Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015-12-07 City Council Agenda Packet
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL December 7, 2015 Special Meeting Council Chambers 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting. 1 December 7, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Study Session 5:00-6:00 PM 1. Prescreening of a Proposed Hotel Development at 744-750 San Antonio Road Special Orders of the Day 6:00-6:10 PM 2. Fire Safety Month Poster Award Recognition to Palo Alto Unified School District Students for Excellence in Design, Art and Messaging Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 6:10-6:20 PM Oral Communications 6:20-6:35 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. 2 December 7, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Consent Calendar 6:35-6:40 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 3. Adoption of a Resolution Summarily Vacating Public Easement at 3264 Kipling Avenue 4. Adoption of a Resolution Summarily Vacating Public Easement at 4252 Manuela Court 5. Adoption of an Ordinance to add Chapter 10.51 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Permanently Implement the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Program and Expand the Boundaries of the Program 6. Approve Amendment Number One to Contract Number C1415263 With Townsend Public Affairs to add 24 Months of Service at a Cost of $8,500 per Month, Totaling $204,000, for a Total Contract Amount not to Exceed $391,000 for State Legislative Advocacy Services 7. Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance to Appropriate $203,561 From the Residential Housing Fund for Rehabilitation of the Colorado Park Apartments Consistent With Prior Loan Approval 8. Adoption of an Ordinance Re-Titling and Amending Municipal Code Chapter 5.30 (Plastic Foam and Non-Recyclable Food Service Containers and Packaging Items) to Prohibit Sale of Non-Recyclable Plastic Foam at Retail Establishments Such as Grocery Stores, Pharmacies, Mail Service Stores and Hardware Stores 9. Adoption of a Resolution Revising the Citywide Records Retention Schedule and Repealing Resolution No. 8688 10. Approval of Amendment Number Three to the Palo Alto-Stanford Fire Protection Agreement With the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Extending the Term for One Year for a Total Fee of $6.5 Million, and Approval of a Related Budget Amendment Ordinance Reducing the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve by $675,000 to Offset a Reduction in FY 2016 Fire Department Revenues 3 December 7, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 6:40-9:30 PM 11. PUBLIC HEARING: Review and Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Land Use Related Portions of Titles 16 and 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Purposes of the Code Amendments and Additions are to: (1) Improve the Use and Readability of the Code, (2) Clarify Certain Code Provisions, and (3) Align Regulations to Reflect Current Practice and Council Policy Direction. The Affected Chapters of Title 16 Include but are not Limited to Title 16 (Building Regulations), Chapters 16.20 (Signs), 16.24 (Fences), and 16.57 (In-Lieu Parking Fees for New Non-Residential Development in the Commercial Downtown (CD) Zoning District), and Title 18 (Zoning), Chapters 18.01 (Adoption, Purposes and Enforcement), 18.04 (Definitions), 18.08 (Designation and Establishment of Districts), 18.10 (Low Density Residential RE, R-2 and RMD Districts), 18.12 (R-1, Single Family Residence District), 18.13 (Multiple Family Residential (RM-15, RM-30, RM-40) Districts), 18.14 (Below Market Rate Housing Program), 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus), 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial (CN,CC and CS) Districts), 18.18 (Downtown Commercial (CD) Districts)), 18.20 (Office, Research and Manufacturing (MOR, ROLM, RP and GM) Districts), 18.23 Performance Criteria for Multiple Family, Commercial, Manufacturing and Planned Community Districts), 18.31 (CEQA Review - a new Chapter), 18.34 (PTOD Combining District Regulations), 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions), 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), 18.70 (Non-conforming Uses and Non-complying Facilities), 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), and 18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals) 12. PUBLIC HEARING: Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Approval of the Record of Land Use Action to Allow Demolition of Four Existing Structures Totaling 265,895 Square Feet and Construction of Four Two-Story Office Buildings Totaling 265,895 Square Feet of Floor Area With Below and At-Grade Parking and Other Site Improvements Located at 1050 Page Mill Road. Zoning District: Research Park (RP). Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report has Been Prepared. (STAFF REQUESTS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO JANUARY 11, 2016) 4 December 7, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 5 December 7, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings December 8, 2015 Policy and Services Committee Meeting Cancelled December 9, 2015 Sp. City Council Meeting Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Contracts Awarded by the City Manager From July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015 City of Palo Alto's Energy Risk Management Report for the Fourth Quarter, Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Status Report Developer Impact Fees - Early Memo Public Letters to Council Set 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6357) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 12/7/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: PreScreening for Proposed Hotel at 744-748 San Antonio Road Title: Study Session: Prescreening of a Proposed Hotel Development at 744- 750 San Antonio Road From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a preliminary review of the applicant’s proposed hotel development at 744-50 San Antonio Road and provide comments. This is a study session intended to receive City Councilmember comments and no formal action is requested. Executive Summary After a preliminary review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), Rashik Patel of T2 Development submitted a formal application for Architectural Review of a revised hotel proposal at 744-50 San Antonio Road. The application is currently undergoing environmental review and the applicant has requested preliminary review by the City Council to gauge the City’s interest in the proposed hotel. (See http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3133 for the plans and attachments for application and supporting material.) Section 18.79.030(b) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code allows for preliminary review of development projects for which an application has been filed upon request of the City Manager and project proponent, provided that the City Council concurs, which they were asked to do on November 30, 2015. Pre-screenings are intended to solicit early feedback on proposed projects and -- like all study sessions -- do not result in any formal action. Background & Discussion The applicant has proposed demolition of existing buildings on the project site at 744-50 San City of Palo Alto Page 2 Antonio Road, followed by construction of a 297 room hotel. The project site is zoned Service Commercial (CS), and its two parcels are identified as housing sites in the Housing Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The proposed site includes a number of low scale commercial and institutional buildings that will be demolished to make way for the new construction, including a mid-century modern mortuary building constructed c. 1961. The neighborhood context includes properties to the west (front) of the site, across San Antonio Road, zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Planned Community (PC-2711), which are developed with a nursery and multi-family housing respectively. The adjacent property to the south has the same zoning designation as the subject property and includes a grocery store. The property to the north (760 San Antonio) is also zoned CS and includes a business services use (The BACH Company). North of that property is 762 San Antonio, which is zoned CS (AD) and supports the Hengehold Trucks rental business. Property to the east is located within the City of Mountain View and is zoned General Industrial (MM 40). The block is characterized by a mix of low intensity uses. The CS zoning district was established to create and maintain areas accommodating citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood or pedestrian oriented shopping areas, and which generally require automotive access for customer convenience, servicing of vehicles or equipment, loading or unloading, or parking of commercial service vehicles. The PAMC allows for a maximum of 0.4:1 for development with the exception of 2.0:1 for hotel development. The application proposes to merge the two parcels and demolish the existing buildings and site improvements. The project is the construction of two five-story differently branded hotels (AC and Courtyard by Marriott) on a podium deck with an underground parking garage. The buildings would be situated on opposite sides of a centralized driveway. The hotels would include 154 and 143 rooms respectively for a total of 297 rooms for the site. The project includes 30 surface parking spaces and 353 basement level parking in two levels (includes 84 valet parking spaces) for a total of 383 parking spaces. The proposed FAR for the based on the plans submitted is 1.82:1. The proposal is currently being evaluated in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and will also be evaluated for consistency with the City’s policies and regulations prior to scheduling a hearing for a recommendation by the ARB and a decision whether to approve the project. The issues that will warrant close attention during this analysis and evaluation include potential traffic impacts, potential impacts to historical resources, compatibility with the surrounding area, and the potential ramifications of using sites identified in the City’s Housing Element for non-residential use. The applicant has requested prescreening prior to completion of the ongoing analysis by the City’s staff and consultants. City of Palo Alto Page 3 On November 16, 2015, the City Council will consider adoption (Second Reading) of an ordinance amending Section 18.79 of the Municipal Code regarding preliminary review procedures. This ordinance will become effective 30 days after adoption, and would not change the section of the code related to optional review of applications upon the request of the City Manager and the applicant. Policy Implications As noted above, the applicant’s proposal is currently being reviewed pursuant to CEQA and for conformance with the City’s policies and regulations. These reviews are ongoing and are expected to focus on traffic, historical resources, architectural compatibility, and the proposed use of two housing sites in the City’s adopted Housing Element for non-residential use. The Housing Element (p. 3 of Appendix B) includes the following housing sites: 744 San Antonio Road (APN 147-05-088) with a realistic capacity of 25 units, and 748-50 (APN 147-05-089) with a realistic capacity of 13 units The City’s housing inventory identified sites for approximately 200 units over the State-required minimum to ensure sign-off on the Housing Element by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and to preserve flexibiliy in case the sites were not developed with housing. The proposed projects would “use” some of this overage and would not trigger the need to identify additional sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65863. Also, the City’s Housing Element included a program committing the City to reevaluate housing sites along San Antonio Road and potentially replace them with alternate sites closer to neighborhood services and transit: “The City will continue to identify more transit-rich housing sites including in the downtown and the California Avenue area after HCD certification as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process and consider exhanging sites along San Antonio and sites along South El Camino that are outside of identified ‘pedestrian nodes’ for the more transit-rich identified sites.” Program H2.2.5, p. 135 Environmental Review The applicant’s proposal to construct a hotel at 744-50 San Antonio Road is currently undergoing review pursuant to CEQA and that review will have to be completed before a final decision is made regarding the application. This evening’s preliminary review is a study session in which Councilmembers may provide comment, but no formal action will be taken. Thus, no CEQA review is required. Attachments: Attachment A: PreScreening Request Letter from Applicant, November 10, 2015 (PDF) Attachment B: T2 Fact Sheet for Prescreening Request (PDF) Attachment C: Project Plans (hardcopies to