foster City ne ws and updates at www.fostercity.org/covid19.”
o August: Flyer – “It’s up to all of us, Foster City”
Participate in opportunities for community education whenever possible • City Manager provided COVID-19 update to Rotary Club on 03/25/20 (via Zoom) • Patrol Officers to educate public whenever responding to/enforcing violation reports • Police Chief to host Community Connect/FCPD Virtual Station Tour/Live Q&A event on 04/16/20 (via Facebook Live)
• City Manager and Mayor provided update to Foster City Village on 03/23/21 (via Zoom)
• Partnered with Congresswoman Speier to host a week-long “In America: Remember” exhibit honoring San Mateo County residents who died of COVID-19 from 11/07/21 to 11/14/21
Ongoing
OBJECTIVE ACTION ITEMS STATUS
TO SUPPORT NEEDS OF VULNERABLE/AT-
RISK POPULATIONS, MOBILIZING
COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS,
NON-PROFITS, AND PRIVATE SECTOR
Work in partnership with community-based organizations and/or non-profits to help support needs of at-risk populations
• Volunteers at-Large: Direct all volunteer inquiries to County for centralized deployment system – https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WSXH6PZ • Senior Services:
o Rotary Club Senior Meals Program – Generally, first and third Tuesday of the month; however, suspended until further notice as they have a highly social aspect to them.
o Foster City Village – A ctively conducting Meals on Wheels (Mon day-Friday), providing tr ansportation to urgent medical appointments, picking up prescriptions, and conducting their “We Care” program where FCV volunteers make phone calls to their members as a friendly, supportive check in Ongoing
6.9 Attachment 4 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
282
o Foster City Village – City Council allocated $5,000 on 04/06/20 to help provide protective supply purchases, grocery bag deliveries, food distributions, and gasoline cards for volunteer drivers. These measures will help with additional expenses incurred by the Village as they continue operations while protecting our seniors during the pandemic.
o Senior Shopping Hours – Foster City Safeway (Tuesdays and Thursdays from 6:00 AM-9:00 AM), Target at Bridgepointe (Tuesdays and Wednesdays from 8:00 AM-9:00 AM), Lucky Supermarkets (Tuesdays and Thursdays from 6:00 AM-9:00 AM), Costco (Tuesdays and Thursdays from 8:00 AM-9:00 AM), Ranch 99 (every weekday from 8:00 AM-9:00 AM), and Trader Joe's (daily from 9:00 AM-10:00 AM)
o Foster City Village – Comfort Care Meal Delivery Program for 20 Weeks (01/28/21 to 06/10/21) includes one weekly meal prepared by rotating Foster City restaurants and hand-delivered by volunteer cadre (including Foster City staff)
• Food Distribution:
o Second Harvest Food Bank – Pre-boxed meals distribution to take place the first and third Friday at 9:00 AM/9:30 AM at the Recreation Center parking lot, in a drive-up fashion
o SMFC School District Food Program – Free meal program, grab and go style breakfast and lunch meals, available for all kids and teens 18 and under at Foster City Elementary School. City Council approved allocation of $10,000 on 05/11/20 to help costs of expanding this program. [ENDED] o Great Plates Program – Delivering meals to older adults who are at heightened risk and are unable to obtain or prepare meals on their own while shelterin g in place [ENDED]
o Impossible Market pilot program, not to exceed $5,000, to introduce food & grocery subscription subsidy for 100 financially-impacted Foster City families approved by City Council on 11/02/20 [DISCONTINUED]
• Students/Distance Learning:
o SMFC Education Foundation – City Council approved allocation of $10,000 to help supplement costs of hot spots and internet access to carry out distance learning programs.
Collaborate with the County, SAMCEDA, and Foster City Chamber of Commerce to understand impacts of COVID-19 on businesses and develop financial assistance programs that can offer immediate relief as needed
• Issued survey to businesses to better understand e conomic impacts of COVID -19 – https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BXH6H86
Ongoing
6.9 Attachment 4 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
283
• Built Business Resources Page on City website that includes latest updates – https://www.fostercity.org/citymanager/page/covid-19-business-resources • Built directory of businesses open/available for delivery or pick -up – https://local.fostercity.org/
• Help promote San Mateo County Strong Fund, donation f und to help residents, nonprofit organizations and small businesses – https://www.smcstrong.org/ • Evaluated U.S. Senate Bill S.3548 - Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) and an informational report was provided to the City Council on 04/06/20. • Developed Small Businesses Resiliency Grant Program to support operations and help avert layoffs during the COVID-19 public health emergency. $500,000 (allocated for a grant of $10,000 per business for up to 50 businesses ) approved by City Council on 04/06/20.
• Expanded Support Local Foster City Campaign to provide vouchers through the Support Local Stamp Me app, allowing customers to get take-out during the shelter in place order. $25,000 (allocated for $10 vouchers to be offered to all Stamp Me users) approved by City Council on 04/06/20.
• Consider options for Moratorium on Commercial Evictions (TBD; County covers unincorporated areas only)
• Participated in Chamber of Commerce “Chamber Cares Initiative” Weekly Meeting re:
COVID-19 Impacts on Non-Profits 06/16/20
• Outdoor dining temporarily allowed for restaurants looking to provide outdoor dining service and suspend ed Code Enforcement a ctions approved by City Council on 07/06/20
• Prepared and distributed approximately (100) Rethink, Reopen, Restart Kits to storefront businesses in shopping centers to support reopening efforts • Outdoor services temporarily allowed for businesses such as salons/barbers, personal care services, gyms/fitness centers, and offices , and suspended Code Enforcement actions approved by City Council on 07/31/20
• Terms of a Revolving Business Loan Program (Approved by City Council on 09/28/20); Establishment of RBLP (Approved by City Council on 11/02/20, then decision to defer thereafter on 03/15/21)
• Analysis of waiving or deferring permit fees and business license fees for one year to prioritize commercial spaces for waiving of permit fees (Direction initially provided by City Council on 11/02/20, then decision to not pursue further thereafter on 03/15/21) • Expanded Support Local Foster City Campaign to provide vouchers through the Support Local Stamp Me app, allowing customers to get take-out during the shelter in place order. Additional $25,000 (allocated for $10 vouchers to be offered to all Stamp Me users) approved by City Council on 11/16/20.
6.9 Attachment 4 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
284
• Helped promote Restaurant, Brewery & Winery Relief , relief fund to help small business impacted by the pandemic – https://www.smcstrong.org/restaurantrelief • Partnered with the Chamber of Commerce to distribute two surveys – Business Needs and Shopper Preferences, which was open between 03/11/21 -03/11/21; findings received and accepted by City Council on 04/19/21
• Small Business Assistance Plan presented to City Council on 05/17/21 and on 06/21/21 • Helped promote living!LOCAL Holiday Marketplace by Chamber of Commerce to highlight local goods and services, and benefit ting both shoppers and family -run businesses – https://www.whimlocal.com/event/livinglocal/feed • Helped promote Microfood Business Grant Program to help micro food businesses that have not received assistance from the County COVID -19-relief programs in the past 12 months – https://www.smcstrong.org/archivedapplyforfunding Continue dialogue with hotels to understand impacts of COVID-19 on occupancy and consider use of hotels as alternative care facilities
• Connected Nathan Tsai (owner of Crowne Plaza and Towne Place Suites) with County Manager Mike Callagy regarding 650 rooms available
Ongoing
Address risks of homelessness and/or displacement
• Countywide eviction moratorium ordinance; resolution adopting an Emergency Regulation, Pursuant to Section 8634 of the Government Code and Chapter 2.46 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code, establishing a temporary, countywide moratorium on eviction for non -payment of rent by residential tenant s directly impacted by the COVID -19 pandemic; extended through July 28 , 2020 by Board of Supervisors on 06/23/20
• Temporary countywide eviction moratorium for non-payment of rent by residential tenants directly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic through August 31 and extended the time period in which delayed payments shall be made; amendment to Emergency Regulation approved by Board of Supervisors on 08/04/20 • Allocation of $1 million to the San Mateo County Emergency Financial Assistance Program (ERAP) and c ontinued outreach for the state Emergency Rental Assistance Program to help residents impacted by COVID -19. Eligible applicants include renters/tenants those who have experienced financial hardship due to COVID -19, have past due rent or utilities, and have a household income that is not more than 80% of the area median income, as well as property owners/landlords with income - eligible renters. Approved by Board of Supervisors on 06/29/21 Passed on
03/24/20;
06/23/20;
08/04/20
Support mental wellness/wellbeing of the Foster City Community • Promote and expand on Virtual Recreation and Resource Center to keep community engaged and active – https://www.fostercity.org/parksrec/page/virtual-r ecreation- and-resource-center
Ongoing
6.9 Attachment 4 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
285
• Promoted San Mateo County Psychological Association (SMCPA) Virtual Town Halls (04/05/20 and 04/09/20)
• Participated in ‘Thank You Event’ at San Mateo Medical Center with SMC Fire Member Agencies, Public Safety Personnel, City Staff, and Legislative Officials (05/04/20) Build out database for Countywide Community Evacuation Interface to support mass shelter in place and assist with information sharing – https://community.zonehaven.com/ • Assigned liaison to support data needs, provide resources, and update map Ongoing
OBJECTIVE ACTION ITEMS STATUS
TO FOSTER A SAFE WORKPLACE AND
ENABLE THE EMPLOYEE BASE TO
PERFORM
Scale workforce to essential functions only and transition employees to telework/remote to extent possible
• Distributed Teleworking Policy and Form to all employees (March 2020 and December 2020)
• Staffing levels/schedule established on a weekly/monthly basis (dependent on department)
• Provided regular updates to all employees via City Manager and Human Resources (issued 11 internal memos to -date) and Management Team Meeting (on 05/27/20) and All-Hands Meeting (on 05/28/20, 07/29/20, and 12/15/20) • Provided regular updates to City staff via bimonthly City Manager update “The Bulletin” (First and Third Fridays of Each Month); transitioning to monthly updates in 2021
• Shared information on Families First Coronavirus Response Act • Provided tools for all employees to effectively work remotely (with IT Assistance); includes equipment issuance, tele/video conferencing tools such as Microsoft Teams and Zoom, and web -based Employee Resource Page –
https://www.fostercity.org/employees
• Established ‘Return to Work Taskforce ’ and Developed ‘Employee Return to Work’ Policy
• Developed ‘Adaptable Work Schedule Program’
Ongoing
Ensure safety of front-line/essential personnel, i.e. first responders • Ensure personnel are equipped with PPE and are able to minimize in -person interactions whenever possible (reduced access to Police & Fire Departments, alternate teams/shifts, etc.)
• Provide accommodations for quarantining/isolation by coordinating with County EOC • Provide resources to COVID -19 testing if needed through https://verily.com/ or https://www.projectbaseline.com/study/covid-19/
• Provide childcare options for front -line/essential personnel, i.e. first responders – https://sanmateo4cs.org/
Ongoing
6.9 Attachment 4 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
286
o Shared survey to gather information and better assess needs jurisdiction – https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SMC_COVID19_childcare
• Implemented self-health assessment/screening requirement at entry points; including installation of thermal scanners at City Hall and Police Department • Posted required Social Distancing Protocol and Signage at City facility entrances and share information with all employees
• Informed all employees of Face Covering Requirement; p roviding supply of masks if necessary
• Departments coordinating with ‘Return to Work Taskforce’ for site- specific modifications/adaptations (including spacing and health/sneeze guards) ; as well as visitor safety protocols
• Acquired donation of ~5,000 cloth face coverings through U.S. Conference of Mayors ‘Masks for Mayors Initiative’
• Sanitation station/supplies set up in various locations throughout City facilities • Acquiring COVID-19 at-home/self-test kits through County for public safety personnel
OBJECTIVE ACTION ITEMS STATUS
TO PROVIDE LONG -TERM STRATEGIC
PLANNING IN RESPONSE TO COVID -19
AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO CITY
OPERATIONS
Continue to monitor and work with the County to understand trajectory of COVID-19 and how it may impact City operations and needs of the community • Modeling data will be used a basis to prepare for contingencies where needed and to prepare for reopening of economy/transition to normal operations through phased approach
• Assigned representative to County’s Long-Term Strategic Planning Taskforce • Created ‘Return to Work Taskforce’ to develop policy/strategy for reopening City facilities; as well as policy/safety protocols for visitors & members of the public • Created ‘Parks Reopening Taskforce’ to develop policy/strategy for reopening park facilities
• Overview of San Mateo County Recovery Initiative presented to City Council on 10/05/20 and report accepted by Board of Supervisors on 10/06/20 Ongoing
Evaluate and consider additional actions that are recommended or may be required dependent on outcome/progression of COVID-19 situation; including (but not limited to):
• Extension of City Facilities Closure (TBD; Based on Public Health Order and Until Further Notice)
• Suspend or Freeze Shut -Offs/Disconnection of Water Service for Non -Payment (Currently in Effect)
• Waiver of Credit Card Fees for Online Payment of Utilities Through June 30, 2020 (Approved by City Council on 04/06/20)
Ongoing
6.9 Attachment 4 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
287
• Explore Feasibility of Charging Tier 1 Rates for Water Service (No Longer Pursuing Due to Minor Cost Difference)
• Developed Small Businesses Resiliency Grant Program to support operations and help avert layoffs during the COVID-19 public health emergency. $500,000 (allocated for a grant of $10,000 per busi ness for up to 50 businesses ) approved by City Council on 04/06/20.
• Expanded Support Local Foster City Campaign to provide vouchers through the Support Local Stamp Me app, allowing customers to get take-out during the shelter in place order. $25,000 (allocated for $10 vouchers to be offered to all Stamp Me users) approved by City Council on 04/06/20.
• Consider Options for Moratorium on Commercial Evictions (TBD; County covers unincorporated areas only)
• Freeze Hiring/New Recruitments and Filling of Vacant Positions (Currently in Effect) • Initiated Friendly Streets, Foster City Initiative, dedicating approximately a 1.75 mile stretch of road on northbound Beach Park Boulevard for bicyclists and runners. One lane will be barricaded off from cars to allow bicyclists and runners to safely use the designated detour. In parallel with the detour, this stretch of Levee Pedway is reserved for walking only. (Approved by City Council on 04/06/20) [DISCONTINUED] • Expanded Friendly Streets, Foster City Initiative to extend lane closure on Beach Park Boulevard from Teal Street to Gull Avenue ( Approved by City Council on 05/11/20) [DISCONTINUED]
• Allocated $20,000 total ($10,000 each) to the San Mateo -Foster City Elementary School District /Community Education Foundation for its Free Meal Program and Mobile Hotspot/Wi-Fi for Distance Learning (Approved by City Council on 05/11/20) • COVID-19 Recovery Planning Update provided at City Council Vision & Policy Summit (on 06/04/20)
• Outdoor Dining Temporarily Allowed for Restaurants Looking to Provide Outdoor Dining Service and Suspen ded Code Enforcement A ctions (Approved by City Council on 07/06/20)
• Prepared and distributed approximately (100) Rethink, Reopen, Restart Kits to storefront businesses in shopping centers to support reopening efforts • Outdoor Services Temporarily Allowed for Businesses (such as salons/barbers, personal care services, gyms/fitness centers, and offices) and Suspended Code Enforcement Actions (Approved by City Council on 07/31/20) • Terms of a Revolving Business Loan Program (Approved by City Council on 09/28/20); Establishment of RBLP (Approved by City Council on 11/02/20, then decision to defer thereafter on 03/15/21)
6.9 Attachment 4 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
288
• Analysis of waiving or deferring permit fees and business license fees for one year to prioritize commercial spaces for waiving of permit fees (Direction initially provided by City Council on 11/02/20, then decision to not pursue further thereafter on 03/15/21) • Impossible Market pilot program, not to exceed $5,000, to introduce food & grocery subscription subsidy for 100 financially-impacted Foster City families approved by City Council on 11/02/20 [DISCONTINUED]
• Expanded Support Local Foster City Campaign to provide vouchers through the Support Local Stamp Me app, allowing customers to get take-out during the shelter in place order. Additional $25,000 (allocated for $10 vouchers to be offered to all Stamp Me users) approved by City Council on 11/16/20.
• Helped promote Restaurant, Brewery & Winery Relief, relief fund to help small business impacted by the pandemic – https://www.smcstrong.org/restaurantrelief
• Partnered with the Chamber of Commerce to distribute two surveys – Business Needs and Shopper Preferences, which was open between 03/11/21 -03/11/21; findings received and accepted by City Council on 04/19/21
• Small Business Assistance Plan presented to City Council on 05/17/21 and on 06/21/21 Monitor revenue impacts , e xplore options for expenditure reductions , and seek financial assistance/opportunities for cost recovery of funds
• Track damage estimates and expenditures related to COVID-19 • Log personnel time on Form 214s in relation to COVID-19 incident response • Submit “Request for Public Assistance” through California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Recovery Section for F ederal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA's) Public Assistance Program (Submitted on 04/02/20) • Seek approval of the “Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution for Non -State Agencies” for the Purpose of Cost Recovery Eligibility (Approved by City Council on 04/06/20)
• Discussed City financial impacts related to COVID-19 (04/20/20 City Council Meeting) • Discussed p rojected financial impacts of COVID -19 beyond the current fiscal year (05/11/20 Budget Study Session)
• Hired MGT Consulting for consultant services for COVID-19 CARES/FEMA Disaster Cost Recovery (08/24/20)
• Quarterly updates on City’s economic performance and impacts related to COVID-19, including strategies to close long -term structural deficit (09/08/20 City Council Meeting)
Ongoing
6.9 Attachment 4 - City of Foster City - COVID-19 Response Plan Summary (as of January 6, 2023)
289
DATE: January 17, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
FROM: Benjamin Stock, City Attorney
DEPARTMENT: City Attorney
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO SIGN A LETTER
URGING STATE LEGISLATORS TO AMEND ASSEMBLY BILL
(“AB”) 2449
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by minute order, authorize the Mayor to sign a letter urging the State Legislators to amend AB 2449.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 21, 2022 then Councilmember Sanjay Gehani requested and a majority of Council supported a future agenda item to discuss changes relating to teleconferenced meetings as a result of AB 2449. Since that time, other jurisdictions in San Mateo County and throughout California have analyzed AB 2449 and have determined that the bill does not adequately meet the needs of public agencies.