Councilmembers and Libraries Only) (DOCX) Attachment A August 2015 Distinctive Marriott Hotels Proposed to serve the San Antonio area in Palo Alto RENDERING Attachment B August 2015 Distinctive Marriott Hotels Proposed to serve the San Antonio area in Palo Alto T2 Hospitality is proposing to use the 1.96 acre site located at 744 and 748-50 San Antonio Road in Palo Alto for two high-quality, side-by-side Marriott branded hotels. T2 Hospitality is recognized as a leading provider and operator of premium-branded, hospitality-related hotel products throughout California. The company has been actively providing hotel services in Silicon Valley, with properties currently operating in Sunnyvale and San Mateo, and with well-received proposals for similar hotel facilities in Mountain View, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale planned to be servicing the region by 2017. Project Overview Fully consistent with all applicable Palo Alto land use policies and regulations Total of 297 new hotel rooms across two distinct hotels: 153-room AC Hotel by Marriott and 148-room Courtyard by Marriott Thoughtfully designed with low impact to the neighborhood in mind; all activities are contained within the enclosed courtyard of the hotels, thus reducing the visual appearance of parking from the street, diminishing auxiliary noise, along with improving neighbor privacy Hotels will serve a wide range of traveler needs: the Courtyard by Marriott will target the highly functional and goal-oriented business travelers and the AC by Marriott will target the more contemporary, design-led business and leisure travelers Parking will exceed the City of Palo Alto’s required 1:1 ratio, and with valet, will achieve 1.3:1. More parking is provided than required by city code in order to reduce any impact of business parking to the neighborhood—all parking will be underground and out of sight No meeting space, third party retail, restaurants, or other uses that could generate additional traffic RENDERING August 2015 Distinctive Marriott Hotels Proposed to serve the San Antonio area in Palo Alto Project Overview (Cont’d) According to a required analysis performed by a transportation engineering and planning firm: - The project will not result in any significant traffic impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act. Traffic added by the project to surrounding intersections and freeway segments will be well under Palo Alto’s thresholds of significance - The project will actually reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in Palo Alto—by approximately 600,000 miles per year—by locating closer to hotel demand sources than other existing hotels in the area Worst case estimates based on national car trip generation formulas for hotels, say that the project could generate 88 new AM peak hour trips and 87 new PM peak hour trips (stops at the site). In reality, the engineering firm expects these numbers to be substantially lower given (1) actual trip counts from another similarly operating hotel in the area and (2) the proposed state of the art alternative transportation demand management program (“TDM”) to minimize car trips (TDM will include a hotel shuttle (to airports, local businesses, and mass transit), car sharing platform, mass transit use incentives, and a free bike sharing program) SITE PLAN RENDERING August 2015 Distinctive Marriott Hotels Proposed to serve the San Antonio area in Palo Alto Community Benefits Provides much-needed hotel rooms in an area of Palo Alto not currently served by hotels; thus reducing traffic caused by travelers navigating between job centers and hotels along El Camino Real Completes Palo Alto’s financial recovery from the loss of Hyatt Rickey’s hotel, by providing an estimated $3.6+ million annually in tax revenue to the City of Palo Alto High quality design, materials and landscape will enhance the surrounding area Hotel guests will serve and support local retailers and businesses, further strengthening the local economy New hotels consume 26% less energy, use 33% less water indoor and 50% less water outdoor than most existing hotels in Silicon Valley by incorporating renewable energy design elements including, but not limited to: - Harvesting of all collected rainwater for irrigation - Below grade parking to allow for increased landscape and stormwater collection and retention - Solar ready, cool roof and roof insulation beyond Code minimum - Careful building orientation to optimize daylight to interiors - High performance, low-emissivity glazing - Use of energy efficient LED lighting - Low-flow plumbing and shower fixtures - Evaluating dual-plumbing systems for use of greywater in toilets and other areas RENDERING ATTACHMENT C Hardcopies to Councilmembers and Libraries only Project plans can be reviewed at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3133 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6309) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/7/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Resolution Vacating Public Service Easement at 3264 Kipling Avenue Title: Adoption of a Resolution Summarily Vacating Public Easement at 3264 Kipling Avenue From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve the attached Resolution Summarily Vacating a 10’ wide Public Utilities Easement (PUE) at 3264 Kipling Avenue, Palo Alto, CA. DISCUSSION The owner of the property at 3264 Kipling Avenue has requested that the City vacate a 10’ wide PUE granted on Tract No. 885 Loma Vista Park recorded July 3, 1951. There are no utilities in the PUE and the PUE has never been used. Therefore, this PUE is no longer necessary for any future public purpose. Staff has notified AT&T (formerly SBC Communications), the City Utilities, Public Works and Planning Departments of the proposal to vacate the PUE and all concur with the vacation. Therefore, the PUE is recommended to be vacated in accordance with Section 8333 of the California Streets and Highways Code. RESOURCE IMPACT The easement vacation processing fee of $1,585 as set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule of FY 2015 has been paid by the owner. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommendation does not represent any change to City policies. The Planning Department has determined that the vacation of this easement is in conformity with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed summary vacation of the public utilities easements are categorically exempt from the review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15305 as a minor alteration in land use limitations. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Attachments: Attachment A - 3264 Kipling Avenue - Summary Vacation (PDF) ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A City of Palo Alto (ID # 6310) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/7/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Resolution Vacating Public Service Easement at 4252 Manuela Court Title: Adoption of a Resolution Summarily Vacating Public Easement for 4252 Manuela Court From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve the attached Resolution Summarily Vacating a 13’ wide Public Utilities Easement (PUE) at 4252 Manuela Court, Palo Alto, CA. DISCUSSION The owner of the property at 4252 Manuela Court has requested that the City vacate 13- feet of an original 30-foot wide easement, filed of record in the Office of Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, on May 8, 1951, in the Book 2207 at Page 460. On October 23, 1969, a Final Judgement of Condemnation was recorded which transferred 17-feet of the original 30-foot easement as fee simple title for road purposes. The remaining 13-feet have no utilities in this PUE and have never been used. Therefore, this PUE is no longer necessary for any future public purpose. Staff has notified AT&T (formerly SBC Communications), the City Utilities, Public Works and Planning Departments of the proposal to vacate the PUE and all concur with the vacation. Therefore, the PUE may be vacated in accordance with the summary proceeding authorized in Section 8333 of the California Streets and Highways Code. RESOURCE IMPACT The easement vacation processing fee of $1,585 as set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule of FY 2015 has been paid by the owner. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommendation does not represent any change to City policies. The Planning Department has determined that the vacation of this easement is in conformity with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. City of Palo Alto Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed summary vacation of the public utilities easements are categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15305 as a minor alteration in land use limitations. Attachments: Attachment A - 4252 Manuela Court Summary Vacation (PDF) ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A City of Palo Alto (ID # 6096) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/7/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Title: Adoption of an Ordinance to add Chapter 10.51 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Permanently Implement the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Program and Expand the Boundaries of the Program From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A) to make the existing Crescent Park No Overnight Parking program permanent and to expand the boundaries of the program. Executive Summary On August 12, 2013, Council approved implementation of a pilot No Overnight Parking program on certain streets within the Crescent Park neighborhood for one year. Developed in response to resident concerns about non-resident parking, the program aimed to restrict overnight parking to resident permit holders only. Crescent Park residents petitioned by street, and the City implemented a pilot No Overnight Parking program requiring residents to display a valid City of Palo Alto parking permit on their vehicles to park on-street between the hours of 2:00 am and 5:00 am. Residents of streets within the program boundaries and whose streets have opted to participate in the program are eligible to purchase permits. Residents are allowed up to two annual permits per household at a cost of $100 each. Based on the success of the program, Council authorized staff in September 2014 to continue the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking program trial. Since that time, the intrusion of non- residential parkers has continued into additional streets, and 20 streets have successfully petitioned to implement permit parking. The program has proved successful at addressing resident concerns, and staff believes that making the program permanent is warranted. Background City of Palo Alto Page 2 Table 1 contains a full list of streets originally deemed eligible for the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking program based on initial Council direction, and indicates current status at the writing of this report whether the street has opted into the program. While streets were approved for inclusion in the Crescent Park No Ovenight Parking program, each block must opt in indiviually via the following process: 1) Residents request a petition from City staff, and must submit the petition signed by at least one member of at least 50% of the parcels on the street 2) The City issues a postal survey to verify participation/interest of all residents. At least a 70% support rate of parcels on the block is required for approval 3) Following validation of majority support, City staff implements signs and residents are notified of eligility to purchase parking permits at City Hall Since the start of the pilot in 2013, and subsequent boundary additions in 2014, all but three included streets have contacted City staff to request a petition to opt into the program. Of these streets, 20 have completed the petition and survey process and currently require vehicles to display valid permits to park overnight. An additional 3 streets are partway through the process, and petitions are in circulation on 3 other streets. Table 1 Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Trial Program Participating Streets Crescent Park Street or Street Segment Status Edgewood Drive between Southwood Drive and Patricia Lane Opted In September 2013 Newell Road between Edgewood Drive and Dana Avenue Opted in September 2013 Phillips Road Opted in September 2013 Madison Way Opted in September 2013 Hamilton Avenue between Island Drive and Alester Avenue Opted in September 2013 Jefferson Drive Opted in September 2013 Southwood Court Opted In November 2013 Crescent Drive Opted in November 2013 Dana Avenue between Ashby Drive to Alester Avenue Opted in November 2013 Newell Road between Dana Avenue to Pitman Avenue Opted in November 2013 Newell Road from Alester Avenue/Dana Avenue to Opted in November 2013 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Crescent Park Street or Street Segment Status Lincoln Avenue East Crescent Drive Opted In December 2013 Island Drive Opted in April 