The City of San Carlos, together with legislative consultants, is working to build a coalition of local and regional agencies who support the position that AB 2449 poses arbitrary and unnecessary burdens on local legislators with respect to quorum requirements, just cause and emergency circumstances, limits on the number of remote meetings allowed, and other considerations as discussed further below and in the attached documents. The City of San Carlos is encouraging other cities to send a letter to Assemblymember Rubio requesting amendment of AB 2449 based on the template provided (See Attachment 1).
6.10 6.10 Staff Report
290
BACKGROUND
The Ralph M. Brown Act ("Brown Act") is a California law that guarantees the public's right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies. The Brown Act allows a city council to use any type of teleconferencing in connection with any meeting. "Teleconference" is defined as "a meeting of individuals in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both." While it allows for teleconferencing, the Brown Act imposes certain restrictions and requirements around what constitutes a quorum, posting agendas, noticing of teleconference locations, and public access.
Under Government Code section 54953(b)(2) and (3), teleconferencing may be used for all purposes in connection with any meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing for regular meetings (not convened during Statewide declarations of emergency), the City must comply with certain requirements (“Traditional Method”), which are summarized as follows:
•All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting must be by rollcall; •The teleconferenced meetings must be conducted in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency;
•The legislative body must allow members of the public to access the meeting and the agenda provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3;
•Agendas need to be posted at each of the teleconference locations; •Each teleconference location must be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding;
•Each teleconference location must be accessible to the public; and •At least a quorum of the members of the legislative body must participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction.
In March 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a state of emergency in response to the outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and issued Executive Order N-29-20 easing certain Brown Act restrictions to give legislative bodies the ability to meet remotely during the pandemic. In September 2021, Governor Newsom approved AB 361 to "improve and enhance public access to local agency meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic and future applicable emergencies, by allowing broader access through teleconferencing options." AB 361 allows a local agency legislative body to hold a meeting utilizing teleconferencing without complying with the standard teleconferencing requirements if the Governor has proclaimed a State of Emergency and any of the following circumstances:
•State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote
6.10 6.10 Staff Report
291
social distancing.
•The meeting is being held for the purposes of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
•The legislative body has determined that as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
The City Council has continued the Proclamation of Local Emergency due to COVID-19 and has been adopting findings pursuant to AB 361 since October 18, 2021.
On October 17, 2022, Governor Newsom announced that the COVID-19 State of Emergency will end on February 28, 2023. Since AB 361 can only be utilized during gubernatorial declared emergencies, this will mean that the City will not be able to rely on AB 361 to conduct teleconferenced meetings after February 28, 2023, even if the City were to continue to extend its Proclamation of Local Emergency relating to COVID-
19. ANALYSIS
AB 2449 was signed into law on September 13, 2022 and became effective on January 1, 2023. This bill provides additional options for members of legislative bodies to attend public meetings remotely but the new options do come with more stringent requirements.
AB 2449 allows members of a legislative body (e.g., City Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, Levee Bond Oversight Committee Members, etc.) to attend public meetings remotely without identifying their teleconference site on the agency’s agenda or ensuring it is accessible to the public if the procedures below are followed. As long as a quorum of the legislative body participates in person from a physical location open to the public, the remaining agency members can participate remotely in two situations:
1. Just Cause
Just cause is defined as any one of the following:
•childcare or caregiving of a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner that requires a member to participate remotely; •a contagious illness that prevents a member from attending in person; •a need related to a physical or mental disability; or
•travel while on business of the legislative body or another state or local agency.
In order to participate remotely under the just cause provisions, the member must notify the legislative body at the earliest possible opportunity, including at the start of a
6.10 6.10 Staff Report
292
meeting, of their need to participate remotely and provide a general description of the circumstances related to one of the four items above.
A member may only participate remotely under the just cause provisions up to two meetings per calendar year.
2. Emergency Circumstances
Emergency circumstances means a physical or family medical emergency that prevents a member from attending in person.
In order to participate remotely under the emergency circumstances provisions, the member must request that the legislative body allow them to participate in the meeting remotely because of emergency circumstances and the legislative body must take action to approve the request.
A member must make a request to participate remotely under the emergency circumstances provisions as soon as possible. The legislative body may take action on this request at the earliest opportunity. If the request does not allow sufficient time to place it on the agenda for the meeting for which the request is made, the legislative body may take action on the request at the beginning of the meeting by majority vote.
The legislative body must request a general description of the circumstances relating to the member’s need to appear remotely. This description does not have to be more than 20 words and the member does not have to disclose any personal medical information.
Additional Rules if Members Participate Remotely
If agency members participate remotely under this new law for either the just cause or emergency circumstances situations described above then the following rules apply:
•The legislative body must provide a way for the public to remotely hear, visually observe, and remotely address the legislative body, either by a two-way audiovisual platform or a two-way telephonic service and a live webcasting of the meeting.
•The legislative body must provide notice of how the public can access the meeting and offer comments.
6.10 6.10 Staff Report
293
•The agenda must identify and include an opportunity for the public to attend and directly address the legislative body through a call-in option, an internet-based service option, and in-person at the location of the meeting. •The body cannot require comments to be submitted before the start of the meeting. The public must be allowed to make “real time” public comment. •If there is a disruption to the meeting broadcast or in the ability to take call-in or internet-based public comment, no further action can be taken on agenda items until the issue is resolved.
•The legislative body must implement a procedure for receiving and resolving requests for reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities, and must give notice of these procedures.
•Members participating remotely must participate through both audio and visual technology.
•Members participating remotely must publicly disclose at the meeting before any action is taken whether any other individuals 18 years of age or older are present in the room at the remote location with the member and the general nature of the member’s relationship with the individual.
•A member may not participate in meetings solely by teleconference under this law for more than three consecutive months or 20% of the regular meetings for the public agency within a calendar year. If the legislative body regularly meets less than 10 times a year, a member may not participate remotely for more than two meetings.
In addition to the proposed letter, the City of San Carlos has prepared a table comparing the different requirements for teleconferencing under the Traditional Method, AB 361 and AB 2449. (See Attachment 2).
According to the proposed letter from the City of San Carlos, many jurisdictions saw a significant increase in public participation as people were able to attend remotely from the safety of their home. Additionally, Councilmembers who participate in dozens of regional decision-making bodies were able to call into meetings, reducing single occupancy vehicle trips and thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The proposed letter also cites to unintended consequences of AB 2449 and indicates that the new teleconferencing requirements imposed by AB 2449 would negate some of the benefits of teleconferencing and pose new issues. For instance, AB 2449's quorum requirement, "just cause" and "emergency circumstances" requirements, and limitation on the number of remote meetings members may attend are unnecessarily restrictive according to the letter. Additionally, AB 2449 requires a quorum of the legislative body from a single physical location open to the public, before invoking the "just cause" and
6.10 6.10 Staff Report
294
"emergency circumstances" requirements. The City of San Carlos maintains that a quorum at a single physical location for regional boards and committees seems arbitrary and particularly burdensome when members of these bodies are comprised of a geographically diverse membership of dozens of various cities and counties. Local city councils and their standing committees are often comprised of individuals with fulltime occupations. AB 2449's "just cause" requirement unfairly prioritizes travel while on business of the legislative body or another state or local agency, but not travel related to an individual's occupation. The City of San Carlos believes this raises an equity concern that participation in local and regional government would be limited to officials at a certain socioeconomic level. "Just cause" is not a requirement under Traditional Method. Furthermore, AB 2449 limits the number of meetings that may be attended remotely. The City of San Carlos maintains that this is an arbitrary requirement.
The proposed letter from San Carlos also maintains that local jurisdictions and their constituents are best suited to decide whether to host in-person or virtual meetings and to decide the limitations of those meetings. In addition, the proposed letter notes privacy concerns related to the requirement to disclose the identity of any individual over the age of 18 and the webcasting technology requirement is not feasible for regional boards who meet in various meeting rooms not equipped with this technology.
Staff has prepared a draft letter for the Council’s consideration, which mirrors the template letter provided by the City of San Carlos.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The approval of the proposed letter is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact in approving the proposed letter.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
City Council Operations and Improved Community Engagement ATTACHMENTS:
6.10 6.10 Staff Report
295
Attachment 1 – Sample Letter from the City of San Carlos Attachment 2 – Table: Key Differences Among Brown Act Teleconferencing Rules Attachment 3 – Draft Letter for Foster City
6.10 6.10 Staff Report
296
Dear Assemblymember Rubio:
Thank you for your leadership in the State Assembly on critical issues ranging from pre-school education and safe drinking water, to continuous medical care for children under the age of five and transparency and flexibility in public meetings. We appreciate your inclusive approach to addressing the needs of all Californians and empowering communities to come together to create positive change for all.
We are writing to request that Assembly Bill (“AB”) 2449 be amended to allow city councils, their standing committees, and regional boards more flexibility to establish their own teleconference requirements related to quorums, just cause and emergency requirements, and limitations on the number of remote meetings members may attend.
In March 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N-29-20, giving local agencies more flexibility to deploy teleconferencing, and it was a monumental success. It protected the health and safety of civil servants and the public, while effectively and efficiently conducting the public’s business.
Teleconferencing during the pandemic increased public participation, reduced single occupancy vehicle trips and travel costs, and decreased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
We believe there are several unintended consequences of AB 2449 and respectfully request that the following requirements be considered for amendment:
1. Just cause travel. Local city councils and their standing committees are often comprised of individuals with full-time occupations. AB 2449’s “just cause” requirement unfairly allows travel while on business “of the legislative body or another state or local agency,” but not travel related to an individual’s occupation. This raises an equity concern that participation in local and regional government would be limited to officials at a certain socioeconomic level. Travel for a member’s occupation should be allowed under “just cause.”
2. Cap on number of remote meetings allowed. The limitation on the number of meetings that may be attended remotely appears arbitrary. The State could consider mandating a “floor” for in-person meetings, i.e. at least two meetings per year must be in person, and allow regional boards and standing committees maximum flexibility in determining the “ceiling” or “cap” on the number of remote meetings permissible. To contrast, local officials serve in the communities in which they live and the return to in-person meetings for local jurisdictions is not an issue. Nonetheless, local jurisdictions and their constituents are best suited to decide whether to host in-person or virtual meetings and to decide the limitations of those meetings.
3. Quorum. Requiring a quorum at a single physical location for regional boards and their subcommittees, and mandating that members of these bodies travel long distances to attend in-person meetings, contradicts the State’s efforts to curb GHG emissions and seems arbitrary and particularly burdensome when regional boards are comprised of a geographically diverse membership of cities and counties. Regional boards, as well as standing committees of a city council should be allowed to stay 100% remote, with the option of deciding as a body, how many meetings should be attended in-person versus remote.
6.10 Attachment 1 - Sample Letter from the City of San Carlos
297
4. Webcasting technology. Unlike local city councils, regional boards meet in a variety of locations that often are not equipped with webcasting technology to enable hybrid meetings. Under AB 2449 regional boards will need to pivot from online meetings to in- person meetings.
5. Disclosure. The requirement to publicly disclose any individual in the room over the age of 18 is a privacy violation. For example, if a member is under the care of an at-home nurse, this should not need to be shared publicly.
We have serious concerns regarding AB 2449’s measures to limit remote teleconferencing to a handful of emergency or restrictive just cause approvals. Without amendment, these measures will result in unnecessarily long travel times to meetings, suppressed attendance, and difficulty reaching quorum, which will in turn negatively impact the governing body’s productive work.
We respectfully request that AB 2449 be amended to provide more flexibility to regional agencies and local governing bodies. The Brown Act ensures that officials and their constituents can have open and transparent meetings, which we now know can occur using modern technology. As representatives of local governments and regional boards, we believe in the benefit of increased access in our communities. We look forward to collaborating with you to promote greater flexibility and participation in the decision making process by incorporating the changes we have proposed. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter that impacts all of us.
Sincerely,
Adam Rak, Mayor, City of San Carlos
Sara McDowell, Councilmember, City of San Carlos
cc: Senator Josh Becker
Assemblymember Diane Papan
6.10 Attachment 1 - Sample Letter from the City of San Carlos
298
T bl K D"ff a e: ey 1 erences A mong B rown C e econ erencmg At TI f RI u es Brown Act Teleconferencing Traditional AB361 AB 2449
Rules
Sept 16, 2021 - Jan 1, 2023-
Jan 1, 2024 Jan 1, 2026
1. State of Emergency must be in N/A Required Waived
effect? Per Governor Newsom,
state of emergency ceases
February 28, 2023.
2. Post agendas at all Required Waived Waived
teleconference locations?
3. Each teleconference location is Required Waived Waived identified and accessible by the
public?
4. Quorum of legislative body at Required Waived Required single location within jurisdiction
boundaries
5. Must demonstrate Just Cause N/A N/A Required
(pre-approved) or Emergency
Circumstances (voted on by
agency prior to participation)
6. Limited to 20 percent of the N/A N/A Required
regular meetings for the local
agency within a calendar year,
or more than two meetings if
the legislative body regularly
meets fewer than 10 times per
calendar year
7. Requires agency to use full N/A N/A Required
video conferencing or
webcasting of meetings if
members are going to be
remote
8. Requires remote members to N/A N/A Required
use audio and video and to
disclose whether individuals
over the age of 18 is present
with them at the remote location
6.10 Attachment 2 - Table Key Differences Among Brown Act Teleconferencing Rules
299
1 January 17, 2023
Dear Assemblymember Rubio:
Thank you for your leadership in the State Assembly on critical issues ranging from pre- school education and safe drinking water, to continuous medical care for children under the age of five and transparency and flexibility in public meetings. We appreciate your inclusive approach to addressing the needs of all Californians and empowering communities to come together to create positive change for all.
We are writing to request that Assembly Bill (“AB”) 2449 be amended to allow city councils, their standing committees, and regional boards more flexibility to establish their own teleconference requirements related to quorums, just cause and emergency requirements, and limitations on the number of remote meetings members may attend.
In March 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N-29-20, giving local agencies more flexibility to deploy teleconferencing, and it was a monumental success. It protected the health and safety of civil servants and the public, while effectively and efficiently conducting the public’s business.
Teleconferencing during the pandemic increased public participation, reduced single occupancy vehicle trips and travel costs, and decreased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
We believe there are several unintended consequences of AB 2449 and respectfully request that the following requirements be considered for amendment:
1. Just cause travel. Local city councils and their standing committees are often comprised of individuals with full-time occupations. AB 2449’s “just cause” requirement unfairly allows travel while on business “of the legislative body or another state or local agency,” but not travel related to an individual’s occupation. This raises an equity concern that participation in local and regional government would be limited to officials at a certain socioeconomic level. Travel for a member’s occupation should be allowed under “just cause.”
2. Cap on number of remote meetings allowed. The limitation on the number of meetings that may be attended remotely appears arbitrary. The State could consider mandating a “floor” for in-person meetings, i.e. at least two
6.10 Attachment 3 - Draft Letter for Foster City
300
2 meetings per year must be in person, and allow regional boards and standing committees maximum flexibility in determining the “ceiling” or “cap” on the number of remote meetings permissible. To contrast, local officials serve in the communities in which they live and the return to in- person meetings for local jurisdictions is not an issue. Nonetheless, local jurisdictions and their constituents are best suited to decide whether to host in-person or virtual meetings and to decide the limitations of those meetings.
3. Quorum. Requiring a quorum at a single physical location for regional boards and their subcommittees, and mandating that members of these bodies travel long distances to attend in-person meetings, contradicts the State’s efforts to curb GHG emissions and seems arbitrary and particularly burdensome when regional boards are comprised of a geographically diverse membership of cities and counties. Regional boards, as well as standing committees of a city council should be allowed to stay 100% remote, with the option of deciding as a body, how many meetings should be attended in-person versus remote.
4. Webcasting technology. Unlike local city councils, regional boards meet in a variety of locations that often are not equipped with webcasting technology to enable hybrid meetings. Under AB 2449 regional boards will need to pivot from online meetings to in person meetings.
5. Disclosure. The requirement to publicly disclose any individual in the room over the age of 18 is a privacy violation. For example, if a member is under the care of an at-home nurse, this should not need to be shared publicly.
We have serious concerns regarding AB 2449’s measures to limit remote teleconferencing to a handful of emergency or restrictive just cause approvals. Without amendment, these measures will result in unnecessarily long travel times to meetings, suppressed attendance, and difficulty reaching quorum, which will in turn negatively impact the governing body’s productive work.