2014 Kings Lane Opted in April 2014 Center Drive Opted in June 2014 Pitman Avenue (1432 to 1494) Opted in October 2014 University Avenue between East Crescent Drive and Lincoln Avenue Opted in December 2014 Louisa Court Opted in March 2015 Arcadia Place Opted in July 2015 Hamilton Avenue from Center Drive to West Crescent Drive Opted in August 2015 Center Drive from Hamilton Avenue to Channing Avenue Pending Approval Newell Place Pending Approval Lincoln Avenue between University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue Pending Approval Southwood Drive from Hamilton Avenue to Edgewood Drive Petition Distributed West Crescent Drive Petition Distributed Dana Avenue from Ashby Drive to Center Drive Petition Distributed Hamilton Avenue from West Crescent Drive to Lincoln Avenue No Petition Request Ashby Drive No Petition Request Pitman Avenue from 1494 to Center Drive No Petition Request Source: Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, November 2015 In most instances, the implementation of overnight parking restrictions has reduced parking occupancy on those streets, and has received favorable feedback from the Crescent Park residents. Enforcement of the streets is based primarily on resident-request but the Police Department does provide random enforcement as staff time permits. In all, an estimated 480 parking citations have been issued since the implementation of the pilot program. Through the initial two years of the pilot program, as individual blocks opted into the program, displaced non-resident parkers have moved to other adjacent streets, thus increasing overall City of Palo Alto Page 4 parking occupancy on other blocks. This spillover resulted in more blocks organizing and requesting inclusion in the program. Over time, the parking occupancy of blocks not included in the initial pilot has increased. Expanding the program boundary and including additional streets in the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking program does not automatically create permit restrictions on the street. Rather, residents of those streets are given the opportunity to organize and opt in to the program if they choose. Based on occupancy data and resident feedback, the additional street segments recommended for eligibility into the Crescent Park No Overnight parking program include: University Avenue between Lincoln and Palm Lincoln Avenue between Hamilton and Channing Dana Avenue between Lincoln and Center Forest Avenue between Lincoln and Center Edgewood Drive between Patricia and Rhodes Patricia Lane between Edgewood and Hamilton Jackson Drive between Edgewood and Hamilton Alester Avenue between Hamilton and Channing Hamilton Avenue between Alester and Rhodes Figure 1 shows the streets that are currently part of the program, streets that are approved for the program that have not opted in yet, and the streets that staff is recommending be added into the program. Figure 1 Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Program Current Participation and Proposed Program Eligibility City of Palo Alto Page 5 Source: Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, November 2015 While this program has existed in trial form for two years, implementing a permanent program requires adoption of a new ordinance. The ordinance has been provided in Attachment A for the Council’s consideration. Resource Impact The Crescent Park No Overnight Parking program currently receives no on-going targeted enforcement, relying primarily on complaints to drive periodic enforcement. Additionally, given that the parking restriction is in the early morning hours, enforcement is by uniformed police officers as needed, rather than the parking control officer program. The limited enforcement minimizes the program’s operational costs and financial impact. The Revenue Collections Department manages permit sales at a cost of $100.00 per permit. During the two year trial of the program the city sold 442 permits realizing about $42,000 in revenues to offset the enforcement and permit management costs; however, the City has not separately tracked enforcement costs for the program. Starting with Fiscal Year 2017, staff will track revenues, staff time, and other expenditures related to the Crescent Park NOP program to determine the program’s cost recovery level, which may result in adjusting the annual permit fee. Permits were sold at various times of the year and permits purchased after the initial 6- City of Palo Alto Page 6 months of the program were sold at a prorated cost. Environmental Review Extension of existing parking restrictions and the addition of streets to the program are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. Here it can be seen with certainty that the minor changes proposed will not have a significant impact and CEQA does not apply. (Public Resources Code 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)). Attachments: Attachment A: Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Ordinance (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED 151112 cs 0131493 1 November 12, 2015 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Add Chapter 10.51 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Permanently Implement the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Program and Expand the Boundaries of the Program The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Recitals. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and declares as follows: A. In response to resident concerns about non-resident parking, the Council adopted a resolution implementing a pilot No Overnight Parking program on certain streets in the Crescent Park neighborhood. B. The pilot program’s success resulted in an increased demand for participation among Crescent Park’s residents and the Council’s approval to extend the program for another year. C. With the approved expansion of the pilot program, non-resident parkers have moved to other streets outside the program’s boundaries causing even more Crescent Park residents to request participation in the program. D. To combat the spillover effect resulting from the existing restricted parking areas and to address the increasing resident demands for participation in the program, a permanent overnight restricted parking program should be implemented in an expanded area. SECTION 2. Title 10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to add a new Chapter 10.51 entitled “Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Program” to read as follows: 10.51.010 Purpose. The Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Program is intended to restore and enhance the quality of life in the Crescent Park neighborhood by reducing the impact of parking associated with nearby residences, businesses or other neighboring uses. Restricted parking areas should be designed to accommodate non-residential parking when this can be done, while meeting the parking availability standards determined by the city to be appropriate for the area in question. 10.51.020 Definitions. The following words and phrases as used in this Chapter shall have the following meanings. a) Crescent Park. “Crescent Park” means the area bound by Edgewood Drive on the northeast, Channing Avenue on the South, Lincoln Avenue on the west, University Avenue on the northwest and including the entirety of Crescent Drive. NOT YET APPROVED 151112 cs 0131493 2 November 12, 2015 b) Dwelling Unit. “Dwelling Unit” shall mean any self-contained house, apartment, stock cooperative, or condominium occupied solely for residential purposes. c) Restricted Parking Area. “Restricted Parking Area” shall mean a residential area upon which the Council imposes overnight parking limitations pursuant to the authority granted by this Chapter. d) Resident. “Resident” shall mean any person who lives in a dwelling unit located in a residential restricted parking area. e) Overnight Residential Parking Permit. “Overnight Residential Parking Permit” shall mean a permit issued under this Chapter which, when displayed upon a motor vehicle, as described herein, shall exempt said motor vehicle from parking time restrictions established pursuant to this Chapter. f) Guest. “Guest” shall mean a person visiting residents living in a residential preferential parking zone. g) Guest Parking Permit. “Guest Parking Permit” shall mean a parking permit issued pursuant to this Chapter or an ordinance or resolution enacted pursuant to authority granted herein, which when displayed upon a motor vehicle, as described herein, shall exempt the motor vehicle from parking time restrictions established pursuant to this Chapter. 10.51.030 Designation of Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Area. a) Area. 1. The following streets or street segments are approved for the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Program: Crescent Park Street or Street Segment Status Edgewood Drive between Southwood and Patricia Opted In September 2013 Newell Road between Edgewood and Dana Opted in September 2013 Phillips Road Opted in September 2013 Madison Way Opted in September 2013 Hamilton Ave between Island and Alester Opted in September 2013 Jefferson Drive Opted in September 2013 Southwood Court Opted In November 2013 Crescent Drive Opted in November 2013 Dana Avenue, Ashby to Alester Opted in November 2013 Newell Road, Dana to Pitman Opted in November 2013 Newell Road from Alester/Dana to Lincoln Opted in November 2013 NOT YET APPROVED 151112 cs 0131493 3 November 12, 2015 East Crescent Drive Opted In December 2013 Island Drive Opted in April 2014 Kings Lane Opted in April 2014 Center Drive Opted in June 2014 Pitman Avenue, 1432 to 1494 Pitman Opted in October 2014 University Avenue between East Crescent and Lincoln Avenue Opted in December 2014 Louisa Court Opted in March 2015 Arcadia Place Opted in July 2015 Hamilton Avenue from Center to West Crescent Opted in August 2015 2. The following streets or street segments are tentatively approved for the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Program. Crescent Park Street or Street Segment Status Center Drive from Hamilton to Channing Avenue Pending Approval Newell Place Pending Approval Lincoln Avenue between University and Hamilton Pending Approval Southwood Drive from Hamilton to Edgewood Petition Distributed West Crescent Petition Distributed Dana Avenue from Ashby to Center Petition Distributed Hamilton Avenue from West Crescent to Lincoln No Petition Request Ashby Drive No Petition Request Pitman Avenue from 1494 to Center No Petition Request Dana between Lincoln and Center Recommended Program Expansion Forest between Lincoln and Center Recommended Program Expansion Lincoln between Hamilton and Channing Recommended Program Expansion University between Lincoln and Palm Recommended Program Expansion Alester between Channing and Hamilton Recommended Program Expansion Patricia Lane Recommended Program Expansion Jackson Drive Recommended Program Expansion Hamilton between Patricia and Rhodes Recommended Program Expansion Edgewood between Patricia and Rhodes Recommended Program Expansion b) Parking Restriction Hours. 1. Vehicles not displaying a valid overnight residential parking permit are prohibited from parking within the Restricted Parking Area between two a.m. and five a.m. every day of the week. All vehicles may utilize on-street parking in Crescent Park outside of this specified enforcement period. NOT YET APPROVED 151112 cs 0131493 4 November 12, 2015 2. City staff shall cause appropriate signs to be erected in that area, indicating prominently thereon the time limitation and period of the day for its application. 10.51.040 Inclusion of Approved Parking Areas. a) Eligibility for Inclusion. Residents of any street or street segment tentatively approved for inclusion may petition the director for inclusion into the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Area. If the petition meets the criteria established in section 10.51.040(b) and the administrative regulations adopted by the director, parking restrictions will be implemented on that block. b) City staff shall consider for designation any proposed street or street segment in Crescent Park which satisfies the following enumerated requirements: 1. Residents submit a petition, prepared for residents by City staff and signed by at least one member of 50% of the parcels on the street. 2. Upon receipt of a completed petition, City staff shall issue a postal survey to verify participation and interest of all residents in the proposed restricted parking area. 3. At least 70% of responses to the survey received by City staff shall be in support of participation in the restricted overnight parking program. c) Following validation of majority support, City staff shall implement signs within the newly designated restricted parking area and notify residents of eligibility to purchase parking permits at City Hall. 10.51.050 Annexation of New Restricted Parking Areas. a) Eligibility for Annexation. Residents of any street or street segment adjacent to an existing restricted parking area within Crescent Park may petition the director for annexation into a contiguous Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Area. If the petition meets the criteria established in in section 10.51.050(b) and the administrative regulations adopted by the director, a resolution annexing it to the Restricted Parking Area shall be prepared by the city attorney and submitted to the city council, together with the director's recommendation on the proposed annexation. The city council may approve, deny, or modify the annexation. b) City staff shall consider for designation any proposed street or street segment in Crescent Park which satisfies the following enumerated requirements: 1. Residents submit a petition, prepared for residents by City staff and signed by at least one member of 50% of the parcels on the street. NOT YET APPROVED 151112 cs 0131493 5 November 12, 2015 2. Upon receipt of a completed petition, City staff shall issue a postal survey to verify participation and interest of all residents in the proposed restricted parking area. 3. At least 70% of responses to the survey received by City staff shall be in support of participation in the restricted overnight parking program. c) Following validation of majority support, City staff shall implement signs within the newly designated restricted parking area and notify residents of eligibility to purchase parking permits at City Hall. 10.51.060 Administration of Restricted Parking Area. a) Issuance and Fees. 1. No permit will be issued to any applicant until that applicant has paid all of his or her outstanding parking citations, including all civil penalties and related fees. 2. An overnight residential parking permit may be issued for a dwelling if the following requirements are met: i. The applicant demonstrates that he or she is currently a resident of the Restricted Parking Area for which the permit is to be issued. ii. The applicant demonstrates that he or she has ownership or continuing custody of the motor vehicle for which the permit is to be issued. iii. Any dwelling to be issued a permit must have a vehicle registration indicating registration within the area for which the permit is to be issued. 3. Visitor or guest parking permits may be issued for those individuals or dwellings that qualify for those permits under the resolution establishing the Restricted Parking Area. b) No Guarantee of Availability of Parking. An overnight residential parking permit shall not guarantee or reserve to the permit holder an on-street parking space within the designated residential preferential parking zone. c) Restrictions and Conditions. Each permit issued pursuant to this Section shall be subject to each and every condition and restriction set forth in this Chapter and as provided for in the resolution establishing the specific restricted parking area, as may be amended from time to time. The issuance of such permit shall not be construed to waive compliance with any other applicable parking law, regulation or ordinance. NOT YET APPROVED 151112 cs 0131493 6 November 12, 2015 d) Exemptions. The following vehicles are exempt from the Crescent Park Overnight Parking restrictions in this Chapter: 1. A vehicle owned or operated by a public or private utility, when used in the course of business. 2. A vehicle owned or operated by a governmental agency, when used in the course of official government business. 3. A vehicle for which an authorized emergency vehicle permit has been issued by the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, when used in the course of business. 4. A vehicle parked or standing while actively delivering materials or freight. 5. A vehicle displaying an authorized exemption permit issued by the City of Palo Alto. 6. A vehicle displaying a State of California or military-issued disabled person placard or license plates. 7. A vehicle parked for the purpose of attending or participating in an event taking place at a school within the Palo Alto Unified School District or another event venue within the Restricted Parking Area, provided that the vehicle is parked within two blocks of the venue, the venue has requested and received approval from the city at least fourteen days before the event date, and the venue distributes notices to all addresses within a two-block radius of the venue. The Restricted Parking Area resolution shall specify the covered venues and number of permitted events per year. 8. All vehicles are exempt from parking restrictions pursuant to this Chapter on the following holidays: January 1, July 4, Thanksgiving Day, and December 25. e) Authority of Staff. 1. The director is authorized to adopt administrative regulations that are consistent with the purposes of this Chapter. 2. The director has the discretion to grant the issuance of any additional permits to a dwelling for which the maximum residential parking permits has previously been issued. Any permit approved by the director that is in addition to the two overnight residential parking permits issued pursuant to this Chapter may be subject to additional fees and limitations as designated by the director. NOT YET APPROVED 151112 cs 0131493 7 November 12, 2015 3. The police department or private parking enforcement contractor as approved by the chief of police shall have the authority to enforce the administrative regulations established pursuant to this Chapter. 10.51.070 Violations and Penalties. a) It is unlawful and shall constitute a violation of this Chapter for any person to stand or park a motor vehicle, without a current overnight residential parking permit properly displayed, at a curb within a Restricted Parking Area during the time limitations established for such area. b) The following shall be unlawful: 1. For any person to falsely represent himself or herself as eligible for an overnight residential parking permit or to furnish false information in an application therefore; 2. For any person to copy, reproduce or otherwise bring into existence a facsimile or counterfeit parking permit or permits without written authorization from Revenue Collections; 3. For any person to knowingly use or display a facsimile or counterfeit parking permit in order to evade time limitations on parking applicable in a restricted parking area; 4. For any person holding a valid parking permit issued pursuant hereto to sell, give or exchange said permit to any other person; 5. For any person to knowingly commit any act which is prohibited by the terms of this Chapter or any ordinance enacted by authority granted by this Chapter. SECTION 2. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 3. CEQA. The City Council finds that this ordinance does not meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. // // NOT YET APPROVED 151112 cs 0131493 8 November 12, 2015 SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Manager ______________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto (ID # 6302) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/7/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of a Contract Extension with Townsend Title: Approve Amendment Number One to Contract Number C1415263 With Townsend Public Affairs to add 24 Months of Service at a Cost of $8,500 per Month, Totaling $204,000, for a Total Contract Amount not to Exceed $391,000 for State Legislative Advocacy Services From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to execute the attached contract extension (Attachment A) with Townsend Public Affairs in the amount of $204,000 for 24 months (January 1, 2016 – December 31, 2017) for state legislative advocacy services based on their current and past performance. This brings the total contract compensation to a not to exceed amount of $391,000 ($187,000 for the original contract plus $204,000 for the additional two years of service). Background For the last 22 months (March 1, 2014 – December 31, 2015) the City of Palo Alto has retained Townsend Public Affairs (Townsend) for comprehensive state legislative advocacy services. In mid-2013 the City issued a request for proposal (RFP) seeking proposals from state legislative advocates for how they might provide comprehensive legislative advocacy services. The City received seven proposals in response. Following a thorough review of the seven proposals, four firms were selected for interviews (one of which was Townsend). Each of the four selected firms then interviewed with two separate interview panels. Following those interviews Townsend was selected by staff for recommendation to Council. Discussion Staff believes that state legislative advocacy representation has proven effective for the City in several ways. Most importantly, it improves the presence and voice Palo Alto has with our state representatives. Staff believes it is important to have a physical presence in Sacramento both tracking issues that might impact Palo Alto and building relationships with key elected City of Palo Alto Page 2 officials and their offices. Based on these reasons, staff is recommending that the City continue to retain Townsend to provide comprehensive state legislative advocacy services. Under the terms of the proposed contract, the City would retain representation services for all legislative matters including appropriations. Additionally, under the proposed contract, the City would also receive assistance in obtaining state grants. Staff feels that this comprehensive approach to state legislative advocacy will maximize City value through economies of scale and provide tangible financial returns for the City. Under the contract, Townsend provides the following services: General Develop an annual state legislative strategic plan by outlining action that should be taken in a given year to achieve the City’s goals related to legislation, appropriations, and grants. Once approved by the City, this plan outlines an approach for working with the appropriate elected officials and agencies on the City’s legislative priorities. Track legislation, appropriations, and grants through the entire legislative process so the City knows both the status of legislation, appropriations, and grants and when advocacy measures, such as correspondence, are necessary. Conduct a strategic assessment of legislative opportunities by gaining a complete understanding of City priorities and services to ensure that the City is taking advantage of every opportunity for state assistance whether through legislation, appropriations, or grants. Provide assistance in setting short and long-term legislative priorities for the City and perform in-depth analysis of current and anticipated legislation and state funding opportunities on an on-going basis. Grants Assist the City in obtaining state grants by making the City aware of grant opportunities and helping the City obtain them through coordination with state agencies. Reporting On a weekly basis, conduct conference calls with City staff to ensure the state legislative program is being implemented and to inform them of the status of legislation, appropriations, and grants. On a weekly basis, provide the City with analysis of current events and the implications they may have on the City’s legislative program. On a weekly basis, provide a comprehensive picture of what actions are expected by the Assembly, Senate, and Governor. Correspondence Work with the City to help draft correspondence that will be used to influence City of Palo Alto Page 3 legislation and seek funding opportunities. When appropriate, review City press releases prior to distribution. Meetings When appropriate, attend meetings on behalf of the City and, when appropriate, provide spoken comments, testimony, and/or written correspondence on behalf of the City. When appropriate, arrange meetings for City officials with state officials and their offices and prepare City officials for those meetings in order to optimize effectiveness. Coalition Building Build support for City endorsed legislation, appropriations, and grants by working with stakeholders at the local, regional, and state level. Support shall be conveyed through letters, phone calls, and visits. Resource Impact In order to retain full service state legislative advocacy representation, the City will pay Townsend $8,500 per month (or $102,000 per year). Funding for this contract is included in the City Manager’s Office’s General Fund allocation. The contract can be terminated with 10 day notice at any time in the event performance is not satisfactory. Attachments: Attachment A - C14152163 Townsend Amendment No 1 (PDF) Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 13 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. C14152163 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC. This Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C14152163 (“Contract”) is entered into December 8, 2015, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC., a California corporation, located at 1401 Dove Street, Ste. 330, Newport Beach, California, 92660, Telephone (949) 399-9050 ("CONSULTANT"). R E C I T A L S A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of representation in all state legislative advocacy matters. B. CITY intends to extend the term and increase compensation by $204,000.00 from $187,000.00 to $391,000.00 for continuation of services per Exhibit “A” Scope of Services. C. The parties wish to amend the Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 2 TERM is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date March 1, 2014 through December 31, 2017 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.” SECTION 2. Section 4 COMPENSATION is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Three Hundred Ninety One Thousand Dollars ($391,000.