6.10 Attachment 3 - Draft Letter for Foster City
301
3 We respectfully request that AB 2449 be amended to provide more flexibility to regional agencies and local governing bodies. The Brown Act ensures that officials and their constituents can have open and transparent meetings, which we now know can occur using modern technology. As representatives of local governments and regional boards, we believe in the benefit of increased access in our communities. We look forward to collaborating with you to promote greater flexibility and participation in the decision making process by incorporating the changes we have proposed. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter that impacts all of us.
Sincerely,
Jon Froomin, Mayor, City of Foster City
cc: Senator Josh Becker
6.10 Attachment 3 - Draft Letter for Foster City
302
DATE: January 17, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
FROM: Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager
Thai-Chau Le, Planning Manager
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT: AN AMENDMENT TO THE FOSTER CITY ZONING MAP TO
MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED GENERAL PLAN
DEVELOPMENT (GDP) KNOWN AS VINTAGE PARK GDP TO
APPROVE THE REALLOCATION OF THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED 250,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WITHIN
THE SOUTH CAMPUS OF THE GILEAD MASTER PLAN TO
LABORATORY SPACE AND INCLUDE THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED TEMPORARY GILEAD PARK AS A PERMANENT
USE
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt a Resolution adopting Addendum No. 5 to the 2013 Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) and finding that it adequately analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment to the Vintage Park General Development Plan (GDP) – Attachment 1– EA2022-0001
2. Introduce and pass to second reading an Ordinance amending the City of Foster City Zoning Map to modify the previously approved GDP for the 72-acre portion of the ± 132-acre land known as the Vintage Park to decrease the allowable office square footage by 250,000 square feet and increase the allowable laboratory space by 250,000 square feet for the South Campus of the Gilead Master Plan and include the previously approved temporary Gilead Park as a permanent use – Attachment 2 – RZ2022-0001
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
303
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project includes a GDP Amendment/Rezoning to the previously approved GDP for the land known as Vintage Park to allow for the reallocation 250,000 square feet (SF) of office to laboratory square footage within the South Campus of the Gilead Master Plan and the inclusion of the Gilead Park as a permanent part of the campus. Consecutively, the project also includes the approval of the Addendum No. 5 to the approved 2013 FSEIR finding that the proposed project does not result in new or more impacts than those previously approved.
The GDP amendment would transfer the remaining unbuilt 204,495 SF of office allocation to laboratory use and reclassify the already built 45,505 SF of existing office space in buildings B331 and B335 for potential future redevelopment as laboratory use, for a total of 250,000 SF while maintaining the total 2,500,600 SF maximum capacity of the full campus. The GDP amendment would also satisfy the Condition of Approval (COA) for the previously approved Gilead Park, making it a permanent use on the Gilead Master Plan and campus.
The Planning Commission reviewed both the environmental assessment application and the GDP amendment on December 15, 2022 and found the analysis and recommendations consistent with previously approved environmental analysis, the General Plan, and the Municipal Code. Therefore, Planning Commission adopted two Resolutions P-21-22 ( Attachment 4) and P-22-22 ( Attachment 5) to recommend to the City Council to adopt both the Addendum No. 5 and the GDP amendment.
Staff has determined that the applicant’s project proposal would encourage change that responds to the current and potential market and employment needs of businesses consistent with General Plan Land Use Goal LUC-C and Policy LUC-C-12. While the proposal would not result in any physical changes to the campus at this time, future build- out of the remaining campus capacity will continue to implement approved project mitigation measures and best management practices that will ensure that the uses are safe and strictly controlled to protect the health and safety of Foster City residents, workers and the overall environment consistent with Goal LUC-D and will continue to encourage the redevelopment of underutilized and/or outdated properties consistent with Goal LUC-K. Furthermore, the GDP amendment would continue to facilitate the full build out of the campus and would not change the maximum capacity previously allowed.
Therefore, staff recommends the City Council approve a Resolution to adopt the Addendum No. 5 to the FSEIR and an Ordinance to amendment the Vintage Park GDP.
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
304
BACKGROUND
Project Site
The Gilead Master Plan campus covers approximately 72 acres of land in Vintage Park.
Gilead owns and occupies additional properties throughout the City not included in the Master Plan. The Master Plan is covered under the Vintage Park GDP. The build-out of the 72-acre campus is divided into two parts: South Campus and North Campus (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Integrated Campus showing the boundaries of the North and South Campuses Entitlement History
On October 21, 2013, the City Council certified the FSEIR for the Master Plan and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). On November 4, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 576 approving the Vintage Park GDP Amendment/Rezoning for the Gilead Master Plan (RZ-11-004). The Vintage Park GDP includes the development of a biopharmaceutical campus on approximately 72 acres with a maximum build-out of 2,500,600 SF in neighborhood Vintage Park. The GDP includes a mix of office buildings, laboratory buildings, cafeterias, manufacturing and storage
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
305
spaces, meeting spaces, pilot plant, warehouse and fitness facilities. A copy of Ordinance No. 576 is available in Attachment 3.
On April 3, 2014, the Planning Commission approved Addendum No. 1 to the FSEIR amending Mitigation Measure NOI-b in order to allow an extension in the construction hours if certain criteria are met. On September 19, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 601 approving an amendment to the GDP (RZ-16-001) to reallocate square footage within Gilead’s South Campus by decreasing the office allocation by 250,000 SF and increasing the laboratory allocation by 250,000 SF. As part of this proposal, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 2016-61 finding that Addendum No. 2 to the FSEIR adequately analyzes environmental impacts associated with the GDP Amendment (EA-16-002). A copy of Ordinance No. 601 and associated exhibits to show the Gilead Campus history is available in Attachment 3.
To date, the total allowable build-out capacity of the campus is a maximum of 1,274,000 SF of office, a maximum of 1,203,000 SF of laboratory, and a maximum of 23,600 SF of materials storage/warehouses, totaling up to a maximum of 2,500,600 SF for the full Master Plan. Subsequent to the approval of the Vintage Park GDP amendment in 2016, two (2) laboratory buildings were completed at 324 and 357 Lakeside Drive. On May 7, 2020, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit (UP2019-0044, Resolution No.
P-05-20) for a 60,836 SF, two-story employee amenity building (“Gilead Wellbeing Center”). As part of the Resolution No. P-05-20, the Planning Commission approved Addendum No. 3 to the FSEIR in conjunction with the approval of the Gilead Wellbeing Center.
On February 4, 2021, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit (UP2019-0035, Resolution No. P-03-21) for the construction of an approximately 5.42-acre private park with landscaped outdoor amenities and gathering space for its employees (“Gilead Park”), within the Vintage Park GDP area that was designated for Buildings 305 and 307 within the original Master Plan. The approved Gilead Park Use Permit requires Gilead to apply for a GDP amendment to make the park permanent. As part of Resolution No. P-03-21, the Planning Commission approved Addendum No. 4 to the FSEIR in conjunction with the approval of the Gilead Park.
Project Proposal
The project includes the reallocation of the previously approved 250,000 SF of office in the South Campus to laboratory square footage and to make the recently constructed Gilead Park a permanent use by converting the temporary, limited-duration Use Permit (UP2020-0035, approved by the City on February 4, 2021) to permanent use as part of this updated Vintage Park GDP amendment request.
It should be noted that the 2016 Vintage Park GDP designated the subject Gilead Park site comprising two (2) adjoining parcels for two (2) lab/office buildings (NB 305 and NB
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
306
307). At the time when the Gilead Park request was being considered, Gilead stated that given the remaining buildout and taking the existing needs of the company into consideration, they did not anticipate constructing a new lab/office building in the immediate future but would like to retain the option to pursue construction of future building(s) as specified in the existing GDP. The proposed Gilead Park project was entitled as a temporary, limited-duration use (five (5) years) use. Given the limited-term nature of the proposed use, an amendment to the GDP was not necessary at the time.
However, understanding this could be a permanent use, a Condition of Approval (COA) was included to provide an option to the applicant should they pursue a permanent use of the park. The COA No. 1.14 of the Gilead Park Use Permit stated, “This Use Permit is valid for five (5) years from the date of the approval. The applicant shall apply for a General Development Plan amendment prior to the expiration of this Use Permit.” Therefore, as part of this request, Vintage Park GDP will be updated to also include the site plan showing the permanent location of the Park, pursuant to Exhibit A of the Gilead Park Use Permit UP2020-0035 Conditions of Approval No. 1.14.
Specifically, the proposed GDP amendment would transfer the remaining unbuilt 204,495 SF of office allocation to laboratory use and reclassify the already built 45,505 SF of existing office space in buildings B331 and B335 for potential future redevelopment as laboratory use. The overall maximum square footage permitted for the South Campus and the Master Plan would not change.
Table 1. Entitlement Capacity
2013 (Approved) 2016 (Approved) 2022 (Proposed)
South Campus Max. Square Feet
(SF)
Max. Square Feet
(SF)
Max. Square Feet
(SF)
Office 500,000 SF 250,000 SF
(reduced by
250,000 SF from
2013)
45,505 SF
(existing office
proposed for
reclassifying into lab)
Biopharmaceutical
Laboratory
953,000 SF 1,203,000 SF
(increased by
250,000 SF from
2013)
1,407,495 SF
(request to increase
by 204,495 SF)
Materials
Storage/Warehouse
5,100 SF 5,100 SF 5,100 SF
Total South Campus 1,458,100 SF 1,458,100 SF
(no change)
1,458,100 SF
(no change)
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
307
North Campus
Office 1,024,000 SF 1,024,000 SF 1,024,000 SF
Materials
Storage/Warehouse
18,500 SF 18,500 SF 18,500 SF
Total North Campus 1,042,500 SF 1,042,500 SF 1,042,500 SF Integrated Campus
Office 1,524,000 SF 1,274,000 SF 1,069,505 SF
Biopharmaceutical
Laboratory
953,000 SF 1,203,000 SF 1,407,495 SF
Materials
Storage/Warehouse
23,600 SF 23,600 SF 23,600 SF
Total for Integrated
Campus
2,500,600 SF 2,500,600 SF 2,500,600 SF
Previous Project Public Hearings
On August 9, 2022, Gilead submitted a GDP Amendment proposal to amend the Vintage Park GDP and convert the previously approved 250,000 SF of office allocation in the South Campus to laboratory square footage and to include the previously approved temporary Gilead Park into a permanent use as part of the updated Vintage Park GDP.
The project was taken to a City Council Development Project Preliminary Review meeting on October 17, 2022. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce the proposed project and request feedback from the Council and the public. At this meeting, staff stated that the project would be required to complete additional environmental analysis to areas such as water usage, transportation, and parking to ensure the proposed reallocation would not result in new or more severe impacts than the approved FSEIR approved in 2013.
The recording of the meeting is available on the website here. The City Council agreed with staff on the need for additional technical studies to support the findings. The City Council was generally supportive of the proposed change of use from office to R&D as it is within the same envelope as the campus’ allowable square footage. The project was schedule for a Planning Public Hearing on December 1, 2022, but was continued to December 15, 2022 due to additional time needed to complete the hearing package. The recording of the meeting for December 1, 2022 is available here.
On December 15, 2022, the Planning Commission found the project to be consistent with the maximum allowable capacity at the site and found that the project has adequately analyzed potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P-22-22 recommending to the City Council adoption of Addendum No. 5 to the FSEIR finding the analysis adequate and recommending
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
308
approval of an ordinance to amend the Vintage Park GDP for the reallocation of 250,000 SF of office to lab and making the Gilead Park a permanent use. Complete background and meeting materials for the December 15, 2022 Planning Commission Public Hearing are available, here. Since the December 15, 2022 meeting, the Ordinance has been updated with minor modifications such as the accurate square footage and is available in Attachment 2. No changes were made that would alter the analysis or project.
ANALYSIS
In support of the proposed change in use from existing office to R&D, the applicant provided the following studies and analyses:
•Addendum No. 5 to the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR).
Environmental Assessment
A program FSEIR was prepared for the GDP which approved the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FSEIR was certified by the City Council in October 2013 (SCH# 2008122064). The FSEIR included mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level, except for five significant and unavoidable noise and air quality impacts. These mitigation measures were included in an MMRP that was adopted by the City Council along with a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable impacts. On April 3, 2014, the Planning Commission approved Addendum No. 1 to the SEIR amending Mitigation Measure NOI-b in order to allow an extension in the construction hours if certain criteria are met. On August 15, 2016, the City Council also approved Resolution No. 2016-61 finding that Addendum No. 2 to the FSEIR adequately analyzes environmental impacts associated with the GDP Amendment (EA-16-002) for a 250,000 SF reallocating of office to R&D proposal at that time.
On December 19, 2019, Gilead Sciences submitted a request to demolish 308 surface parking spaces and build a new 60,836-square foot Wellbeing Center at 305 Velocity Way. Addendum No. 3 to the 2013 FSEIR analyzed this new use and was approved by the City Council on May 7, 2020. On October 5, 2020, Gilead Sciences submitted a request to demolish a 739-stall surface parking lot and construct the new Gilead Park.
Gilead pursued the project as a temporary, limited-duration use (five years), under the condition that a GDP amendment would be required for the park to remain long-term.
The GDP for Gilead anticipated employee amenities and ancillary facilities as part of the campus build-out. Addendum No. 4 to the 2013 FSEIR analyzed this project and was approved by the Planning Commission on February 4, 2021.
Pertaining to the currently proposed GDP amendment, the City engaged Urban Planning Partners (UPP) to assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposed change to the GDP (to reallocate square footage on the Gilead Campus by decreasing office space
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
309
by 250,000 SF and increasing laboratory space by 250,000 SF) and the change in the park from a temporary use to a permanent use and determine whether the FSEIR adequately addresses the potential impacts resulting from the proposed GDP amendment. As documented in the environmental analysis memorandum (), the findings show that there are no substantial project changes, no substantial changes in the project circumstances, and no new information of substantial importance which could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence when the 2013 FSEIR was certified, that would result in any new significant effects or any increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect. The analysis concluded that the proposal to reduce office square footage and increase laboratory square footage by the same amount would not cause any additional air quality or transportation impacts. The currently proposed GDP may even result in less severe impacts, because the density of employees and the number of vehicle trips for a laboratory is less than that of an office building. Increasing the laboratory use by 250,000 SF and decreasing the office use by 250,000 SF generates 194 fewer vehicle trips in the AM peak hour and 158 fewer vehicle trips in the PM peak hour resulting in reduced traffic and air quality impacts.
As disclosed in the analysis, water use would increase with the change from office to laboratory. The most recent data on water uses from the campus shows that the water usage was around the same range each year, with 2020 being the highest, likely due to Gilead’s development of first antiviral drug during the COVID-19 pandemic. To be conservative, the analysis assumes 2020 water use a baseline. The Water Supply Assessment approved for the City in 2013 FSEIR estimated that office space would need 22 gallons of water per square foot and laboratory space would need 44 gallons of water per square foot. However, recent and actual use data shows that Gilead’s average use on site is about 25 gallons per year per square footage for lab while office is about 13 gallons per year per square footage, less than the level analyzed in the FSEIR. With the current proposed reallocation of office to R&D, the proposed changes would not increase water demand beyond the amount analyzed in the FSEIR and therefore, would not represent a significant increase in water demand.
Furthermore, Gilead is continuously making effort in water reduction measures through landscaping such as turf replacement campus wide and other landscaping projects. As there are no new or more severe significant effects resulting from the proposed square footage reallocation than were already previously identified in the FSEIR, the project qualifies for an Addendum (“Addendum No. 5”). The mitigation measures identified in the FSEIR and included in the MMRP will continue to be implemented to all parts of the project through the conditions of approval attached to the proposed ordinance. Therefore, the FSEIR adequately addresses the environmental effects of the proposed GDP revisions and none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 or 15163 apply, no preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 is required. Instead, pursuant to Section 15164 of the) CEQA Guidelines, Addendum No. 5 to the FSEIR has
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
310
been prepared to summarize the changes in the project description and analyze the environmental effects resulting from the proposed GDP amendment.
For the reasons set forth above, it is recommended that the City Council adopt Addendum No. 5 finding that the project do not result in new or more impacts than those analyzed and approved in the 2013 FSEIR.
General Development Plan
Gilead Sciences is a biopharmaceutical campus headquartered in Foster City. The Gilead Sciences Integrated Master Plan campus covers approximately 72 acres of land in Vintage Park which is governed by the Vintage Park General Development Plan. As mentioned above, the build-out of the 72-acre Integrated Campus is divided into two parts: South Campus and North Campus. Build-out of the Integrated Campus is subject to maximum parameters for office and biopharmaceutical laboratory set forth in the GDP which limit the square footage for each type of use.
As previously mentioned above, Gilead proposed a reallocation of 250,000 SF of office to lab in 2016 and was approved under Ordinance No. 601. On February 4, 2021, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit (UP2019-0044, Resolution No. P-03-21) for the Gilead Park as a temporary use.
Since the approval of the Gilead Park in 2021, Gilead has been building out its campus and has identified a need for additional laboratory space and is proposing an amendment to the GDP to reduce the South Campus total maximum amount of office space by 250,000 SF and to increase the total maximum amount of laboratory space by 250,000 SF. The total maximum square footage for the South Campus as well as the total maximum square footage for the entire Campus will remain unchanged. The Table 1 above illustrates the proposed changes to the GDP.