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”. ” SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: DocuSign Envelope ID: C5324E77-0670-4349-A9D7-8DEE2939F05F Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 14 a. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”. b. Exhibit “C1” entitled “RATE SCHEDULE”. SECTION 4. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC. Attachments : EXHIBIT "C": COMPENSATION EXHIBIT "C1": RATE SCHEDULE DocuSign Envelope ID: C5324E77-0670-4349-A9D7-8DEE2939F05F President Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 15 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $391,000.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: None All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $0.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: C5324E77-0670-4349-A9D7-8DEE2939F05F 16 Revision April 28, 2014 EXHIBIT “C-1” RATE SCHEDULE Advocacy Services $8,500.00/Per Month (46 months @ $8,500.00 = NTE $391,000.00) DocuSign Envelope ID: C5324E77-0670-4349-A9D7-8DEE2939F05F Certificate Of Completion Envelope Number: C5324E7706704349A9D78DEE2939F05F Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign this document: C14152163 Townsend Amendment No 1.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 4 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Christopher Anastole AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 11/2/2015 8:06:03 AM PT Holder: Christopher Anastole chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Christopher Townsend ctownsend@townsendpa.com President Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Using IP Address: 174.47.27.138 Sent: 11/2/2015 8:10:52 AM PT Viewed: 11/3/2015 6:07:34 PM PT Signed: 11/4/2015 10:23:18 AM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered ID: In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Richard Hackmann Richard.Hackmann@CityofPaloAlto.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 11/4/2015 10:23:19 AM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered ID: Nikki Yamat nyamat@townsendpa.com Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 11/4/2015 10:23:20 AM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered ID: Notary Events Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 11/4/2015 10:23:20 AM PT Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Certified Delivered Security Checked 11/4/2015 10:23:20 AM PT Signing Complete Security Checked 11/4/2015 10:23:20 AM PT Completed Security Checked 11/4/2015 10:23:20 AM PT City of Palo Alto (ID # 6308) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/7/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: BAO for Colorado Park Apartments Loan Title: Adoption of Budget Amendment Ordinance to Appropriate $203,561 from the Residential Housing Fund for Rehabilitation of the Colorado Park Apartments Consistent with Prior Loan Approval From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council appropriate $203,561 for the rehabilitation of Colorado Park Apartments via the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) (Attachment A), consistent with a September 2014 loan approval. Background & Discussion On September 8, 2014, the City Council approved a $203,561 loan (Attachment B) and an associated Budget Amendment Ordinance from the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) for the rehabilitation of Colorado Park Apartments (Staff Report 4924). In exchange for the loan PAHC entered into a Regulatory Agreement guaranteeing the long term affordability of the project. Under the agreement, monies are to be remitted to PAHC against the fund as the rehabilitation is completed. No General Fund monies are to be used for this housing activity. PAHC has proceeded with the rehabilitation and has requested the loan of $203,561 to be processed. Council’s appropriation in Fiscal Year 2015 to support this work lapsed at the end of the fiscal year. It is recommended that Council approve the attached BAO to appropriate $203,561 to cover this previously approved loan. Resource Impact There is sufficient fund balance available in the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund (Fund 233) for the commitment of $203,561. This loan from the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund was approved by the City Council in September 2014. The funding for this loan lapsed at the conclusion of FY 2015. A request to re-appropriate this funding to FY 2016 was inadvertently not submitted, necessitating a renewed authorization for this expense. The terms of the loan City of Palo Alto Page 2 include a simple interest at 3% per annum with payments made from the residual receipts over and above the project’s net operating expenses and will be divided among other funding agencies based on the City’s proportionate share of its funding to development costs. No interest will accrue and no payments will be required until after the rehabilitation work is completed. Environmental Review The work completed under the loan agreement is in the nature of maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing facility, which is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301. Attachments: Attachment A: BAO XXXX - Colorado Park Apartments (DOCX) Attachment B: Colorado Park Loan Agreement (PDF) 1 6308/sg Revised November 5, 2015 Ordinance No. XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 TO PROVIDE ADDDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $203,561 FROM THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN-LIEU FUND FOR A LOAN OT THE PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION (PAHC) FOR THE COLORADO APARTMENTS REHABILITATION The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 15, 2015 did adopted a budget for Fiscal Year 2016; and B. In 2014, the City Council approved a $200,000 loan to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) for the rehabilitation of the Colorado Park Apartments from the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund (Fund 233); and C. The final loan agreement amount with the PAHC approved by the City Council in 2014 totaled $203,561; and D. The terms of the loan include simple interest at 3% per annum to be paid from residual receipts that exceed the project’s net operating expenses, with no interest accrual and no payments required until the completion of the rehabilitation work; and E. $200,000 of the necessary funding was identified for this purpose and set aside in the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund in Fiscal Year 2015; and F. The City Council’s appropriation to support this work lapsed at the end of Fiscal Year 2015; and G. The PAHC has proceeded with the rehabilitation and requested the processing of the $203,561 loan; SECTION 2. Therefore, the sum of two hundred three thousand five hundred and sixty- one dollars ($203,561) is hereby appropriated in the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund for the rehabilitation of the Colorado Park Apartments, offset by a corresponding reduction to ending fund balance in the Residential Housing In-Lieu of two hundred three thousand five hundred and sixty-one dollars ($203,561). SECTION 3. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. ATTACHMENT A 2 6308/sg Revised November 5, 2015 SECTION 4. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. // // // // // INTRODUCED AND PASSED: Enter Date Here AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning & Community Environment ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ATTACHMENT B City of Palo Alto (ID # 6368) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/7/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Adoption of an Ordinance to Expand the Existing Expanded Polystyrene Ordinance Title: Adoption of an Ordinance Re-Titling and Amending Municipal Code Chapter 5.30 (Plastic Foam and Non-Recyclable Food Service Containers and Packaging Items) to Prohibit Sale of Non-Recyclable Plastic Foam at Retail Establishments Such as Grocery Stores, Pharmacies, Mail Service Stores and Hardware Stores From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the proposed revisions to the City of Palo Alto’s Ordinance 5039 “Plastic Foam and Non-recyclable Food Service Containers” to prohibit the retail sale or distribution of plastic foam products (Attachment A). Executive Summary Expanded plastic foam (e.g., expanded polystyrene or Styrofoam™) is generally used to make cups, bowls, plates, trays, clamshell containers, ice chests, shipping boxes and packing materials. Expanded plastic foam foodware and packaging is found in local creeks and throughout Palo Alto’s watershed. In May 2009, the City Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting the use or distribution of plastic foam at food service establishments (effective September 1, 2010) and an internal policy to prohibit staff from purchasing plastic foam foodware or distributing it at special events (Attachment B). However, plastic foam is still one of the most prevalent forms of litter and also contributes approximately 114 tons of garbage to the City’s waste stream each year. Staff proposes expanding the existing ordinance to prohibit retail sale or distribution of plastic foam foodware such as plates and cups, packaging materials such as foam peanuts and blocks, and the sale of eggs in plastic foam containers. The proposed ordinance revisions are congruent with City of Palo Alto Page 2 current policy and Council direction to eliminate waste that cannot be recycled or composted to meet the City’s 2021 Zero Waste goal, and the Municipal Regional Stormwater permit requirements to achieve no adverse impact from litter by 2022. Background In 2009, the Council approved the addition of a new chapter 5.30 (“Expanded Polystyrene and Non-Recyclable Food Service Containers) to Title 5 (“Health and Sanitation”) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (CMR: 201:09). The ordinance prohibited the use of expanded polystyrene and non-recyclable plastic, as defined by the ordinance, at food service establishments. Restaurant compliance exceeds 90%. The ordinance adoption is one of many actions that have been implemented by Public Works to reduce trash loading in Palo Alto’s watershed and to meet Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit Provision C.10. This provision requires a reduction in trash loads from municipal separate storm sewer systems to no adverse impact by June 30, 2022. The Ordinance Revisions were discussed by Council at the November 9, 2015 Council meeting. However, the agenda title for Item Number 8 (Plastic Foam Ordinance Expansion) did not provide the public sufficient notice that the Council would be adopting an ordinance. To provide additional public notice related to the adoption of the proposed ordinance, Council adopted a motion supporting the proposed regulatory changes, and directing staff to return to Council with a first reading of the ordinance on the Consent calendar at the first feasible meeting. This new staff report is implementing that direction. Discussion Where Plastic Foam Litter is Found Although implementation of the existing ordinance was a good first step in reducing plastic foam litter, the material continues to be an environmental hazard to wildlife, water quality and human health and an eyesore. Its prevalence is also a hindrance to regulatory compliance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit because of the difficulty in both preventing its release and removing it from the environment. Staff finds this pollutant across Palo Alto watersheds: Plastic foam litter is found in local creeks - More than 415 plastic foam pieces were recovered during the May 2015 National River Cleanup Day City of Palo Alto Page 3 event in Matadero and Adobe Creeks. A combined 945 pieces were recovered from the same two creeks during the September 2015 Coastal Cleanup Day. These pieces are notoriously problematic to collect as they continuously break into smaller pieces with age and can float or blow away. Volunteers who attend creek cleanup events are often unable to retrieve all the small pieces of plastic foam material. These plastic pieces can be mistaken for food by wildlife, impair water quality of chemicals that leach from plastic, and contribute to broader concerns of plastic pollution loading in San Francisco Bay and beyond. While only one annual creek cleanup is required per the City’s permit, the City has historically conducted two. Plastic foam is also consistently one of the top three forms of litter