The project also proposes the establishment of the Gilead Park to be a permanent use, which would be consistent with the Condition of Approval for the approved Use Permit (UP2019-0044, Resolution No. P-03-21). As stated in the meeting on February 4, 2021 for the Gilead Park, the five-year temporary lifespan of the project would not impede attainment of the long-term campus buildout as exhibited in the Gilead Campus GDP.
Furthermore, the Planning Commission found that the proposed private park and associated improvements are consistent with the approved Integrated Master Plan, including provision of on-site amenities, and that the location and design of Gilead Park achieves compatibility with the existing and proposed development pattern of the Gilead campus as envisioned in the approved GDP. Therefore, the Planning Commission approved the Use Permit with a condition that an amendment to the existing GDP will be required, should Gilead decide to continue the use of the private park (to replace one or both of the lab/office buildings) on a permanent basis beyond the limited five (5)-year
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
311
term. With the project being temporary or permanent, it would still be consistent with the GDP.
The overall proposed amendment to the GDP and inclusion of the Gilead Park as a permanent amenity are consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan, because the reallocation in square footage would help Gilead build a laboratory building on the South Campus. While the proposal would not result in any physical changes at this time, the project will: 1) continue to ensure that a variety of employment opportunities are available in Foster City and encourage change that responds to the current and potential market and employment needs of businesses consistent with Goal LUC-C and Policy LUC-C-12; 2) continue to required project level mitigation measures and best management practices that will ensure that the uses are safe and strictly controlled to protect the health and safety of Foster City residents, workers and the overall environment consistent with Goal LUC-D; and 3) will continue to encourage the redevelopment of underutilized and/or outdate properties consistent with Goal LUC-K.
Noticing/Public Outreach
The public was advised of this Public Hearing in the following ways:
•Electronic mailing to the interested parties who expressed interest in receiving project updates – December 27, 2022
•Mailing to property owners who own property within a 500-foot radius – January 3, 2023
•Published 1/4-page ad in the Foster City Islander – January 4, 2023 •Foster City website: www.fostercity.org – December 27, 2022 •Public Posting Places – December 27, 2022
Conclusion
The proposed project is consistent be within the maximum allowable built-out of the campus without resulting in new or more environmental impacts than those disclosed, analyzed, and certified in the 2013 FSEIR. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the Vintage Park GDP to allow for the reallocation of 250,000 SF of office to lab is consistent with the General Plan, site specific GDP, and the Municipal Code. Furthermore, the project is in alignment to the City’s vision for long-term development of the community as outlined in the General Plan and consistency to standards as established in the Municipal Code.
California Environmental Quality Act
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
312
Addendum to the 2013 Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) (SCH# 2008122064, City Council Resolution No. 2013-80).
FISCAL IMPACT
While there is no direct fiscal impact from these actions, the proposed project could result in higher revenues to the City’s General Fund through property tax that may be generated from future new lab uses and buildings.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Smart planning, development, and the local economy.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Resolution
Exhibit A to Resolution
Attachment 2 – Ordinance
Attachment 3 – Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601 Attachment 4 – Planning Commission Resolution No. P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
Attachment 5 – Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
313
1 9
8 RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY ADOPTING ADDENDUM NO. 5 AND FINDING THAT THE GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED
CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT ADEQUATELY ANALYZES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE AMENDMENT TO THE VINTAGE PARK GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DECREASE THE ALLOWABLE OFFICE SQUARE FOOTAGE BY 250,000
SQUARE FEET AND INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE LABORATORY SPACE BY 250,000 SQUARE FEET AND INCLUDE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
TEMPORARY GILEAD PARK INTO A PERMANENT USE FOR THE SOUTH CAMPUS PORTION OF THE GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CAMPUS MASTER PLAN – 300-368 LAKESIDE DRIVE; 301 AND 309 VELOCITY WAY IN NEIGHBORHOOD VP – GILEAD SCIENCES, INC. – EA2022-0001
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, On August 17, 1981, the City Council approved an Ordinance amending Title 17 of the City of Foster City Municipal Code to reclassify the + 132-acres of land known as Vintage Park (APNs 094-521-080, 090, 100 and 110 and 094-531-020, 030, 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, and 180) as a C-M/PD (Commercial Mix/Planned Development Combining District) with a General Development Plan (Ordinance 223, RZ- 10-80); and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2013, by Ordinance No. 576, the City Council approved a Rezoning/General Development Plan of the Project site from CM/PD (Commercial Mix/Planned Development) District to a CM/PD (Commercial Mix/Planned Development) District with an Amended General Development Plan (RZ-11-004) to allow up to 2,500,600 square feet of biopharmaceutical office and laboratory uses, ancillary facilities and structured and at-grade parking facilities on the Project site; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and implementing guidelines ("CEQA") the City Council by Resolution No. 2013-80 adopted on October 21, 2013, certified a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, SCH 2008122064; EA-11-005 ("FSEIR") for the ±72 acre Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Project ("Project") and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") through Resolution No. 2013-80; and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2014, by Resolution No. P-14-14, the Planning Commission approved Addendum No. 1 to the SEIR amending Mitigation Measure NOl-b in order to allow an
extension in the construction hours if certain criteria are met; and WHEREAS, on September 19, 2016, the Vintage Park General Development Plan
7.1 Attachment 1 - Resolution
314
1 9
8 on the 57-acre portion of Vintage Park was amended to decrease the allowable 250,000 square footage of office to allowable 250,000 laboratory space in the south campus portion for the Gilead Sciences Integrated Campus Master (APNs: 094-122-050; -060;- 070; -080; -110; -120; -130; -140; -150; 094-901-290; -300; -310; -340; -370; -380; -390; -400; -410; 094-904-040; 130; 094-901-250; -260; -270; -280; -350; -360; 094-902-060; -070; -090; -120; -130; -140; 094-903-040; 094-904-290; -300; -31 O; -320; -330; - 340;_094-905-040; -050; -060; -070; -080; -090; 123-400-01 O; -020; -030; -040; -050; - 060; 070; -080; -090; -100; -110; -120; -130; -140; -150; -160; -170; -180; -190; and 200) (Ordinance No. 601, RZ-16-001); and
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2016, as part of Ordinance 601, the City of Foster City has adopted an Addendum No. 2 to the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan FSEIR and determined there are no substantial project changes or impacts identified and disclosed beyond those approved in the 2012 FSEIR and addenda thereto (Addendum No. 2); and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2020, by Resolution P-05-20, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit (UP2019-0044) for the construction of 60,836-square foot Wellbeing Center at 305 Velocity Way and approved Addendum No. 3 to the FSEIR with findings that there are no substantial project changes or impacts identified and disclosed beyond those approved in the 2012 FSEIR and addenda thereto; and WHEREAS, on February 4, 2021, by Resolution P-03-21, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit (UP2019-0044) for the construction of an approximately 5.42-acre private park with landscaped outdoor amenities and gathering space for its employees (“Gilead Park”) and approved Addendum No. 4 to the FSEIR with findings that there are no substantial project changes or impacts identified and disclosed beyond those approved in the 2012 FSEIR and addenda thereto; and WHEREAS, on February 4, 2021, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit (UP2019-0044, Resolution No. P-03-21) for the construction of an approximately 5.42-acre private park with landscaped outdoor amenities and gathering space for its employees (“Gilead Park”), within the Vintage Park GDP area that was designated for Buildings 305 and 307 within the original Master Plan; WHEREAS, in 2022, Gilead Sciences Inc. has requested to amend the Vintage Park General Development Plan (GDP) to decrease the allowable office square footage by 250,000 square feet and increase the allowable laboratory space footage by 250,000 square feet for the South Campus portion of the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan;
WHEREAS, the City of Foster City, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and implementing guidelines adopted by the Secretary of Resources, and the City of Foster City Environmental Review Guidelines, the City of Foster City has prepared a memorandum to assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
7.1 Attachment 1 - Resolution
315
1 9
8 change to the GDP to reallocate square footage on the Gilead Campus by decreasing office space by 250,000 square feet and increasing laboratory space by 250,000 square feet and the change in the park from a temporary use to a permanent use to determine whether the analysis in the memorandum adequately addresses the potential impacts resulting from the proposed GDP amendment; and
WHEREAS, the memorandum concluded that there are no substantial project changes, no substantial changes in the project circumstances and no new information of substantial importance which could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence when the 2012 FSEIR was certified that would result in any new significant effects or any increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect and that none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR had occurred and therefore the City of Foster City deemed the memorandum an addendum to the SEIR, prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Foster City Environmental Review Guidelines (Addendum No. 5); and
WHEREAS, full public involvement in the review of the proposed application has been ensured through duly noticed Planning Commission Study Sessions, public hearings and other means, including the following:
1.City Council Development Project Preliminary Review meeting took place on October 17, 2022 to introduce the proposed project to the City Council and the public and receive feedback prior to initiating the entitlement process.
2.Planning Commission Public Hearing on December 1, 2022 to consider and make recommendations to the City Council regarding adoption of the Addendum and Rezoning/General Development Plan Amendment of the Vintage Park General Development Plan where the item was continued to December 15, 2022.
3.Planning Commission Public Hearing on December 15, 2022 to consider and make recommendations to the City Council regarding adoption of the Addendum No. 5 to the 2012 FSEIR and Rezoning/General Development Plan Amendment of the Vintage Park General Development Plan.
WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was duly posted, published, and mailed for consideration of the Environmental Assessment at the Planning Commission meeting of December 15, 2022, and on said date the Public Hearing was opened, held and closed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at their December 15, 2022 meeting recommended that the City Council find that Addendum No. 5 and the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report adequately analyze environmental impacts associated with the amendment to the Vintage Park General Development Plan to decrease the allowable office square footage by 250,000 square feet and increase the allowable laboratory space by 250,000 square feet
7.1 Attachment 1 - Resolution
316
1 9
8 for the south campus portion of the Gilead Sciences Integrated Campus Master Plan through approval of Resolution No. P-21-22; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the proposed GDP Amendment and the City Council’s review of Addendum No. 5, the City Council has independently reviewed all of the CEQA documents in the record and has exercised its independent judgment in making the findings and determinations set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council, based on the facts and analysis in the Staff Report, written and oral testimony, and other evidence on the record of proceedings, recommends that the City Council finds as follows:
1. That Addendum No. 5 attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereinafter incorporated by reference was prepared in compliance with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines, and
2. That, based upon the evidence submitted and as demonstrated by the analysis included in Addendum No. 5, none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation for a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration have occurred, specifically:
a. No substantial changes have been made to the Project that require major revisions to the SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts; and
b. No substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken that require major revisions to the SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts; and c. No new information received by the City of significance importance which was not known previously and could not, with the exercise of reasonable due diligence now or at the time the FSEIR was certified, been known that would show that: (a) the Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the FSEIR; (b) that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than as shown in the FSEIR; (c) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the project proponent declines to adopt them; or (d) that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the FSEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt them; and
7.1 Attachment 1 - Resolution
317
1 9
8 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, pursuant to the above findings, the previously approved CEQA documents, including the FSEIR and all previously approved Addenda, together with Addendum No. 5, are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines for the purposes of analysis and consideration of the changes to the Vintage Park General Development Plan for the Gilead Sciences Integrated Campus.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Foster City at a Regular Meeting thereof held on January 17, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
__________________________
JON FROOMIN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________
PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK
7.1 Attachment 1 - Resolution
318
1 9
8 EXHIBIT A
ADDENDUM NO. 5
TO
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
7.1 Attachment 1 - Resolution
319
Memorandum
DATE December 9, 2022
TO
Thai-Chau Le
Planning Manager
Community Development Dept.
610 Foster City Boulevard
Foster City, CA 94404
Sent via email: [email protected]
FROM
Curtis Banks, Principal Planner
Arly Cassidy Dolbakian, Sr. Planner
510.251.8210
[email protected]
CC: [email protected]
RE: CEQA Compliance for the Proposed Amendment to the Vintage Park General Development Plan for the Integrated Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan (SCH # 2008122064)
A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This memorandum, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164, is an Addendum (Addendum No. 5) to the certified 2012 Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse # 2008122064 (2012 SEIR) and addenda thereto. This memorandum includes an assessment of changes proposed to the Gilead Sciences Master Plan (General Development Plan) since certification of the 2012 SEIR and addenda thereto. As discussed in this memorandum, the proposed project changes would not result in new or more significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in the Final 2012 SEIR, nor are any new mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed, disclosed, and approved identified as necessary.
The City is in receipt of an application dated August 9, 2022 to amend the Vintage Park General Development Plan (GDP) to reallocate 250,000 square feet of office space to laboratory space on the South Campus of the Master Plan. Specifically, the proposed amendment would shift the remaining unbuilt 204,495 square feet of office allocation to laboratory use and would reclassify 45,505 square feet of existing office space for future redevelopment as laboratory use
1. No change
to the maximum allowed square footage for the South Campus or the entire Campus allowed under
1 The existing 45,505 SF of office space will remain until it is redeveloped as laboratory in the future. In each area of analysis in this memo, the more impactful option was considered.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
320
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
the GDP or the Development Agreement is proposed. In addition, as part of this proposed GDP amendment, Gilead is seeking to establish the recently constructed Gilead Park, which was permitted as a temporary, limited-duration use with a Use Permit (UP2020-0035), approved by the City on February 4, 2021 as a permanent use under the GDP. The proposed changes are collectively referred to as the “2022 Project Modifications.”
This Memorandum is prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 which states: “The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.”2 Section 15162 specifies that no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for a project unless:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involved of new significant environmental effects of a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was no known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
2 California, State of, 1999. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines. Section 15164.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
321
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative.3
Urban Planning Partners reviewed the 2022 Project Modifications and based on the analysis in this Memorandum, has concluded that the proposed Modifications are not substantial, there are no substantial changes to circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, no new information of substantial importance that would result in any new significant effects or any increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect, or the need for any new or considerably different mitigation measures. Therefore, under CEQA section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163, no further environmental review is required. The 2012 SEIR adequately addresses the environmental effects of the 2022 Project Modifications and the City does not need to prepare a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR to satisfy the environmental review requirements of CEQA for purposes of the 2022 Project Modifications. The 2022 Project Modifications (a reallocation of office to laboratory square footage and Gilead Park becoming a permanent use in the South Campus) constitute a minor refinement of the 2012 Master Plan and this minor refinement would not result in significant environmental effects beyond those already identified in the 2012 SEIR.
The discussion below provides: (1) an overview of the Master Plan Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus (2012 Master Plan) approvals and 2012 SEIR; (2) a discussion of the project changes resulting from the 2022 Project Modifications; and (3) an analysis concluding that the 2022 Project Modifications fall within the scope of the 2012 SEIR and do not require preparation of subsequent or supplemental environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163.
B. PRIOR PROJECT APPROVALS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On February 16, 2010, the City Council certified the Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (2010 EIR) to increase the allowed square footage of a ±40-acre portion of the Gilead Campus (known as the “South Campus”) from 629,154 square feet of building space to 1,200,480 square feet of biopharmaceutical laboratory and office space, structured and at- grade parking and supporting facilities. In addition to certifying the 2010 EIR, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 554 approving an amendment to the Vintage Park GDP, and Ordinance No. 556, entering into a Development Agreement between the City of Foster City, the Estero Municipal Improvement District, and Gilead Sciences, Inc. for the permitting and construction of up to 1,200,480 square feet for the Corporate Campus.
4 On November 29, 2011, Gilead submitted the 2012 Master Plan proposal to amend the 2010 Master Plan and the Vintage Park GDP to integrate the approved South Campus mentioned above with an additional approximately 32 acres (known as the “North Campus”) acquired from Electronics for Imaging (EFI) adjacent to the South Campus for a maximum campus build out of 2,500,600 square feet on approximately 73 acres. The 2012 Master Plan proposed redeveloping portions of the
3 California, State of, 1999. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines. Section 15162.
4 City of Foster City, Gilead Sciences, Inc., and Estero Municipal Improvement District, 2010. Development Agreement. p.
2. March 31.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
322
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
approximately 73-acre project site, including demolition of up to 12 of the existing office and laboratory buildings, and construction of up to 17 new buildings. Buildout of the 2012 Master Plan would result in a total of up to 22 office and laboratory buildings (comprising approximately 2,500,600 square feet of interior space) and 6,050 parking stalls on the project site.5 The 2012 SEIR prepared for the 2012 Master Plan in accordance with CEQA found that the 2012 Master Plan would result in five significant and unavoidable impacts and all other impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the identified mitigation measures included in the SEIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).6 The five significant and unavoidable impacts from the 2012 SEIR are associated with project-related traffic that would create a clearly noticeable permanent change in the noise environment (NOI-3), air quality impacts related to project operations (AIR-2, AIR-3, and AIR-6), and a conflict with noise policies adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental impact (PLAN-1).
On October 21, 2013, the City Council certified the 2012 SEIR (SCH No. 2008122064), and approved the 2012 Master Plan and the Amended Vintage Park GDP/Rezoning along with the MMRP on November 4, 2013 (Ordinance No. 576). On April 3, 2014, the Planning Commission approved Addendum No. 1 to the SEIR amending Mitigation Measure NOI-b in order to allow an extension in the construction hours if certain criteria are met.
On March 30, 2016, Gilead Sciences submitted a request to reallocate 250,000 square feet of floor area in the South Campus from office space to laboratory space, while staying within the 2,500,600 square feet maximum campus buildout. Addendum No.2 to the 2012 SEIR analyzed this reallocation and was approved by the City Council on August 15, 2016.
On December 19, 2019, Gilead Sciences submitted a request to demolish 308 surface parking spaces and build a new 60,836-square foot Wellbeing Center at 305 Velocity Way. Addendum No. 3 to the 2012 SEIR analyzed this new use and was approved by the City Council on May 7, 2020.
On October 5, 2020, Gilead Sciences submitted a request to demolish a 739-stall surface parking lot and construct the new Gilead Park. Gilead pursued the project as a temporary, limited-duration use (five years), under the condition that a General Development Plan (GDP) amendment would be required for the park to remain long-term. Addendum No.4 to the 2012 SEIR analyzed this reallocation and was approved by the Planning Commission on February 4, 2021.
C. PROJECT CHANGES
On August 9, 2022, Gilead Sciences submitted a request to reduce the total amount of office space permitted in the South Campus and increase the amount of laboratory space while staying within the maximum campus build-out of 2,500,600 square feet, as well as to maintain the existing
5 Gilead Sciences, Inc., 2013. Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan. November 14. 6 LSA Associates, Inc., 2012. Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
323
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
temporary park as a permanent use. Table 1 illustrates the proposed changes to the GDP, including square footage amounts approved originally and in 2016, and now proposed.
Table 1: Proposed Gilead Campus Square Footage Parameters
SOUTH CAMPUS ORIGINAL GDP
MAXIMUM
SQUARE FEET
AMENDED GDP
MAXIMUM
SQUARE FEET
PROPOSED GDP
MAXIMUM
SQUARE FEET
Office 500,000 250,000 0 (zero)*
Biopharmaceutical
Laboratory
953,000 1,203,000 1,453,000
Materials
Storage/Warehouse
5,100 5,100 5,100
Total South Campus 1,458,100 1,458,100 1,458,100
NORTH CAMPUS
Office 1,024,000 1,024,000 1,024,000
Materials Storage/Warehouse 18,500 18,500 18,500
Total North Campus 1,042,500 1,042,500 1,042,500
INTEGRATED CAMPUS
Office 1,524,000 1,274,000 1,024,000
Biopharmaceutical Laboratory 953,000 1,203,000 1,453,000 Materials Storage/Warehouse 23,600 23,600 23,600
Total Campus 2,500,600 2,500,600 2,500,600
* The proposed amendment would reclassify 45,505 square feet of existing office space for future redevelopment as laboratory use. In each area of analysis in this memo, the more impactful option was considered.
The key project revisions considered in this analysis are whether (1) the reallocation of 250,000 square feet of floor area from office space to laboratory space (including 45,505 square feet of existing office, to be redeveloped as laboratory); and (2) the continued and permanent use of Gilead Park, would result in any new or substantially greater impacts. The analysis considers that the proposed reallocation of square footage would not result in any net changes to the approved buildout for the GDP amendment of up to 1,458,100 square feet in the South Campus and up to 2,500,600 square feet in the Total Campus. The analysis also considers that the continuation of the temporary park as a permanent use will not result in any net changes to the approved buildout for the GDP.
The proposed reallocation of square footage in the GDP amendment and permanent park use would not result in a net change of total square footage for the entire 2012 Master Plan site over what was analyzed in the 2012 SEIR. The conditions of approval and the 2012 SEIR support a maximum campus build-out of 2,500,600 square feet. As discussed below in Section D, the modified laboratory and office space and permanent park use do not constitute as substantial changes to the project evaluated in the SEIR that would require major revisions to the certified 2012 SEIR, because of a new significant effect or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
324
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
D. ANALYSIS
Urban Planning Partners reviewed the requested 2022 Project Modifications consisting of the proposed GDP Amendment and found that there are no substantial project changes, are no substantial changes in the project circumstances, or new information of substantial importance which could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence when the 2012 SEIR was certified. Therefore, under CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, no further environmental review is required. 7, 8, 9 Each environmental topic assessed under CEQA and in the 2012 SEIR was considered, including Land Use; Visual Quality; Population, Employment, and Housing; Geology, Seismicity, and Soils; Hydrology and Water Quality; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Transportation and Circulation; Noise; Air Quality; Public Services, Utilities, Recreation; and Global Climate Change.
The 2022 Project Modifications will be required to comply with the 2012 SEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as a Condition of Approval along with all the Conditions adopted as a part of Ordinance No. 576. As discussed below, there are no new impacts or more substantially more severe impacts or the need for new or different mitigation measures not already identified and analyzed in the 2012 SEIR that would result due to project changes, new information, or changed circumstances.
Transportation and Circulation, Air Quality, and Water Supply/Demand analyses and findings are described below as these are the three topics most likely affected by project changes, changed circumstances, and/or new information.
1. Transportation and Circulation
The 2012 SEIR identified five significant impacts related to transportation and circulation that would exceed thresholds of significance based on the CEQA Guidelines and applicable standards recognized by Foster City, San Mateo, and C/CAG in place in 2012. In summary, the SEIR found that the 2012 Master Plan would: (1) increase vehicle delay by more than 4 seconds at the intersection of Norfolk Street and East Third Avenue, which was already operating at an unacceptable level of service (LOS) during the AM peak hour under cumulative conditions; (2) cause the freeway segment of eastbound SR 92 between US 101 and Mariners Island Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard to degrade from acceptable LOS E to unacceptable LOS F during the AM peak hour under cumulative conditions; (3) disrupt the routes of the Lincoln Centre shuttle and the North Foster City shuttle by closing Lakeside Drive; (4) add ridership demand to shuttles that are over capacity; and (5) interfere with circulation patterns during construction activities.
7 California, State of, 1999. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines. Section 21166.
8 California, State of, 1999. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines. Section 15162.
9 California, State of, 1999. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines. Section 15164.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
325
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
The 2012 SEIR determined that after implementation of mitigation measures, all five impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures included: (1) implementing a Transportation Demand Management Plan; (2) rerouting shuttles to avoid the closed-off portion of Lakeside Drive; (3) contributing to the expansion of existing shuttle services or providing new shuttle services to local transit hubs, such as the East Hillsdale Caltrain Station and the Millbrae BART/Caltrain station; and (4) developing and submitting a construction management plan for City approval that specifies measures that would reduce impacts to motor vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit circulation.
It is noted that at the time of the Gilead Campus EIR in 2012, transportation impacts were determined based on intersection LOS and delay. Since that time SB 743 was passed and Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) is now the indicator for determining if a new development will result in a “significant transportation impact” under CEQA. Vehicle delay and level of service are no longer allowed as CEQA significant thresholds, but jurisdictions may consider such effects independent of CEQA as part of the project merits. Therefore, to determine if there would be any new significant impacts using the current methodology and guidelines for transportation impacts under CEQA, VMT was relied upon for the proposed GDP amendment. However, the City did have the applicant prepare a supplemental traffic analysis that addresses both LOS (for informational purposes) and VMT for purposes of this CEQA analysis. The supplemental traffic analysis dated August 5, 2022 was prepared by Kimley-Horn and is provided as Attachment A.
In the context of LOS, which is provided as an informational item in this memorandum, the Kimley- Horn analysis concluded that because a laboratory land use has a lower trip generation rate per building square footage than an office land use, the proposed GDP amendment would generate fewer trips than previously planned for the South Campus. The analysis was completed using the following trip generation rates, determined by a trip generation study completed in 2012:
10 • General Office = 1.28 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the AM peak hour and 1.29 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the PM peak hour (ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition (General Office Building) comparison: 1.52 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the AM peak hour and 1.44 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the PM peak hour) • Laboratory = 0.33 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the AM peak hour and 0.47 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the PM peak hour (ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition (Research and Development Center) comparison: 1.03 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the AM peak hour and 0.98 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the PM peak hour) Reallocating 250,000 square feet of floor area from office to laboratory use generated 194 fewer vehicle trips in the AM peak hour and 158 fewer vehicle trips in the PM peak hour. This is because the laboratory land use has a lower trip generation rate in the AM peak hour and PM peak hour than the general office land use. The traffic analysis concluded that since the proposed GDP amendment would result in fewer AM and PM peak hour trips generated than was identified in the Gilead Campus EIR, the proposed GDP amendment would not result in additional significant impacts than previously identified. The location of the land use change would be contained within the South Campus and therefore no changes to the directionality of the vehicle trips at any of the previous
10 LSA Associates, Inc., 2012. Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
326
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
study intersections would occur. More specifically, there would be no redistribution of vehicles from the Gilead Master Plan at the intersections of Mariners Island Boulevard/Reef Drive or the intersections along Vintage Park Drive adjacent to the Gilead campus.
The following is provided as an excerpt from the traffic analysis, regarding VMT:
The City has not adopted a VMT methodology and threshold thus far. Per other approved transportation impact analysis studies, the VMT evaluation is based on the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. This document is typically used as a reference for local agencies within California who have not adopted their own VMT methodology or thresholds. For this project, since it is an application to swap allowable office building area for allowable laboratory building area, the relevant OPR guidelines would be:
Redevelopment Projects: Where a project replaces existing VMT-generating land uses, if the replacement leads to a net overall decrease in VMT, the project would lead to a less-than- significant transportation impact.11
Based on this criterion, the project would lead to a less-than-significant transportation impact because the proposed project would result in a net overall decrease in VMT. VMT is evaluated on a daily basis and is the product of daily vehicle trips multiplied by trip distances. As shown in the project trip generation section above, the proposed GDP amendment would result in 594 fewer daily trips. The vehicle trip distances are assumed to be the same between an office land use and a laboratory land use. Each use would be considered service employment uses and therefore would have the same trip distances within a travel demand model. Since the number of daily vehicle trips decrease and the trip distances remain the same, the proposed GDP amendment would result in a net decrease in VMT. Therefore, the project would lead to a less than significant transportation impact.
In summary, the 2022 Project Modifications would not result in any new significant transportation impacts or a substantial increase or severity of a previously identified significant transportation impact from those identified in the 2012 SEIR, nor are new or different mitigation measures or alternatives warranted to address potential transportation impacts.
The 2012 SEIR analyzed cumulative conditions for probable future developments and select roadway improvements. In addition, cumulative traffic volumes included traffic due to occupancy of vacant buildings and approved but not yet constructed developments. Since conditions in the 2012 Master Plan area have not substantially changed, there is no new information or change in circumstances that would trigger new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect with respect to transportation and circulation.
11 California, State of, 2018. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
327
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
2. Air Quality
The 2012 SEIR found that operations under the 2012 Master Plan would generate long-term emissions of criteria air pollutants primarily associated with mobile emissions that would exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) project-level thresholds of significance.12 As a result, operation of the 2012 Master Plan would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants that would contribute substantially to existing air quality violations in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and conflict with implementation of the BAAQMD’s 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan.13 After implementation of mitigation measures to reduce mobile emissions of criteria pollutants, the 2012 SEIR found these air quality impacts remained significant and unavoidable because of the overall size of the project. The 2012 SEIR found that potential impacts to sensitive receptors exposed to toxic air contaminants during construction and/or operation of potential future backup diesel generators under the 2012 Master Plan could be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation. The 2012 SEIR also found that the uses proposed as part of the 2012 Master Plan are similar to existing uses and are not expected to produce any offensive odors.
Emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants during construction of the proposed project would be similar to the emissions evaluated as part of the 2012 Master Plan. Consistent with the findings of the 2012 SEIR, implementation of best management practices during construction (Mitigation Measures AIR-1) to reduce potential impacts to regional air quality and preparation of a health risk assessment to demonstrate how construction emissions would not pose a significant health risk to nearby sensitive receptors (Mitigation Measures AIR-4) would reduce potential impacts during construction to a less-than-significant level.
Any back-up diesel generators for the proposed laboratory facilities would generate emissions of diesel-particulate matter that could pose a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. In accordance with the BAAQMD’s Regulation 2-5 (New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants), the BAAQMD does not issue permits for generators that would result in an excess cancer risk greater than 10 in one million or an acute or chronic Hazard Index greater than 1.0. 14 Furthermore, Mitigation
Measure AIR-5 requires preparation of a health risk assessment for any generators proposed within 500 feet of a residence to demonstrate that the health risks do not exceed the following levels:
· Increased cancer risk of greater than 10.0 in one million; · Increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the Hazard Index (chronic or acute); · Ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentration increase greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) annual average;
· Increased cancer risk greater than 100.0 in one million from all sources within 1,000 feet; · Increased non-cancer risk of greater than 10.0 on the Hazard Index (chronic) from all sources within 1,000 feet; or
12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. p. 2-3. May.
13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15. 14 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2021. Regulation 2, Rule 5: New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants.
December 15.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
328
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
· Ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.8 μg/m3 annual average from all sources within 1,000 feet.
Consistent with the findings of the 2012 SEIR, compliance with Mitigation Measure AIR-5, would reduce potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors from generators to a less-than-significant level.
Since the 2022 Project Modifications would not change the type of land uses that were evaluated as part of the 2012 Master Plan (and these did not include land uses associated with odor generation), the 2022 Project Modifications would have a less-than-significant impact on people related to the generation of offensive odors.
As explained above, the proposed transfer of capacity between office to laboratory space would result in a net decrease in vehicle trip generation. As a result, emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with mobile sources would be expected to decrease with the 2022 Project Modifications.
Although the proposed reallocation of floor area from office to laboratory space would reduce criteria pollutant emissions from mobile sources and incorporate measures from a Transportation Demand Management Program, as described under Mitigation Measures AIR-2, AIR-3, and AIR-6, the criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the 2022 Project Modifications are conservatively considered to remain significant and unavoidable.
To ensure that the 2022 Project Modifications would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the 2012 SEIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which includes all Mitigation Measures identified in the 2012 SEIR, will be imposed as conditions of approval, including all Mitigation Measures concerning air quality. The 2022 Project Modifications do not include any changes that would result in new or intensify already-identified impacts on air quality and therefore no new or different mitigation measures are required.
Since the 2012 SEIR evaluated implementation of the 2012 Master Plan under cumulative conditions as well as the project’s conformance with the BAAQMD’s 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, and conditions in the 2012 Master Plan area have not substantially changed, there is no new information or change in circumstances that would trigger new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect with respect to air quality.
15 3. Water Supply/ Demand
According to the 2012 Water Supply Assessment (2012 WSA, Attachment B) conducted for the proposed 2012 Master Plan16 and other major projects in Foster City, the 2012 Master Plan would result in approximately 206 acre feet of additional water demand per year (AFY). Taking into account major anticipated development projects within the EMID service area, including the 2012 Master Plan, the 2012 SEIR found that EMID would have a sufficient water supply to meet expected
15 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15. 16 Foster City, City of, 2013. Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan. November 14.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
329
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
demand. The expected water supply surplus was expected to range from 582 AFY in 2015 to 320 AFY in 2030.
The most recent data on current water use by the Gilead Campus comes from water use data gathered by the City of Foster City and EMID, and shows that 2020 was Gilead’s heaviest water use year in the past decade, just ahead of 2019, as described in Table 2, Total Water Use for Gilead Campus, by Year, below. Although the COVID-19 pandemic caused many companies to temporarily shut down or shift to working from home, Gilead developed the first antiviral drug approved to treat COVID-19; as a result, Gilead’s water use was not reduced in 2020 as may have been expected.
While 2020 water use was higher due to Gilead’s work on the antiviral drug, 2019 and 2022 (which is missing data only for December) both show water use close to 2020’s. Therefore, to be conservative, this analysis uses the highest past year of water use, which is 2020, at 169.41 AFY.
Table 2: Total Water Use for Gilead Campus, by Year
Year AFY
2011 35.16
2012 36.38
2013 55.68
2014 55.58
2015 66.14
2016 89.47
2017 91.81
2018 96.52
2019 115.78
2020 119.70
2021 91.92
2022 113.93*
Source: Utility consumption data from Foster City
* 2022 is missing data for December.
The year 2020 is used as a baseline for square footage of development as well, comparing the square footage already built to the Master Plan as a whole, in order to calculate what has yet to be constructed, and what the water needs are for that future square footage. In 2020, the existing square footage on the ground was 664,029 square feet of office and 1,901,321 square feet of lab across the entire campus. The expected growth, or anticipated construction to reach full buildout, is calculated by subtracting existing square feet from permitted, to reach unbuilt/expected square feet, as described in the Current Unbuilt column in Table 3: Unbuilt Square Footage on the Gilead Campus, Current and Proposed, below.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
330
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
Table 3: Unbuild Square Footage on the Gilead Campus, Current and Proposed Current Unbuilt SF Proposed Unbuilt SF
Office 1,274,000 – 664,029 = 609,971 - 250,000 = 359,971 Lab 1,203,000 – 1,091,321 = 111,679 + 250,000 = 361,679
The 2022 Project Modifications would reallocate 250,000 square feet from office to lab use, which would shift the unbuilt/expected square feet numbers for office from 609,971 to 359,971 and for lab from 111,679 to 361,679 square feet, as shown above in the Proposed Unbuilt column on the right of Table 3, above. Recent water use data from existing Gilead buildings show that laboratory uses use an average of 25 gallons/year/square feet of lab, and office uses use an average of 13 gallons/year/ square feet of office. Multiplying these numbers by the unbuilt square footage under the new proposal, above, brings us to the water needs for the proposed reallocation, namely:
Office: 13 g/y/SF x 359,971 SF ÷ 325,851 gallons/AFY = 14.36 AFY for proposed unbuilt office Lab: 25 g/y/SF x 361,679 SF ÷ 325,851 gallons/AFY = 27.75 AFY for proposed unbuilt lab Adding these two numbers for unbuilt square footage amounts under the new proposal to the existing water use from 2020 and subtracting out demand from buildings to be demolished gives us the total water use for the Gilead Campus under the new proposal:
14.36 AFY (proposed unbuilt office) + 27.75 AFY (proposed unbuilt lab) + 119.70 AFY (2020) – 4.5 AFY (demand from buildings to be demolished) = 157.31 AFY proposed water use As discussed above, the 2012 WSA shows that the 2012 Master Plan would result in approximately 206 AFY of additional demand. The sum above shows that the current proposal would result in a proposed campus water use of 157.31 AFY, which is 48.69 AFY less than the previously predicted 206 AFY. Foster City does not currently have a defined threshold of significance for water use; in its absence, the previously approved amount of water use (206 AFY) can act as the threshold of significance; any proposed use above this amount the City is conservatively considering as a significant impact. The 2022 Project Modifications do not cause total water use for the Gilead Campus to exceed the 206 AFY amount, therefore, there is no new impact.