found in creek litter booms (floating trash capture devices). Booms are installed during the dry weather season in the downstream reaches of both Adobe and Matadero Creek that are designated as hotspots by the City’s stormwater permit. Staff routinely find plastic foam the most difficult pollutant to remove from booms during routine maintenance; Plastic foam litter is found on streets–six percent of the litter by volume found in Bay Area stormwater trash capture devices (stormdrain inserts) is plastic foam foodware (Cascadia Consulting Group and EOA, Inc. on behalf of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association, 2012); Plastic foam litter is found in San Francisco Bay– In January 2015, the San Francisco Estuary Institute counted between 14,000 and 2,000,0000 plastic particles per square kilometer (an area roughly equivalent to 250 football fields); Plastic foam litter contributes to oceanic plastic pollution– 80% of ocean pollution comes from land and most of it is plastic. (Jose Derrick, The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2002). Where Plastic Foam is Sold or Distributed in Palo Alto Based on July 2015 staff observations, plastic foam coolers and/or foodware were found available for sale at six pharmacies, two grocery stores, two mail service City of Palo Alto Page 4 stores and one hardware store. Separately, plastic foam is currently distributed (not directly sold) as egg cartons, meat and fish trays, packing material and complimentary food or beverage containers. Plastic Foam Recycling is Problematic and Does Not Adequately Reduce Litter Despite numerous attempts by the City since the 1980’s, a reliable, affordable recycling market for small quantities of plastic foam is still not available. According to recycling haulers, when small amounts of plastic foam are collected by recycling trucks, the plastic foam routinely breaks apart and cannot be captured at the material recovery facility. Loads of lightweight plastic foam are expensive to haul relative to the weight of other wastes, easily rejected due to low tolerance for contamination (even light rainwater is unacceptable) and may even be rejected if there is not enough total volume of the material at the facility to be recycled. While members of the public have raised the idea of leasing bailing equipment to find better markets for the material, experience at the Sunnyvale Materials and Recovery Transfer (SMaRT) Station has shown that the equipment is expensive to own and maintain, is prone to malfunctions and takes up space needed for other operations. GreenWaste Recovery, the facility where Palo Alto’s curbside recyclables are processed, does operate an expanded polystyrene densifier, but only for large amounts of high-quality commercial polystyrene. This service is provided at a cost to the business but would not work with regular curbside business and residential recycling collection due to the material handling issues referenced above. If residents are willing, Green Citizen in Mountain View will accept and recycle expanded polystyrene for a fee of $5 per 30-gallon bag. Ultimately, recycling does not solve the associated litter problems with this material. The best way to prevent creek litter is to reduce the volume of plastic foam that enters the community. Summary of Proposed Ordinance Changes To further reduce plastic foam litter, staff proposes expanding the current ordinance to prohibit: 1. The retail sale, use or distribution of plastic foam ice chests, foodware and packing materials. Retailers would include grocery stores, pharmacies, City of Palo Alto Page 5 mailing services, hardware stores and any other retailer or business that may sell or distribute plastic foam products identified in the ordinance. 2. The distribution of plastic foam egg cartons used for the sale of eggs; 3. The use of plastic foam for complimentary beverages or food items at any business. More than 90 cities and counties throughout California have adopted ordinances restricting expanded polystyrene in retail and/or restaurant distributions. Several cities and counties, including Mountain View, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, and the City and County of Santa Cruz have adopted similar retail sales and distribution requirements to those being proposed in this expanded ordinance. Retail Plastic Foam Packaging Reuse Residents have suggested dropping off foam packing materials for reuse at mail centers. Although staff strongly supports the reuse of materials to reduce waste, plastic foam packing materials can be released to the environment during transport. In addition, it would be difficult for staff to determine if plastic foam products that are getting reused were truly sourced from residents who have brought the material to the vendor, or if the store had purchased the material. External Sources of Plastic Foam Packaging Materials Shipments containing plastic foam packaging coming into Palo Alto are excluded from the proposed ordinance revisions. However, a retailer in Palo Alto will be restricted from using additional plastic foam to protect the product during resale. Public Input Staff held two public meetings to receive input on proposed ordinance changes. The first meeting was held on June 11, 2015 for Palo Alto businesses and other community stakeholders. Letters were sent directly to all businesses and invitations were distributed to the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business Association and California Avenue Business Association. Two ads ran in the Palo Alto Weekly inviting the community to attend. No members of the community attended the meeting, but three residents emailed the ordinance expansion project manager support for the ordinance (Attachment C–Public Comments Supporting Palo Alto’s Plastic Ordinance Expansion). In addition, a second meeting City of Palo Alto Page 6 was held for plastic industry representatives on June 19, 2015. No plastic industry representatives attended. Additionally, staff personally contacted managers or owners from those most likely to be impacted by the proposed ordinance changes including hardware stores, pharmacies, grocery stores and mailing services. Store representatives, including those from Safeway, Mollie Stones, Walgreens, Hassett Ace Hardware, Kinkos FedEx Office, and The UPS Store responded and indicated that the expanded ordinance would not result in any undue hardship on their business. Staff field inspections and conversations with store representatives have determined several stores including Country Sun, Sigona’s Farmers Market, Whole Foods and Peninsula Hardware are already in compliance with the proposed ordinance. Timeline Staff proposes that the ordinance effective date commence on March 1, 2016. Resource Impact There will be no long-term resource impact to staff. In addition to complaint- based enforcement, periodic compliance checks would be performed at retailers identified in this report where sales of plastic foam are most likely to occur. Compliance checks at food service establishments that are already prohibited from using plastic foam are included in the City’s Restaurant Inspection Program. Policy Implications The proposed ordinance revisions are consistent with the City’s Single-use Plastic Reduction Policy, Clean Bay Plan and Climate Action Plan. The proposed ordinance would also support Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements to reduce litter to no adverse impact by 2022 and to meet the City’s zero waste goal by 2021. Environmental Review In April 2009, the City Council adopted a Negative Declaration in connection with the 2009 amendments to the polystyrene ordinance. Staff has prepared an Addendum to the prior Negative Declaration to relfect the latest ordinance updates. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Attachments: Attachment A Proposed Expanded Polystyrene Ordinance Revisions November 10 2015 Version (PDF) Attachment B Single Use-Plastic Policy CMR 2015 (PDF) Attachment C Support Letters (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED 151110 jb 0131491 1 Ordinance No. ______ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 5.30 (“Expanded Polystyrene and Non-Recyclable Food Service Containers”) to Title 5 (“Health and Sanitation”) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and purpose. The Council finds and declares as follows: (a) The City of Palo Alto is charged with eliminating litter which passes through the storm drain system to no adverse impact by 2022 as part of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit. (b) The City is charged with achieving Zero Waste by 2021 and Plastic Foam is not reliably recyclable. (c) Palo Alto’s watersheds reside at the edge of the San Francisco Bay which is part of the Pacific flyway and which protects habitat for two endangered species–the California clapper rail and saltmarsh harvest mouse. (d) The City of Palo Alto desires to protect the natural environment, the health of its citizens, and the economy. This includes exercising environmental stewardship by reducing the amount of Plastic Foam litter released into the City’s watershed and beyond. (e) On February 11, 2009, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board identified two Palo Alto creeks, San Francisquito Creek and Matadero Creek, as having water quality that is impaired by trash as defined by the Clean Water Act. The staff report recommending that the creeks be listed identifies polystyrene, a predominant source of Plastic Foam, as being one of the types of trash responsible for the impairment. (f) Plastic foam litter was the largest component by count of litter found in Adobe and Matadero Creeks during the 2014 National River and Coastal Clean-up Day events. (g) Plastic foam litter constitutes six percent of the litter collected in storm drains in four Bay Area counties and 149 storm drain inlets based on a study performed by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association. (h) Plastic foam litter presents unique management issues because it is lightweight, floats, resists biodegradation, and easily breaks into smaller pieces. Because it is not easily contained, it is often conveyed through storm drains to local creeks, the San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. These small pieces, similar in size to plankton, are ingested by marine wildlife, leading to reduced appetite and nutrient absorption and possible death by starvation. According to a United Nations Environment Global Program of Action study, at least 162 marine species including most seabirds are reported to have eaten plastics and other litter. NOT YET APPROVED 151110 jb 0131491 2 (i) Recycling Plastic Foam is problematic and not cost-effective. Ongoing logistical and quality control challenges related to the minimal recycling market for Plastic Foam makes maintaining a recycling program for peanuts and blocks financial and operationally infeasible. All Plastic Foam materials must now be disposed of in a landfill. (j) The retail sale or distribution of Plastic Foam undermines the goals of the City of Palo Alto’s ordinance prohibiting the distribution of Plastic Foam foodware at Food Service Establishments and City-sponsored events. (k) Both of the major chemicals used to produce Plastic Foam, benzene (a known human carcinogen) and styrene (a possible carcinogen and neurotoxin), are suspected by the EPA and FDA to leach from polystyrene food containers, posing a threat to the environment and human health. (l) Plastic Foam used at Food Service Establishments is a one-time use product that degrades extremely slowly in nature. (m) There are many suitable reusable, compostable or recyclable alternatives to Plastic Foam foodware, ice chests and packaging materials. (n) The City of Palo Alto provides an organics collection and composting program to residents and Food Service Establishments which can accept paper and compostable foodware for municipal composting. (o) Non-recyclable materials pose a challenge to any environmentally and fiscally responsible solid waste management program. Regulation of Plastic Foam is necessary to encourage a recyclable waste stream and to reduce the disposal of solid waste and the economic and environmental costs of waste management. (p) It is the intent of the Council to reduce the negative impacts of Plastic Foam and encourage the use of recyclable or compostable alternatives through the implementation of this Ordinance. SECTION 2. Chapter 5.30 (Expanded Polystyrene and Non-Recyclable Food Service Containers) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 5.30 EXPANDED POLYSTYRENEPLASTIC FOAM AND NON-RECYCLABLE FOOD SERVICE CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING ITEMS Sections: 5.30.010 Definitions 5.30.020 Prohibitions on the Use of Expanded PolystyrenePlastic Foam and Non- Recyclable Plastic 5.30.030 Exemptions NOT YET APPROVED 151110 jb 0131491 3 5.30.040 Operative Dates 5.30.050 Severability 5.30.060 Enforcement and Penalties 5.30.070 Construction and Preemption 5.30.010 Definitions. (a) “ASTM Standard” means meeting the standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International Standards D6400 or D6868 for biodegradable and compostable plastics and any amendments or successor standards thereto. (a)(b) “City facilitiesFacilities” refers to any building, structure or vehicle owned or operated by the City of Palo Alto, its agents, departments and franchises.; (b)(c) “Disposable food service containerFood Service Container” means single-use disposable product used by food vendorsFood Service Establishments for serving or transporting prepared and ready-to-consume food or beverages. This includes but is not limited to plates, cups, bowls, lids, trays and hinged or lidded containers. This does not include single-use disposable straws, utensils, or hot cup lids.; (c) “Expanded Polystyrene” means a thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing the styrene monomer, marked with recycling symbol #6, processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, form molding, and extrusion-blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene), sometimes incorrectly called Styrofoam®, a Dow Chemical Company trademarked form of polystyrene foam insulation. In food service, expanded polystyrene is generally used to make cups, bowls, plates, and trays. (c)(d) “Food vendorService Establishment” means any establishment, located or providing food within the City of Palo Alto, which provides prepared and ready- to- consume food or beverages, for public consumption including but not limited to any store,Retail Service Establishment, eating and drinking service (as defined in Title 18), takeout service (as defined in Title 18), supermarket, delicatessen, restaurant, retail food vendor, sales outlet, shop, cafeteria, catering truck or vehicle, cart or other sidewalk or other outdoor vendor, or caterer. which provides Prepared Food; (d)(e) “Non-Recyclable Plastic” means all plastics that do not meet the definition of “Recyclable Plastic”. ; (f) “Plastic Foam” shall mean blown expanded and extruded plastic foams made from polystyrene or other resins which are processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of monomer spheres (expanded bead plastic), injection molding, foam molding and extrusion-blown molding (extruded foam plastic). Expanded polystyrene and other plastic foam resins are generally used to NOT YET APPROVED 151110 jb 0131491 4 make disposable cups, bowls, plates, trays, egg cartons, clamshell containers, ice chests, shipping boxes and packing materials. (g) “Plastic Foam Products” shall mean disposable Plastic Foam ice chests, cups, bowls, plates, clamshells, shipping boxes containers, egg cartons, packaging peanuts, packing blocks or other packaging materials that are not wholly encapsulated or encased by a more durable material. Additional Plastic Foam Products may be added by administrative regulation promulgated by the Director of Public Works or his/her designee; (e)(h) “Prepared foodFood” means any food or beverage prepared for consumption using any cooking, packaging, or food preparation technique, including but not limited to cooking, chopping, slicing, mixing, freezing, squeezing, or brewing, and which requires no further preparation to be consumed. Prepared food includes uncooked fruits or vegetables and any, “take-out” food, or food prepared to be consumed off the food vendor’sFood Service Establishment premises. Prepared foodFood does not include any uncooked meat, fish, or poultry, or eggs.; (f)(i) “Recyclable Plastic” means all plastics that can be recycled, salvaged, composted, processed, or marketed by any means other than land-filling or burning, whether as fuel or otherwise, so that they are returned to use by society. Recyclable plasticsPlastics” include any plastic which can be feasibly recycledaccepted for recycling or composting by the City’s municipal recycling program and presently is limited to those plastics with the following recycling symbols: #1 - polyethylene terephthalate (PET or PETE), #2 - high density polyethylene (HDPE), #3 - polyvinyl chloride (PVC), #4 - low density polyethylene (LDPE), #5 - polypropylene (PP), #6 – polystyrene, except for the expanded version of polystyrene, and #7 - other plastics, including compostable plastics such as polylactic acid (PLA) . For purposes of this Chapter, Recyclable Plastic does not include any expanded polystyrenePlastic Foam labeled with recycling symbol #6., or any other Plastic Foam made with other plastic resins; (g)(j) “Retail Service Establishment” shall have the same meaning as Retail Service as defined in Title 18 of this Code. 5.30.020 Prohibition on the Use of PolystyrenePlastic Foam Products and Non-Recyclable Plastic. (a) Except as provided by section 5.30.030 food vendors, Food Service Establishments are prohibited from providing prepared food in disposable food service containersDisposable Food Service Containers made from expanded polystyrene or non-recyclable plastic. Plastic Foam or other Non-Recyclable Plastic; (b) Except as provided by section 5.30.030, Retail Service Establishments are prohibited from selling, leasing or otherwise providing Plastic Foam Products; NOT YET APPROVED 151110 jb 0131491 5 (b)(c) Except as provided by section 5.30.030, all City facilities, City managed concessions, and vendors at City sponsored events, and or City permitted eventsowned facilities are prohibited from using disposable food service containers made from expanded polystyreneDisposable Food Service Containers, packaging or non-recyclable plastic. other products made from Plastic Foam or Non-Recyclable Plastic; (c)(d) Nothing in this Ordinance shall be interpreted to restrict the use or sale of any form of fiber or paper disposable food service container, or the use of any form of biodegradable or plastic food service container meeting ASTM Standards or other products authorized by Administrative Regulation. 5.30.030 Exemptions (a) The following exemptions shall apply: (ai) Foods prepared or packaged outside the City of Palo Alto are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. Purveyors of food prepared or packaged outside the City of Palo Alto are encouraged to follow the provisions of this Chapter. (b) Coolers and ice chests that are intended for reuse are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. (cii) The directorDirector of Public Works, or his/her designee, may exempt a food Food Service Establishment, Retail Service Establishment or City facility/vendor from the requirements of this Ordinance for a period of up to one year, upon showing by the food vendorif the applicant for such exemption can demonstrate that the conditions of this Ordinance would cause an undue hardship. An “undue hardship” includes, but is not limited to situations unique to the food vendorapplicant where there are no reasonable alternatives to expanded polystyrenePlastic Foam Products or nonNon-recyclable plastic disposable food service containersPlastic Disposable Food Service Containers and compliance with this Ordinance would cause significant economic hardship to that food vendorapplicant, or cause the food vendorthem to be deprived of a legally protected right. (diii) A food A Food Service Establishment, Retail Service Establishment or City facility/vendor seeking an exemption application shall include all information necessary for the City to make its decision, including but not limited to documentation showing the factual support for the claimed exemption. The Director may require the applicant to provide additional information to permit the Director to determine facts regarding the exemption application. NOT YET APPROVED 151110 jb 0131491 6 (eiv) Emergency Supplies and Service Procurement. City facilities, food vendorsFood Service Establishments, Retail Service Establishments, City franchises, contractors and vendors doing business with the City shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter, in a situation deemed by the City Manager to be an emergency for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety. 5.30.040 Operative Dates. All food vendors Food Service Establishment, Retail Service Establishments and City facilities and vendors must comply with the requirements of this Ordinance by April 22, 2010March 1, 2016. 5.35.050 Severability. If any provision or clause of this chapter is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions of this chapter, and clauses of this chapter are declared to be severable. 5.35.060 Enforcement and Penalties (a) The Director of Public Works or his/her designee shall have primary responsibility for enforcement of this chapter. The Director of Public Works or his or her designee is authorized to promulgate regulations and to take any and all other actions reasonable and necessary to enforce this chapter, including, but not limited to, entering the premises of any Food Provider to verify compliance. (a)(b) Anyone violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall be guilty of an infraction as set forth in Chapter 1.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (b)(c) Anyone violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall be subject to an administrative penalty or administrative compliance order as set forth in Chapters 1.12 and 1.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (c) Each and every sale or other transfer of disposable food service containers made from expanded polystyrene or non-recyclable plastic shall constitute a separate violation of this Ordinance. (d) The remedies and penalties provided in this Section are cumulative and not exclusive. 5.35.070 Construction and Preemption This Chapter and any of its provisions shall be null and void upon the adoption of any state or federal law or regulation imposing the same, or essentially the same limits on the use of prohibited products as set forth in the Chapter. This Chapter is NOT YET APPROVED 151110 jb 0131491 7 intended to be a proper exercise of the City’s police power, to operate only upon its own officers, agents, employees and facilities and other persons acting within its boundaries, and not to regulate inter-city or interstate commerce. It shall be construed in accordance with that intent. SECTION 3. On April 27, 2009 the City Council adopted a Negative Declaration with respect to the City’s earlier prohibition against food establishments’ use of extended polystyrene products. The Council hereby finds that this ordinance’s extension to other foam products and further applicability to retail service establishments would not result in any additional impacts not already analyzed under the earlier Negative Declaration. The City has prepared an addendum to the Negative Declaration to clarify the extended scope. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Public Works I:\iwdocs\_SourceControl\Current Programs\Plastic and Polystyrene\Single use plastic container policy_Final.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS POLICY POLICY STATEMENT The City recognizes that single-use plastic containers including plastic bags, expanded polystyrene food and beverage containers, and single-use plastic water bottles are important components of the plastic litter which is building up in ecosystems and harming wildlife. These plastic items degrade extremely slowly and removal from the natural environment, when possible at all, is very resource intensive and expensive. Further, single-use plastic containers consume energy in manufacturing which creates carbon dioxide and exacerbates global warming. The City has taken action to restrict the distribution of certain plastic bags and expanded polystyrene food and beverage containers. The purpose of this Policy is to take similar steps with respect to City Operations and demonstrate leadership by going beyond the requirements being imposed via City Ordinance. Single-use plastic water bottles are being included because of their explosive sales growth, frequent occurrence in ecosystem litter, and readily available alternatives. The following items shall be phased out of City Operations by the dates indicated: 1. Single-use plastic bags shall not be purchased or distributed, effective on September 18, 2009. 2. Expanded polystyrene food and beverage containers shall not be purchased, distributed or sold after December 31, 2009. 