Further, in an effort to reduce its water impacts, Gilead is upgrading its irrigation systems campus- wide with drip and micro-spray systems, which lowers water use by 70% from previous methods.
Gilead is also making an effort to replace turf campus-wide and is in the process of replacing 100,000 square feet of turf with drought tolerant plants.
Because Gilead’s proposed campus water use is less than 206 AFY, the 2022 Project Modifications would not represent a significant increase in water demand and would be within the anticipated supply capabilities of EMID. The 2022 Project Modifications would not lead to insufficient water supplies in existing entitlements and resources, or require new or expanded entitlements, and would not result in new or more severe impact with respect to water supply/demand.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
331
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
Since the 2012 SEIR found that the 2012 Mater Plan would not make a significant contribution to a cumulative water shortage and conditions in the 2012 Master Plan area have not substantially changed, there is no new information or change in circumstances that would trigger new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect with respect to public services and utilities.
4. Gilead Park
In 2020, Gilead Sciences submitted a request to demolish a 739-stall surface parking lot and construct the new Gilead Park, keeping the total of 5,271 parking space on site. Gilead pursued the project as a temporary, limited-duration use (five years), under the condition that a General Development Plan (GDP) amendment would be required for the park to remain long-term. Now, as part of the currently proposed GDP amendment, Gilead would like to make the park use permanent.
The 2021 Use Permit and GDP amendment were to demolish a 739-stall surface parking lot and construct the new Gilead Park (workspace plaza), including a private park, amphitheater, gardens, and ancillary parking (29 spaces). The project area consisted of two parcels, totaling 236,126 square feet (5.35 acres) which were merged into a single parcel, and park construction has been fully completed. As part of the application review, Addendum 4 to the 2012 Master Plan analyzed the potential impacts of the park as a permanent park and use on-site. The Addendum 4 concluded that the project would not result in significant environmental effects beyond those identified in the 2012 SEIR (Attachment C). Therefore, the 2022 Project Modifications would not result in new or more severe impact with respect to land use.
Since the 2012 SEIR found that the 2012 Mater Plan would not make a change to land use and conditions in the 2012 Master Plan area have not substantially changed, there is no new information or change in circumstances that would trigger new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect with respect to public services and utilities.
E. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the 2022 Project Modifications do not trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163. Specifically, there are no substantial changes proposed in or with respect to the circumstances under which the 2022 Project Modifications will be undertaken, and there is no other relevant new information of substantial importance, which will require any major revisions to the 2012 SEIR. Thus, no further environmental review is required and in considering approval of the 2022 Project Modifications, the City should rely on the previously certified 2012 SEIR. The following discussion summarizes the reasons why no supplemental or subsequent CEQA review is necessary pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and the City can rely on the previously certified EIR:
Substantial Changes to the Project. The proposed shift in maximum square footage permitted for office and laboratory space in the 2012 Master Plan proposed by the 2022 Project Modifications, would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase or severity of a previously identified significant impact from those identified in the 2012 SEIR. As discussed above, the 2022
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
332
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
Project Modifications would result in net reduction in vehicle trips and therefore a net reduction in emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with mobile sources. The 2022 Project Modifications would not result in any increase in water demand. The current demand can be met by the City’s projected water supply even in drought conditions and would not lead to insufficient water supplies in existing entitlements and resources, or require new or expanded entitlements. Therefore, the proposed changes included in 2022 Project Modifications are considered minor refinements, not substantial changes.
Project Circumstances. Since certification of the 2012 SEIR, conditions in the 2012 Master Plan area have not substantially changed and thus implementation of the 2022 Project Modifications would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of environmental effects already identified in the 2012 SEIR. No substantial changes in noise levels, air quality, traffic, or other conditions have occurred within and around the 2012 Master Plan Campus site since certification of the EIR.
New I
nformation . At the time of the Gilead Campus EIR in 2012, transportation impacts were determined based on intersection LOS and delay, and not VMT. With the passage of SB 743, VMT has become an important indicator for determining if a new development will result in a “significant transportation impact” under CEQA. However, since the number of daily vehicle trips decrease and the trip distances remain the same, the proposed GDP amendment would result in a net decrease in VMT. Therefore, the project would lead to a less than significant transportation impact, and would not trigger the New Information clause of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, as described below.
No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the 2012 SEIR was certified, has been identified which is expected to result in: (1) new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of environmental effects already identified in the EIR; or (2) mitigation measures or alternatives which were previously determined to be infeasible would in fact be feasible, or which are considerably different from those recommended in the 2012 SEIR, and which would substantially reduce significant effects of the project, but the project applicant declines to adopt them.
Consequently, there are no substantial project changes, no substantial changes in the project circumstances, and no new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the certified 2012 SEIR, because of a new significant effect or an increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect. Under CEQA section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163, no further environmental review is required. Thus, in considering approval of the 2022 Project Modifications, the City should rely on the previously certified 2012 SEIR.
Attachment A: Kimley Horn Transportation Memorandum
Attachment B: 2012 Water Supply Assessment
Attachment C: Addendum 4 – CEQA Compliance for Proposed Gilead New Park
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
333
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 August 5, 2022
Ms. Mi Yang
Gilead Sciences, Inc. – Campus Planning
353 Vintage Park Drive
Foster City, CA 94404
RE: Gilead Sciences, Inc. –GDP Amendment Application – Traffic Analysis Dear Ms. Yang:
Gilead Sciences, Inc. is applying for a General Development Plan (GDP) amendment to increase the site’s allowable laboratory space by 250,000 square feet (SF) and decrease the site’s allowable office space by 250,000 square feet. The proposed amendment would transfer the remaining unbuilt 204,495 square feet of office square footage designated in the Integrated Master Plan (IMP) South Campus to laboratory square footage. The current GDP allows a maximum of 250,000 SF of office within the South Campus. Within the 250,000 SF of designated office use, 204,495 SF is unbuilt while the remaining 45,505 SF is currently occupied by two office buildings on site: B331 and B335.
Gilead would like the flexibility to allow the 45,505 SF to be either utilized as laboratory or office once they are redeveloped. Therefore, this traffic letter prepared for this proposed modification assumes these buildings remain as office to provide the most conservative analysis, but would still cover the traffic analysis if this square footage is converted to laboratory as determined by business needs. The analysis will only show the shift of 204,495 SF of office to 204,495 SF of laboratory to be conservative. This change would occur in the South Campus of the Gilead Sciences Integrated Campus. This task is to review the effect of the GDP amendment on the nearby transportation network. The factors that were considered include vehicle trip generation, effect on nearby intersections, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and parking.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Kimley-Horn performed an analysis of the effects of the proposed GDP amendment on square footage allowance, trip generation, level of service for surrounding intersections, and parking.
As provided by Gilead, Table 1 summarizes the approved and proposed land uses and intensities with and without the proposed GDP amendment.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
334
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 Table 1 – Current Gilead Campus Square Footage Summary
Max Area
Allowed
(SF)
Area Built
or Planned
(SF)
Area
Remaining
(SF)
250,000 45,505 204,495
1,203,000 1,091,321 111,679
5,100 - 5,100
1,458,100 1,136,826 321,274
1,024,000 618,524 405,476
18,500 - 18,500
1,042,500 618,524 423,976
1,274,000 664,029 609,971
1,203,000 1,091,321 111,679
23,600 - 23,600
2,500,600 1,755,350 745,250
Total Maximum SF Subtotal
Use
SOUTH CAMPUS SQUARE FOOTAGE
Office
Laboratory
M aterials Storage/Warehouse
NORTH CAMPUS SQUARE FOOTAGE
Office
M aterials Storage/Warehouse
Total Maximum SF Subtotal
INTEGRATED SOUTH AND NORTH CAMPUS
Office
Laboratory
M aterials Storage/Warehouse
Total M ax imum SF for Integrated M aster Plan
LAND USE COMPARISON
Gilead has proposed an amendment to the GDP that would reduce the maximum office square footage by 204,495 square feet for the South Campus and increase the maximum laboratory square footage by 204,495 square feet. Table 2 shows the updated square footage summary with the proposed changes to the allowed areas in the South Campus and the entire Integrated Campus.
Table 2 – Proposed Gilead Campus Square Footage Summary Current
Max Area
Allowed
(SF)
Proposed
Max Area
Allowed
(SF)
Δ Max Area
Allowed
(SF)
250,000 45,505 (204,495)
1,203,000 1,407,495 204,495
5,100 5,100 -
1,458,100 1,458,100 -
1,024,000 1,024,000 -
18,500 18,500 -
1,042,500 1,042,500 -
1,274,000 1,069,505 (204,495)
1,203,000 1,407,495 204,495
23,600 23,600 -
2,500,600 2,500,600 -
Office
Use
SOUTH CAMPUS SQUARE FOOTAGE
Total M ax imum SF for Integrated M aster Plan
Laboratory
M aterials Storage/Warehouse
Total Maximum SF Subtotal
NORTH CAMPUS SQUARE FOOTAGE
Office
M aterials Storage/Warehouse
Total Maximum SF Subtotal
INTEGRATED SOUTH AND NORTH CAMPUS
Office
Laboratory
M aterials Storage/Warehouse
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
335
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 With the proposed GDP amendment, the planned square footages would not result in an increase in overall maximum square footage for the South Campus or the Integrated Campus. It should be noted that a laboratory land use has a lower trip generation rate per square footage of building than an office land use. This will be discussed further in the trip generation section.
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
The number of anticipated project trips for the Gilead Campus was determined from the trip generation study that was done previously for theGilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR1 (Gilead Campus EIR). This previous study determined that the trip generation characteristics for the existing Gilead land uses differed from the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) trip generation numbers. Since a study was specifically done for the Gilead campus, which captures the unique travel patterns of Gilead’s and this proposed project, these rates were used instead of the ITE trip generation rates.
The site-specific trip generation rates are as listed:
· General Office = 1.28 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the AM peak hour and 1.29 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the PM peak hour (ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition (General Office Building) comparison: 1.52 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the AM peak hour and 1.44 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the PM peak hour)
· Laboratory = 0.33 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the AM peak hour and 0.47 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the PM peak hour
(ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition (Research and Development Center) comparison: 1.03 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the AM peak hour and 0.98 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the PM peak hour)
Using the site-specific trip generation rates, the anticipated number of project trips for the existing GDP and the proposed GDP amendment are shown inTable 3. 1 Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR, LSA Associates, Inc., December 2012
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
336
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 Table 3 – Existing GDP and Proposed GDP Amendment Trip Generation Summary Rate Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Office 1,274.0 11.01 14,027 1.28 88:12 1,433 199 1,632 1.29 14:86 227 1,417 1,644 Laboratory 1,203.0 8.11 9,757 0.33 73:27 290 110 400 0.47 26:74 149 411 560 Materials Storage/Warehouse 23.6 4.53 107 0.51 83:17 10 2 12 0.46 27:73 3 8 11 Subtotal 2,500.6 23,891 1,733 311 2,044 379 1,836 2,215 Office 1,069.5 11.01 11,775 1.28 88:12 1,203 167 1,370 1.29 14:86 190 1,189 1,379 Laboratory 1,407.5 8.11 11,415 0.33 73:27 340 128 468 0.47 26:74 175 481 656 Materials Storage/Warehouse 23.6 4.53 107 0.51 83:17 10 2 12 0.46 27:73 3 8 11 Subtotal 2,500.6 23,297 1,553 297 1,850 368 1,678 2,046 Net Trips -594 -180 -14 -194 -11 -158 -169
Existing General Development Plan
Proposed Amendment to General Development Plan
Land Us e Size
(KSF)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourDaily
Increasing the laboratory use by 204,495 square feet and decreasing the office use by 204,495 square feet generates 594 fewer daily trips, 194 fewer vehicle trips in the AM peak hour, and 169 fewer vehicle trips in the PM peak hour. If the additional 45,505 square feet currently occupied as office is also converted to laboratory use, this would decrease the office use in the GDP by 250,000 square feet and generate 726 fewer daily trips, 236 fewer vehicle trips in the AM peak hour, and 207 fewer trips in the PM peak hour. The decrease in vehicle trips for each time period are because the laboratory land use has a lower trip generation rate in the daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour than the general office land use. Since the proposed GDP amendment generates fewer AM and PM peak hour trips, the impacts from the traffic generated by this change in land use would be no greater than identified in the Gilead Campus EIR and therefore would be consistent with the Gilead Campus EIR results.
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARISON
Since the proposed GDP amendment would result in fewer AM and PM peak hour trips generated than was identified in the Gilead Campus EIR, the proposed GDP amendment would not result in additional significant impacts than previously identified. The location of the land use change would be contained within the South Campus and therefore no changes to the directionality of the vehicle trips at any of the previous study intersections would occur. More specifically, there would be no redistribution of vehicles from the Gilead Master Plan at the intersections of Mariners Island Boulevard/Reef Drive or the intersections along Vintage Park Drive adjacent to the Gilead campus.
It should also be noted that at the time of the Gilead Campus EIR in 2012, transportation impacts were determined based on intersection LOS and delay, and not VMT. With the passage of SB 743, VMT has become an important indicator for determining if a new development will result in a “significant transportation impact” under CEQA. Therefore, to determine if there would be any new significant impacts using the current methodology and guidelines for transportation impacts under CEQA, VMT was also evaluated for the proposed GDP amendment.
VMT EVALUATION
The City has not adopted a VMT methodology and threshold thus far. Per other approved transportation impact analysis studies, the VMT evaluation is based on the State of California
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
337
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA2. This document is typically used as a reference for local agencies within California who have not adopted their own VMT methodology or thresholds. For this project, since it is an application to swap allowable office building area for allowable laboratory building area, the relevant OPR guidelines would be:
Redevelopment Projects: Where a project replaces existing VMT-generating land uses, if the replacement leads to a net overall decrease in VMT, the project would lead to a less-than-significant transportation impact.
Based on this criteria, the project would lead to a less than significant transportation impact because the proposed project would result in a net overall decrease in VMT. VMT is evaluated on a daily basis and is the product of daily vehicle trips multiplied by trip distances. As shown in the project trip generation section above, the proposed GDP amendment would result in 594 fewer daily trips. The vehicle trip distances are assumed to be the same between an office land use and a laboratory land use. Each use would be considered service employment uses and therefore would have the same trip distances within a travel demand model. Since the number of daily vehicle trips decrease and the trip distances remain the same, the proposed GDP amendment would result in a net decrease in VMT. Therefore, the project would lead to a less than significant transportation impact.
PARKING COMPARISON
Parking for the GDP amendment was also reviewed. Per the Gilead Campus EIR, the parking ratios for each land use are:
· Laboratory use: a parking space per 833 square feet, or 1.2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet
· Office use: a parking space per 250 square feet, or 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet Additionally, the City established minimum parking requirements based on 85% building efficiency, and a 15% transportation demand management (TDM) reduction per the approved GDP. The parking required for the additional allowed laboratory building area, but reduction in allowed office building area, is shown in Table 4. This GDP amendment would result in requiring 413 fewer parking spaces, and 506 fewer parking spaces if the additional 45,505 square feet currently occupied as office is also converted to laboratory use, because a laboratory use has a lower parking requirement than for an office use.
2 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, December 2018.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
338
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 Table 4 – Parking Summary
Land Use
Parking Ratio
(s paces per
1,000 SF)
Change in Area
Allowed including
Existing Office
(s quare feet)1
Required Parking
Spaces with 15%
TDM Reduction
per Approved GDP
Change in Area
Allowed
Converting all
Office to
Laboratory
(s quare feet)1
Parking
Spaces
Laboratory 1.2 204,495 x 0.85 178 250,000 x 0.85 217
Office 4 -204,495 x 0.85 -591 -250,000 x 0.85 -723
-413 -506
1 Assumes an 85% building efficiency to account for stairwells, common areas, etc.
Net Change
CONCLUSIONS
With the proposed GDP amendment to replace 204,495 square feet or 250,000 square feet respectively of allowable office space for 250,000 square feet of allowable laboratory space, no additional traffic or parking concerns will be expected compared to the previously approved GDP.
The factors that were considered include vehicle trip generation, effect on nearby intersections, VMT, and parking. The following is a summary of each factor:
· Trip Generation: The GDP amendment would result in 594 fewer daily trips, 194 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 169 fewer PM peak hour trips. If the additional 45,505 square feet currently occupied as office is also converted to laboratory use, this would decrease the office use in the GDP by 250,000 square feet and generate 726 fewer daily trips, 236 fewer vehicle trips in the AM peak hour, and 207 fewer trips in the PM peak hour. · Intersection LOS: Since the GDP amendment would result in fewer vehicle trips generated and no changes to the directionality of the vehicle trips at any of the previous study intersections would occur due to the land use change being contained within the South Campus, the intersection LOS results identified in the Gilead Campus EIR would be no worse. Therefore, no new LOS impacts are expected with the GDP amendment compared to what was identified in the Gilead Campus EIR.
· VMT: VMT is a new measure to identify transportation impacts under CEQA that was not considered in the Certified Gilead Campus EIR. In reviewing the VMT with the GDP amendment, the VMT would not increase because the vehicles trips generated would decrease and the trip distances are expected to remain the same between the office and lab uses. Therefore, when considering the redevelopment project criteria from the OPR guidance, the GDP amendment would result in a net decrease in VMT and would lead to a less than significant transportation impact.
· Parking: This GDP amendment would result in requiring 413 fewer parking spaces, and 506 fewer parking spaces if the additional 45,505 square feet currently occupied as office is also
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
339
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 converted to laboratory use, because a laboratory use has a lower parking requirement than for an office use.
Sincerely,
Ben Huie, P.E.
Project Manager
P.E. Certificate No. C76682
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
340
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 1 CITY OF FOSTER CITY
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR
GILEAD INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN PROJECT
15-ACRES PROJECT
400 MARINERS ISLAND BLVD., CITY OF SAN MATEO (TIDELANDS PARK)
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
CHESS HOTEL PROJECT
CHESS/HATCH DRIVE OFFICE PROJECT
BAYSIDE TOWERS III PROJECT
VISA V PROJECT
MARINA PROJECT
UPDATED AND APPROVED ON NOVEMBER 5, 2012
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
341
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 2 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR
GILEAD INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN PROJECT, 15-ACRES PROJECT, 400 MARINERS ISLAND BLVD., CITY OF SAN MATEO (TIDELANDS PARK) RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, CHESS HOTEL PROJECT,
CHESS/HATCH DRIVE OFFICE PROJECT, BAYSIDE TOWERS III PROJECT, VISA
V PROJECT, AND MARINA PROJECT
Executive Summary
The City of Foster City is conducting an environmental review under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Gilead Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Project. The City of Foster City has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required for e ach of the proposed projects. The environmental review includes the need for an assessment of the available water supply to serve the proposed projects. The Water Supply As sessment (WSA) will provide information for use in the CEQA analysis for the pr oposed projects. The requirements for the WSA are described in the California Water C ode amended by the enactment of Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) in 2002. The SB 610 requir es an assessment of whether “total projected water supplies, available during normal, single dry and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection” will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed projects. Most of the information pres ented here in the WSA report is included in the 2010-2015 Urban Water Management Pl an (UWMP) which was approved by the Board of Directors of the Estero Mu nicipal Improvement District (EMID) in May 2011. Since the UWMP was approved, more proj ects have been proposed and demand calculations for the new projects are includ ed in this WSA to paint a comprehensive picture of system-wide supply and pro jected demand for the 20 year horizon. It is anticipated that EMID’s system-wide water demand will continue to decrease due to implementation of demand management measures described in this report.
All of the development projects are within the serv ice area of EMID. EMID has completed the WSA based on the land use proposed fo r the projects listed below. The analysis concluded that EMID will have sufficient w ater supply to serve all of the proposed projects as well as existing customers in 20-year horizon.
1. Gilead Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan P roject will require approximately 206 acre-feet per year (AFY) of additional water demand;
2. 15-Acres Project will require approximately 88 A FY of additional water demand;
3. 400 Mariners Island Blvd., City of San Mateo (Ti delands Park) Residential Project will require approximately 30 AFY of additional water demand;
4. Chess Hotel Project will require approximately 1 5 AFY of additional water demand:
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
342
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 3 5. Chess/Hatch Drive Office Project will require ap proximately 36 AFY of additional water demand;
6. Bayside Towers III Project will require approxim ately 7 AFY of additional water demand;
7. VISA V Project will require approximately 2 AFY of additional water demand; and
8. Marina Project will require approximately 5 AFY of additional water demand.
Prior to issuance of the use permit, utility analys es shall be performed by the project developers to determine whether existing transmissi on/distribution infrastructure has adequate capacity to deliver the needed water to th e project sites. The costs of the improvements shall be the responsibility of the dev eloper. Furthermore, all future development projects are required to maximize the e fficient use of water by installing water saving plumbing fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping to reduce water demand.
Project Descriptions
Gilead Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Proj ect: The proposed project is on approximately 73 acres of land located in Foster City, within the Vintage Park Master Planned Development, owned by Gilead Sciences, Inc. The proposed project would amend the Master Plan to redevelop the 73-acre camp us, which currently contains 17 buildings, totaling approximately 926,000 square fe et of R&D/Office Space. The Master Plan calls for demolition of up to 12 existing buil dings, and construction of up to 17 new buildings. After the projected 20 year build out pe riod of the project, the campus will have 23 buildings with a maximum build out of 2,500 ,600 square feet of R&D/Office space.
15-Acres Project: The proposed project is on approximately 15 acres of currently vacant city-owned property located in Neighborhood 1 adjacent to the Foster City Civic Center and the North Peninsula Jewish Community Cen ter. The proposed project is a senior oriented housing project consisting of approximately 196 market rate senior units, 152 assisted senior living units, 66 affordable sen ior units, 35,600 square feet of retail, 25,400 square feet of office, and 22,000 square feet of public open space.
400 Mariners Island Blvd., City of San Mateo (Tidel ands Park) Residential Project:
The project is to construction a 76 unit residentia l development on vacant property located at the southwest corner of E. Third Avenue and Mariners Island Boulevard in the City of San Mateo. EMID is responsible for providing water to the project site.
Chess Hotel Project: The proposed project is on approximately 1.7 acres of land located in Foster City, within Neighborhood Vintage Park. The proposal is to replace an existing 9,385 square foot, 1-story, unoccupied res taurant with a new 69,008 square foot, 5-story, 115-room hotel. The project site is located off of Vintage Park Drive and Chess Drive at 1299 Chess Drive.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
343
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 4 Chess/Hatch Drive Office Project: The proposed project would redevelop approximately 190,000 square feet of low-scale one- and two-story commercial/industrial buildings on approximately 12 acres with up to 800,000 square feet of office use in three (3) multi-story buildin gs up to 10 stories in height served by a combination of at-grade parking lots and a parking structure. The proposed Master Plan would require the demolition of 11 existing buildings.
Bayside Towers III Project: The construction of a 92,900 square foot, four-stor y office building and six level parking garage for the Baysi de Towers Development located on approximately 16 acres of land in Foster City. The project site is located at the eastern terminus of East Third Avenue and is bordered on th e north and east by the levee/pedway and the San Francisco Bay, on the sout h by State Route 92 and the west by Lincoln Center Office Park.
Visa V Project: The proposed project will construct 8,000 square fo ot office building located on the southwest corner of the terminus of Shell Blvd. and Metro Center Boulevard on approximately 1.4 acres of land in Foster City.
Marina Project: This site, located at the terminus of Halibut Stree t on the bay side of Beach Park Blvd. has been designated as the locatio n for a Foster City Marina in the Foster City General Plan. Approximately 300 berths will be constructed on the project site.
EMID and Its Supply Source
EMID is the utility arm of the City of Foster City. EMID administers the operations and maintenance of the water distribution system for th e City of Foster City. EMID also supplies water to residents in part of the City of San Mateo (Mariner’s Island area).
EMID purchases all of its water from the San Franci sco Public Utility Commission (SFPUC) as a contractual member of the Bay Area Wat er Supply Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). The SFPUC’s water system consists of thre e regional water supply and conveyance systems: the Hetch Hetchy system, the Al ameda system, and the Peninsula system. The Hetch Hetchy system is suppli ed by runoff from the upper Tuolumne River watershed on the western slope of th e central Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Alameda system includes conveyance f acilities connecting the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts and the Alameda water sources to t he Peninsula system. The Peninsula system includes water facilities that con nect the EMID and other Peninsula customers to the SFPUC distribution system and the Bay Division Pipelines. EMID does not have any groundwater or recycled water sources to supplement its supply.
EMID receives the already treated water from SFPUC and distributes it to its customers.
EMID has only one main source of water supply line, a 24-inch transmission main that is connected to SFPUC’s 54-inch Crystal Springs No. 2 line. The connection point is located in the City of San Mateo at the Crystal Springs Road. As a retailer, EMID has no direct control over its water supply.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
344
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 5 EMID has four (4) above ground water storage tanks with a total capacity of 20 million gallons for emergencies and peak demand. A booster pump station is activated to pump water from the storage tanks into the distribution system. The booster pump station has two (2) electrical pumps and three (3) engine drive pumps. The engine driven pumps are powered by natural gas with propane backup.
Emergency Connections
In addition to the 24-inch transmission main, EMID has a 12-inch connection to California Water Service Company which serves the C ity of San Mateo and a 12-inch connection to Mid-Peninsula Water Agency (formerly called Belmont County Water District) which serves the Cities of Belmont, San C arlos, and part of Redwood City.
EMID has agreements with both agencies that allow E MID to use these connections during emergency conditions. Both the California Wa ter Service Company and the Mid- Peninsula Water Agency are members of the BAWSCA.
Service Area Information with 25 Year Population Projections
EMID, serving a population of approximately 37,000 is located midway between San Francisco and San Jose. It is ten miles south of Sa n Francisco International Airport.
The service area of EMID consists of the City of Fo ster City and the Mariner’s Island area of the City of San Mateo. The majority of cust omers are residential users with a broad cross-section of offices, commercial business es, and a small number of industrial businesses.
Today, the City of Foster City is almost built-out with a number of redevelopment projects in various stages of planning. At 100 perc ent build out, the population served by EMID is expected to be approximately 39,000. Tab le 1 shows the projected population anticipated in five (5) year increments until the year 2030, as included in the UWMP. The percent increases for the population growth are also shown in the table.
Table 1
Current and Projected Population per UWMP
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Service Area
Population 36,100 37,088 37,924 38,492 38,869
% Increase 2.7 2.3 1.5 1.0
The BAWSCA has also published population projection s in the “Water Conservation Implementation Plan” that are based on ABAG Project ions from 2007. The BAWSCA population projections are slightly lower than the populations assumed in the UWMP as shown in the Table 1A.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
345
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 6 Table 1A
Current and Projected Population per BAWSCA Water Conservation Implementation Plan
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Service Area
Population 36,273 37,165 38,035 38,661 39,079
% Increase 2.5 2.3 1.7 1.1
This WSA uses the more conservative population projections contained in the UMMP.
Over the last three years, EMID has purchased an av erage of 5,232 acre-feet 1 per year
(AFY) of water from SFPUC. Table 2 shows EMID’s wat er quantities purchased from 2009 to 2011 and the annual average during those three years.
Table 2
Total Water Supply Deliveries to EMID from SFPUC during 2003 to 2007
Year Supply Deliveries (AFY)
2009 5,686
2010 5,400
2011 4,610
Annual Average (200 9 – 20 11 ) 5, 232
Contractual Water Supplies
In 1934, San Francisco combined the Hetch Hetchy sy stem and the Spring Valley system to create the SFPUC system. The rights to lo cal diversions were originally held by the Spring Valley Water Company, which was forme d in 1862. The SFPUC is owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco. EMID does not hold any existing water rights and all of its water supply assurances come through the contract with SFPUC. In 1984, SFPUC executed a Settlement Agreeme nt and Master Water Sales Contract (Contract) with the members of the BAWSCA. The Contract is governed by the Master Sales Agreement (MSA), which expired in June 2009. In August of 2009, BAWSCA and its member agencies signed a new Water S upply Agreement and Individual Water Sales Contract with San Francisco. The contract runs through June 30, 2034 and it guarantees a supply assurance of 184 mi llion-gallons-per-day (MGD) to BAWSCA member agencies. The supply assurance to EMID is 5.9 MGD or 6,608 AFY.
Water Supply Improvement Program
In order to enhance the ability of the SFPUC’s wate r supply system to meet identified service goals for water quality, seismic reliabilit y, delivery reliability, and water supply, the SFPUC is undertaking a Water System Improvement Program (WSIP). The WSIP
1 Acre Feet = 325,851 gallons
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
346
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 7 will deliver capital improvements aimed at enhancin g the SFPUC’s ability to meet its water service mission of providing high quality wat er to its customers in a reliable, affordable, and environmentally sustainable manner.
The origins of the WSIP are rooted in the “Water Su pply Master Plan” dated April 2000.
Planning efforts for the WSIP gained momentum in 20 02 with the passage of San Francisco ballot measures Propositions A and E, whi ch approved the financing for the water system improvements. Also in 2002, Governor G ray Davis signed Assembly Bill No. 1823, the Wholesale Regional Water System Secur ity and Reliability Act. The AB 1823 imposed various state-mandated programs on the wholesale regional water systems. One of the mandates is for SFPUC to adopt the WSIP. The WSIP is expected to be completed in 2016.
EMID Water Supply Projections
The SFPUC has the capacity to meet the demands of its retail and wholesale customers in wet and normal years. The Water Supply Agreement provides for a 184 MGD or 206,106 (AFY) supply assurance to BAWSCA member age ncies. SFPUC’s annual supply assurance to EMID is 5.9 MGD or 6,608 AFY as shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Annual Supply Assurance from SFPUC
Water Supply Source 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
SFPUC (MGD) 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9
SFPUC (AFY) 6,608 6,608 6,608 6,608 6,608
According to SFPUC’s Water Supply Master Plan dated April 2000, this amount is subject to further reductions in the event of droug ht, water shortage, earthquake, or rehabilitation or maintenance of the system. Table 4 shows SFPUC’s projected deliveries to EMID for a single dry year and for fi ve (5) consecutive dry years, based on the 2010 allocation. The SFPUC’s plan calls for 10% supply reductions in the first two (2) years followed by 20% reductions for the next t hree (3) years. The percent reductions would be the same for any given five (5) consecutive dry years. During the periods of supply reductions, EMID will have to imp lement the Water Shortage Contingency Plan which was adopted in 1993 to reduc e demand. The EMID’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan describes the triggering levels and actions to be considered for each stage of demand reduction. The plan has th ree stages with each stage set to respond to increasingly more severe conditions. The refore, the system demand will decrease to meet the reduced allocations by the SFPUC.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
347
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 8 Table 4
EMID Projected Annual Supply Allocations for a Single and Multiple Dry Years
Water Supply
Source 2010
Single
Year
Year 1
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
SFPUC (AFY) 6,608 5,947 5,947 5,286 5,286 5,286
% Reduction 10% 10% 20% 20% 20%
EMID Water Shortage Contingency
The EMID Water Shortage Contingency Plan was adopte d in January 1993 in response to the Assembly Bill X1-11 requiring all California urban water retailers supplying water to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre feet per year of water to adopt a water shortage contingency plan as part of the Urban Water Management Plan. The objective of this legislation is to prom pt every water agency to plan ahead for droughts and to prepare a series of responses based upon the severity and length of drought. EMID’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan inc ludes four (4) stages with associated triggering levels.
Stage I: This is the normal stage where there is a continuin g effort to conserve water regardless of water supply. This stage involves pub lic education and enforcement of current regulations such as requiring the installat ion of ultra-low-flow toilets in new construction.
Stage II: This stage is triggered when the total volume of SFPUC water storage falls below the two-year demand base by 5 – 20%. The Stag e II shortage will result in mandatory water conservation with a goal of reducin g water demand between 5 – 20% as determined necessary by the EMID Board. A resolu tion declaring a water shortage emergency with a list of prohibited water uses will be adopted by the EMID Board of Directors. This stage will include increased public education such as water bill inserts advising customers how to conserve water.
Stage III: This stage is triggered when the total volume of SFPUC water storage falls below the two-year demand base by 20 – 30%. The Sta ge III shortage will result in mandatory water conservation with a goal of reducin g water demand between 20 to 30% as determined necessary by the EMID Board. In t his stage and the next stage, a larger range of prohibited uses will be considered and a new rate structure with progressive penalties for overuse will be implemented.
Stage IV: Stage IV is triggered when the total volume of SF PUC water storage falls below the two-year demand base by 30 to 50%. In thi s stage a mandatory rationing program will be initiated with a goal of reducing water demand up to 50%.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
348
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 9 System Demand Projections
The most common method of projecting system demand is by applying the population growth factor to the baseline number. For this repo rt, the average three year supply delivery of 5,232 AFY from Table 2 was used as the baseline number with the 6,608 AFY guarantee assurance from SFPUC. Table 6 shows t he future system demand projections until 2030. The table also shows the an nual difference (excess supply allocation). The excess supply allocation can be us ed to meet the demands anticipated from proposed projects under consideration.
Table 6
Future System Demand Projections
3-Year
Average 2015 2020 2025 2030
SFPUC (AFY) 5,232 6,608 6,608 6,608 6,608
% Population Increase 2.7 2.3 1.5 1.0
Demand Projections (5,373) (5,497) (5,579) (5,635)
Annual Excess 1,235 1,111 1,029 973
Net Additional Demand from the Proposed Projects
Gilead Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Proj ect: Staff has determined that the existing land use condition at 362 Lakeside Dri ve is similar to the land use condition for the proposed R&D buildings. Therefore, the hist orical consumption data for 362 Lakeside Drive was used as a basis to project water demand for the proposed additional 953,000 sq. ft. of R&D space. The consum ption data shows that 44 gallons of water per year for each square feet of space is nee ded. Based on the calculations, approximately 129 AFY will be required for the new R&D buildings. Furthermore, the Gilead Sciences is proposing 1,547,600 sq. ft. of a dditional office space. The historical consumption data for VISA 3 was used to calculate t he future demand. The data from VISA 3 shows that 22 gallons per year for one squar e feet of office space is needed.
Based on the calculations, approximately 104 AFY wi ll be required to meet the demand generated from the proposed office buildings. The p roposed project also includes demolition of 8 existing buildings, which consumed approximately 27 AFY. Therefore, the net project demand for the proposed project is 206 AFY as shown in Appendix B.
15-Acres Site Project: Wilsey Ham, consulting engineers, performed the se wer generation rates for the proposed project. It was d etermined that 71,085 gallons per day, or 80 AFY of wastewater will be generated from the project. To calculate the total water demand, the irrigation component, typically 1 0%, is added to the sewer generation rate. Therefore, the total water demand required for the 15-Acre Site project is 88 AFY as shown in Appendix C.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
349
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 10 400 Mariners Island Blvd., City of San Mateo (Tidel ands Park) Residential Project:
The average water consumption of a residential unit in EMID service area is 13 units per month. Using that as a baseline demand for a pr oposed 76 residential units with a 10% additional demand for outside landscaping, tota l demand for the project is 30 AFY as shown in Appendix D.
Chess Hotel Project: Using three years consumption history (2009, 2010, and 2011) from Crown Plaza Hotel and applying this to propose d 115 room hotel, projected demand is approximately 17 AFY. Subtracting 2 AFY o f consumption from Black Angus restaurant to be demolished, total demand projection is approximately 15 AFY as shown in Appendix E.
Chess/Hatch Drive Office Project: Historical consumption data from VISA 3 was used to calculate the projected demand for the project. The data for VISA 3 shows that 22 gallons of water per year for 1 sq. ft. of office s pace is required. The proposed project with 800,000 sq. ft. of office space will generate approximately 54 AFY of total demand.
The existing demand based on the historical consump tion data for 1155-1191 Chess Drive is 18 AFY. Therefore, the net demand resultin g from the proposed project is calculated by subtracting the existing consumption from the total demand, resulting in 36 AFY as shown in Appendix F.
Bayside Towers III Project: Using consumption of 22 gallons per square-feet calculated from VISA 3, projected demand for 92,900 square-feet of office space is 6 AFY. Adding 10% for irrigation, total projected dem and is 7 AFY as shown in Appendix G.
VISA V Project: Using consumption of 22 gallons per square-feet of office space, calculated from VISA 3 historical use, projected de mand for 8,000 square-feet of office space including irrigation is approximately 2 AFY as shown in Appendix H.
Marina: Since details of this project are not yet known, p rojected demand is conservatively estimated at 5 AFY.
Table 6 shows the total projected annual additional (net) demand generated from the various development projects that are under review by the City of Foster City. EMID has a first-come first-serve policy for serving new dev elopment projects and each new project requires a demand analysis. The water deman d analysis for the Pilgrim Triton Project was completed in February 2007 and it is in cluded in the Table 6 to show the cumulative demand. Typically, residential projects require more water demand than commercial/office/R&D projects.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
350
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 11 Table 6
Annual Additional Demand from Various Projects
Development Project Additional Demand (AFY)
Pilgrim Triton Project 264 (Appendix A)
Gilead Integrated Corporate Campus 206 (Appendix B )
15-Acres Project 88 (Appendix C)
400 Mariners Island Blvd., San Mateo
(Tidelands Park) Residential Project
30 (Appendix D)
Chess Hotel Project 15 (Appendix E)
Chess/Hatch Drive Offices Project 36 (Appendix F)
Bayside Towers III Project 7 (Appendix G)
VISA V Project 2 (Appendix H)
Marina Project 5 (Estimate)
Total Net Demand 653
Table 7 shows the total system demand projected for EMID including the demand from the proposed projects. The total system demand is c alculated by adding the net demand generated from the proposed projects to the system demand projections from Table 5.
Table 7
Total System Demand
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
System Demand
Projections 5,232 5,373 5,497 5,579 5,635
Net Demand from
Proposed Projects 0 653 653 653 653
Total System Demand 5,232 6,026 6,150 6,232 6,288
Comparison of Supply Allocation vs. Multiple Dry Years Demand
Table 8 shows the supply allocations from Table 3 a nd projected total system demands from Table 8, through the twenty year planning hori zon as required by SB 610. As discussed in Table 4, during a period of five conse cutive dry years, the SFPUC’s plan calls for 10% supply reductions in the first two (2 ) years followed by 20% reductions for the next three (3) years. To meet the reductions, E MID will have to cutback its consumption in kind by implementing the Water Short age Contingency Plan based on the severity of the drought. The EMID’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan describes the triggering levels and actions to be considered for each stage of demand reduction. The plan has three stages with each stage set to respon d to increasingly more severe conditions.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
351
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 12 As shown in the table, there will continue to be su fficient supplies to meet all projected demand, including the net additional demand generat ed from the proposed projects in all conditions over the next twenty five years. Thi s conclusion is dependent on EMID implementing the mandatory demand reduction as outl ined in the EMID Water Shortage Contingency Plan.
Table 8
Annual Supply Allocation vs. Multiple Dry Years Demand (AFY)
Allocation
Single Dry
Year
10%
Reduction
Year 2
10%
Reduction
Year 3
20%
Reduction
Year 4
20%
Reduction
Year 5
20%
Reduction
2010
Allocation 6,608 5,947 5,947 5,286 5,286 5,286
2010
Demand (5,232) (4,709) (4,709) (4,186) (4,186) (4,186)
Excess 1,376 1,238 1,238 1,100 1,100 1,100
2015 Supply 6,608 5,947 5,947 5,286 5,286 5,286
2015
Demand (6,026) (5,423) (5,423) (4,821) (4,821) (4,821)
Excess 582 524 524 465 465 465
2020 Supply 6,608 5,947 5,947 5,286 5,286 5,286
2020
Demand (6,150) (5,535) (5,535) (4,920) (4,920) (4,920) Excess 458 412 412 366 366 366
2025 Supply 6,608 5,947 5,947 5,286 5,286 5,286
2025
Demand (6,232) (5,609) (5,609) (4,986) (4,986) (4,986) Excess 376 338 338 300 300 300
2030 Supply 6,608 5,947 5,947 5,286 5,286 5,286
2030
Demand (6,288) (5,659) (5,659) (5,030) (5,030) (5,030)
Excess 320 288 288 256 256 256
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
352
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 13 Demand Management Measures
Over the years, EMID has implemented the following demand management measures in an effort to reduce the overall demand for water . Water conservation helpful tips are available online and in brochures to educate custom ers. Every year during the national Public Works week, local schools and teachers are i nvited to participate in water facility tours and activities to promote water conservation.
Water Audit – Residential water audits are performed whenever requested by a customer or an unusual spike in a customer’s water consumption is observed.
Plumbing Retrofit Kits – Water conservation kits (shut off nozzles for gar den hoses, low-flow shower heads, low-flow sink aerators, and mini-flush toilet retrofit devices) are available to the residents, free of charge.
System Audits, Leak Detection, and Repairs – EMID routinely performs system audits, leak detection and repairs to reduce unacco unted for water. EMID has approximately 8,200 water accounts, all of which ar e metered. Currently, all of EMID’s 4,000 plus residential water meters are scheduled f or replacement. In addition, EMID is allocating $300,000 every other year to replace val ves systematically as part of its Capital Improvement Program.
Large Landscape Conservation Programs - EMID has prepared a booklet called “Planting and Irrigation Guidelines” to assist deve lopers, property owners, and homeowners in selecting appropriate plant materials and installing irrigation systems to create water conserving landscapes which are approp riate to Foster City soil and climate conditions. This booklet is available to the public, free of charge.
Landscape Water Use Evaluation – EMID provides free evaluation of outdoor irrigation systems and develop detailed recommendat ions on how to reduce water use on landscaping.
High Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Program – This program provides up to $125 to replace old clothes washing machines with n ew Energy Star compliant water conserving washing machines.
Ultra Low Flow Toilet Rebate Program – This program provides up to $150 for each toilet that is replaced with an Ultra Low Flow toil et. Every family can claim up to three toilets and receive up to $450.
Conservation Pricing – In 2010, EMID implemented conservation pricing to w ater rates to fund operations and capital improvement re quirements of the Water Enterprise and encourage water conservation. It was highly effective in reducing consumption.
Residential Turf Rebate Program – Effective May 2011, EMID implemented a residential synthetic turf replacement rebate progr am. Customers receive $4 per square
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
353
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 14 foot, up to $2,000 maximum, for replacing existing lawn and irrigation system with synthetic surface.
“Lawn Be Gone” Rebate Program – In FY 2010/2011, EMID implemented a “Lawn Be Gone” conversion program, administered by BAWSCA, where rebate is given to replace existing lawn with approved list of drought resista nt plant materials. Single-family residential customers can receive $0.50 per square foot, up to a maximum of $500 rebate. Irrigation customers can receive $0.50 per square foot, up to a maximum of $3,000.
Smart Irrigation Controller Rebate – Smart controllers measure depletion of soil moisture and activate the irrigation system when ne eded. Residential customers can receive 100% of the cost of the controller up to $1 50 maximum rebate per controller, and two controllers maximum per home. Commercial or multi-family customers can receive 100% of the cost of the controllers up to $ 50 per station with a maximum rebate of $5,000 per customer.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis in the WSA, as well as the in formation contained in the UWMP, SFPUC’s Water Supply Master Plan dated April 2000, and Water Supply Agreement and Individual Water Sales Contract with SFPUC date d August 2009, EMID will have sufficient water supply to serve the existing custo mers and the proposed projects under consideration. The conclusion of sufficient supply is based on the assumption that the demand reduction programs mandated by the SFPUC and included in the EMID’s water shortage contingency plan are implemented during dr ought years. The excess supply during a normal year is approximately 5% of the guaranteed allocation. Therefore, EMID will need to monitor and continue to be diligent in conserving water to reduce system- wide demand in the future.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
354
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 15 Appendix A
Water Demand Analysis
Pilgrim Triton Project
Demand (Acre Ft. per
Year)
Demand for Proposed
Office Space (296,000 Sq.
Ft.)
20 Based on Consumption
Data for VISA 3
1 Demand for 1 Acre Park 2 Based on Consumption
Data for Ketch Park
Demand for Residential
(730 units)
263
Based on 13 Units per
Month
2 Total Project Demand
285
Demand from Existing
Buildings to be Demolished
(21)
Consumption Data for
Existing Buildings
3 Net Project Demand 264
1 Consumption data for VISA 3 was used to project water demands for the new office space proposed for t he project.
According to the VISA 3 data, 22 gallons of water per year for each sq. ft. of office space is needed. 2 EMID’s average monthly consumption for a residential property is 13 units. 3 According to the water consumption data for the ex isting buildings, approximately 21 AFY of water was consumed in 2007.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
355
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 16 Appendix B
Water Demand Analysis
Gilead Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Project
Demand (Acre Ft. per
Year)
Demand for Proposed R&D
Space (953,000 sq. ft.)
129
Based on Consumption
Data for 362 Lakeside
Drive
1 Demand for Proposed
Office Space (1,547,600 sq.
ft.)
104
Based on the VISA 3
Consumption Data
2 Demand from 8 Building to
be Demolished
(27)
Consumption Data for 320,
324, 331, 333, 346, 355,
366, 368 Lakeside Drive
Net Project Demand 206
1 Consumption data for 362 Lakeside Drive was used t o project water demands for the new R&D space propo sed for the project. According to the data, approximately 44 gallons of water per year for each sq. ft. of R& D space is needed.
2 Consumption data for VISA 3 was used to project water demands for the new office space proposed for t he project.
According to the VISA 3 data, 22 gallons of water per year for each sq. ft. of office space is needed.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
356
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 17 Appendix C
Water Demand Analysis
15-Acres Project
Demand (Acre Ft. per
Year)
Demand for Proposed
Project Using the Sewer
Generation Analysis
80 Based on the Wilsey Ham
Sewer Generation Rates
1 Spreadsheet
Demand for Irrigation 8 Typically 10% of the Sewer
Generation
2 Net Project Demand 88
1 According to the sewer generation rates spreadshee t prepared by Wilsey Ham on 3/17/07, 71,085 gallons per day of sewer will be generated from the proposed projec t.
2 10% is added for irrigation demand
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
357
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 18 Appendix D
Water Demand Analysis
400 Mariners Island Blvd., City of San Mateo (Tidelands Park) Residential Project
Demand (Acre Ft. per
Year)
Demand for Residential (76
units)
27 Based on 13 Units per
Month
1 Demand for Irrigation 3 Typically 10%
Net Project Demand 30
1 EMID’s average monthly consumption for a residential property is 13 units.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
358
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 19 Appendix E
Water Demand Analysis
Chess Hotel Project
Demand (Acre Ft. per
Year)
Demand for Proposed Hotel
(115 Rooms)
17 Based on 3-Year Average
Consumption for Crowne
Plaza Hotel
1 Demand from Existing
Building to be Demolished
(2)
3-Year Average
Consumption for Black
Angus Restaurant
2 Net Project Demand 15
1 Average consumption data from Crowne Plaza Hotel f or 2009, 2010, and 2011 were used to prorate per ro om consumption.
2 Average consumption data from Black Angus Restaura nt for 2009, 2010, and 2011 were used and subtract from the demand for proposed hotel to calculate net demand.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
359
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 20 Appendix F
Water Demand Analysis
Chess/Hatch Drive Office Project
Demand (Acre Ft. per
Year)
Demand for Proposed Office
Space (800,000 sq. ft.)
54 Based on VISA 3
Consumption Data
1 Demand from Existing
Buildings to be Demolished
(18)
Consumption Data for
1155-1191 Chess Drive
2 Net Project Demand 36
1 VISA 3 was used to project water demands for the n ew office space proposed for the project. Consumpt ion data for VISA 3 shows 22 gallons of water per year for 1 sq. ft. of office space is needed. 2 According to the water consumption data for the ex isting buildings, 1155-1191 Chess Drive, approximat ely 18 AFY of water was consumed.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
360
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 21 Appendix G
Water Demand Analysis
Bayside Towers III Project
Demand (Acre Ft. per
Year)
Demand for Proposed
Office Space (92,900 sq.
ft.)
6 Based on VISA 3
Consumption Data
1 Demand for Irrigation 1 Typically 10%
Net Project Demand 7
1 VISA 3 was used to project water demands for the n ew office space proposed for the project. Consumpt ion data for VISA 3 shows 22 gallons of water per year for 1 sq. ft. of office space is needed.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
361
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 22 Appendix H
Water Demand Analysis
VISA V Project
Demand (Acre Ft. pe r
Year)
Demand for Proposed
Office Space (8,000 sq. ft.)
1 Based on VISA 3
Consumption Data
1 Demand for Irrigation 1 Conservative Projection
Net Project Demand 2
1 VISA 3 was used to project water demands for the n ew office space proposed for the project. Consumpt ion data for VISA 3 shows 22 gallons of water per year for 1 sq. ft. of office space is needed.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
362
Memorandum
DATE January 29, 2021
TO
Timothy Maier
(650) 286-3237
[email protected]
cc: Sofia Mangalam
FROM
Curtis Banks, AICP Principal
Planner
Carla Violet, Senior Planner
RE: CEQA Compliance for Proposed Gilead New Park
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Memorandum is both an Addendum (Addendum No. 4) to the certified 2012 Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse # 2008122064 (2012 SEIR) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164, and documentation of one or more Categorical Exemptions under CEQA Section 15300. This Memorandum evaluates changes to the Gilead Sciences Master Plan that have been proposed since certification of the 2012 SEIR (and the subsequent Addenda No. 1,0F
1 2, 1F
2 and No. 3 2F
3).
As discussed in this Memorandum, the proposed changes to the project would not result in significant environmental effects beyond those identified in the 2012 SEIR. The project also qualifies for a categorical exemption under CEQA Section 15300 under a Class 4, CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(b) – Minor Alterations to Land, and a Class 11, CEQA Guidelines Section 15311 – Accessory Structures.
1 On April 3, 2014, the Planning Commission approved Addendum No. 1 to the SEIR amending Mitigation Measure NOI-b in order to allow an extension in the construction hours if certain criteria are met. 2 On August 15, 2016, the City Council approved Addendum No. 2 to the 2012 SEIR to substantiate that there were no new environmental effects or any increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect from the reallocation of 250,000 square feet of office space to 250,000 square feet of laboratory space. 3 On May 7, 2020, the City Council approved Addendum No. 3 to the 2012 SEIR to substantiate that there were no new environmental effects or any increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect from the demolition of 308 surface parking spaces and construction of a new amenity building at 305 Velocity Way.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
363
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021