3. Single-use plastic water containers shall not be purchased, distributed or sold after December 31, 2009. Applicability of this Policy This Policy shall apply to all City operations, with the exception of emergency response actions. City contractors, lessees and vendors shall also adhere to the Policy. All events sponsored or co-sponsored by the City shall also be in compliance with the Policy. This Policy will also be included in the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Chapter of the Palo Alto Purchasing Manual and shall be implemented via contracts, purchase orders and agreements. PROCEDURES City staff, vendors, lessees and event managers shall all be responsible for adherence to the Policy and insuring that non-conforming plastic containers are not distributed at City facilities or City sponsored (or co-sponsored) events. Purchasing staff shall also assist in assuring that non-conforming plastic containers are not purchased. Changes to this Policy must be coordinated through the City Managers Office. Note: Questions and/or clarifications of this Policy should be directed to the Public Works Department. Attachment C– Written Public Comments Supporting Palo Alto’s Plastic Foam Ordinance Expansion From: To: Cc: Subject: Cedric Compost de La Beaujardiere <cedric.compost@gmail.com> Weiss, Julie Re: Public Meeting Notice: Proposed Polystyrene Ordinance Expansion Hi Mrs. Julie Weiss and City Staff, Sent: Thu 6/4/2015 5:14 PM I 100% support expanding the ban on the sale of expanded plastic foam products. these products often break down into little pieces and end up in our land and waterways, where wildlife eat them thinking they are food, and die from poisoning or malnutrition with bellies full of plastic instead of nourishment. These products don't decompose, they just accumulate in our biosphere and are virtually impossible to clean up. Keep up the good work! Cedric de La Beaujardiere 741 Josina Ave Palo Alto CA 94306 On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Wejss, Julie <Julie.Weiss@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: The City of Palo Alto is holding a public stakeholder meeting to discuss the proposed expansion of Palo Alto's existing ordinance 5.30 CExpanded Polystyrene and Non-Recyclable Food SCI>ice Containers) Title 5 CHealth and Sanitation") of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The current ordinance prohibit> the use of expanded plastic foam (e.g., Styrofoam TM) and other non-recyclable plastics for use as foodware at food service establishments. The proposed revisions would prohibit retail sales of expande.d plastic foam such as cups, bowls, plates, trays, clamshell containers, ice chests, shipping boxes and packing materials. See attached letter sent to Palo Alto businesses for additional information. CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK December 7, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Adoption of a Resolution Revising the Citywide Records Retention Schedule and Repealing Resolution No. 8688 Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council repeal Resolution No. 8688 and adopt a Resolution revising the Citywide Records Retention Schedule. Discussion The Records and Information Management (RIM) Program administered by the City Clerk’s Office ensures the protection and efficient administration of official records for the City of Palo Alto. The program assures the accessibility of information to the public, protects the City’s vital records, provides a methodology for the periodic disposal of obsolete records and provides for the availability of essential and critical information for the resumption of operation in the event of a major disaster. The Records Retention Schedules provide a description of the type of records each department maintains, indicates which department owns the various types of records retained, sets forth the length of time the records will be held, statutory reference, if any, and the final disposition of those records. Departments developed Records Retention Schedules in cooperation with the offices of the City Clerk and City Attorney to address the records held by each respective department. Owning departments have reviewed their responsive Schedules for administrative and fiscal value. The Office of the City Attorney has reviewed and approved the Retention Schedules for compliance with government records retention regulations. Policy Implications The Schedules are an integral part of the City of Palo Alto’s Records and Information Management (RIM) Program and require periodic updates to comply with State regulations and individual department needs. They provide a basic index to the City’s records and a guide to citywide records retention practices. Background On November 16, 2015, the Council approved (Excerpt Minutes – Attachment C) Staff’s request to continue this item to allow them to Page 2 (Attachment D) include a list of records permanently retained by the City. This revised draft includes this list. Staff also made additional changes below and reflected in this draft: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks (b) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (C.A.F.R.) C+10PER Department and Auditors Opinion CITY CLERK’S OFFICE Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks COUNCIL & STANDING COMMITTEES c) DVDs C+1PER GC 34090 Department Opinion LIBRARY DEPARTMENT Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks Library Advisory Commission a)Agenda PERC+2 GC34090 UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks 010 Utilities Advisory Commission Agenda PERC+2 061 Street Lights/Traffic Signal/Fiber *S.R.O – Street Lights *Notifications – SL & TS *Maintenance W.O. – TS ?C+6 Work transaction recorded in SAP Mark-up records maintained on- site Fiscal Impact None. Environmental Assessment Adoption of the attached resolution updating records retention schedules is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and therefore no environmental assessment is required. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment: Attachment A: Records Retention Resolution (PDF) Attachment: Attachment B: Redline - DRAFT Revised Records Retention Schedule (PDF) Page 3 Attachment: Attachment C: 11-16-15 Item 7 Excerpt DRAFT Action Minutes (DOC) Attachment: Attachment D: 11-16-2015 At Place Memo (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 4 ATTACHMENT A *NOT YET APPROVED* 151029 jjs 0160088 1 Resolution No. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Citywide Records Retention Schedule and Repealing Resolution No. 8688 R E C I T A L S A. The destruction of certain public records is authorized by State law in Government Code sections 34090, et seq. B. A system for the retention and schedule for the destruction of records and working papers that are no longer needed for administrative, legal, fiscal, historical, or research purposes is deemed appropriate. C. The City Clerk has developed and is responsible for the City's Records and Information Management ("RIM") Program, including guidelines and procedures prepared pursuant to that Program. D. On April 22, 1996 pursuant to Resolution No. 7579, the Council adopted records retention schedules for the Police, Planning and Community Environment, Public Works, and Utilities Departments and amended records retention schedules for the offices of the City Attorney, City Auditor, City Clerk and City Manager, Administrative Services, Community Services, Fire and Human Resources Departments. E. On February 5, 2007 pursuant to Resolution No. 8688, the Council adopted revised citywide records retention schedules. F. It is now necessary and desirable to adopt revised citywide records retention schedules. G. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the proposed records retention schedules. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The Council hereby authorizes the head of each department to maintain and destroy records in accordance with their respective departmental retention schedules, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to the written approval of the City Attorney prior to any proposed destruction, and subject further to the Records and Information Management Program and any guidelines or procedures the City Clerk may from time to time promulgate thereunder. ATTACHMENT A *NOT YET APPROVED* 151029 jjs 0160088 2 SECTION 2. Resolution No. 8688 is hereby repealed. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not constitute a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, and, therefore, no environmental assessment is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Deputy City Attorney City Manager City Clerk READING THE RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE: A "HOW TO" GUIDE Background The Records Retention Schedule, as approved by the City Council through Resolution, is a legal document. It identifies the types of records and information used and managed by a department, how long that information needs to be retained at the office and/or offsite, and when it may be destroyed. Each department is required to have a current Schedule. It is the responsibility of the department to notify the City Clerk’s Office of any business, organizational, functional, or legal changes which would impact their specific Schedule. The City Clerk’s Office coordinates with the Office of the City Attorney (who reviews them for compliance with all government codes and regulations) prior to approval by the City Council. The Schedules should be reviewed for accuracy every two to three years by the City Clerk’s and City Attorney’s Offices in conjunction with each respective department. Using Retention Schedules DESCRIPTION – This is the general description of a group of records with similar business functions and retention requirements. The description must coincide with file titles maintained by the department. TOTAL RETENTION – Refers to the length of time a record must be kept before it is eligible for destruction. CUR – Current refers to any record or file made within the current calendar year. The Retention period begins the first day of the following calendar year. (For example, Cur+2 means that any record created in 2015 is kept for the two following years, 2016 and 2017. The record would be eligible for destruction after December 31, 2017). SUP – Supersede indicates that old items are replaced by a more current version. STATUTORY REFERENCE - This field includes regulations and codes that govern the retention of a specific record type. REMARKS – This field includes general comments about the information in this row. When "Department Opinion" is noted in this column, it means that the Department has determined the retention period to extend beyond the legal or audit requirement. "Attorney Opinion" indicates that the retention requirement was established pursuant to the opinion of the City Attorney based on research, past litigation history, and/or the potential for future litigation on this topic. LEGEND – A legend is provided at the bottom of the Retention Schedule assisting the reader with retention terminology. RECORDS PERMANENTLY RETAINED The following identifies records permanently retained by eachdepartment. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks (b) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (C.A.F.R.) PER Department and Auditors Opinion OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEYNo records retained permanently CITY AUDITOR’S OFFICE Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks 004 Publications (Audit Reports), Status Reports, Revenue Reports, Council Reports PER Department Policy CITY CLERK’S OFFICE Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks c) Domestic PartnershipAffidavits & Statements PER Department Opinion COUNCIL & STANDING COMMITTEES b) Minutesc)DVDs PER PER GC 34090 Department Opinion STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS –DVD and Speech Hard Copy PER Department Opinion 8/2014 ORDINANCES PER GC 34090; PAMC 2.08.110 RESOLUTIONS PER GC 34090; PAMC 2.08.110 RECORDS & INFORMATION MANAGEMENT- b) Destruction Certificates PER Department Opinion 8/2014 STANFORD (Including Sand Hill Road, Willow Rd. Extension) PER PAMC 2.08.110 City Attorney Opinion 9/1987 YACHT HARBOR PER PAMC 2.08.110 City Attorney Opinion 9/1987 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY – Agreements including Transmission Agency of Northern California PER PAMC 2.08.110 City Attorney Opinion 9/1987 CABLE TELEVISION – Franchise & Licenses PER City Attorney Opinion 9/1987 FLOOD BASIN PER City Attorney Opinion 9/1987 POLICE AUDITOR REPORTS PER Department Opinion 4/2015 WATER RIGHTS – Agreements and Clean Up PER City Attorney Opinion 1995 PAC BELL/PG&E PER Department Opinion 1992 CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS- a) Elected Members & Log of Filers (paper) PER PAMC 2.08.110 GC 81009(b)(g) NOMINATIONS/CANDIDATES a) Elected PER EC 17100 Department Opinion 6/2014 OATHS OF OFFICE a) Elected Council Member TER+2 PER Department Opinion TER = Leaving Office date Department Opinion 8/2014 SAMPLE BALLOT PER GC 34090 COUNCIL MEMBER – b) Biographies c) Photos d) Emergency Standby Council Oaths of Office and Report PER PER PER ROSTER PER Department Opinion Paper C+2 BINDING INSTRUMENTS a) Land – Deeds, Easement b) Easement Vacations, Leases & Purchases c) Encroachments, Agreements & Conveyance PER GC 34090a Duplicate of County Recorder LIENS, CONDEMNATION PER GC 34090a ANNEXATIONS/ACQUISTIONS PER GC 34090a SUBDIVIDOR AGREEMENTS PER GC 65864 & 65869.5 CITY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENT Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks 002 Staff Reports CMRs (City Manager Reports) – including supporting documents PER GC34090.5 May be scanned after 5 years and paper copy offered to Palo Alto Historical Association 003 Economic Development Files for Projects throughout City of Palo Alto PER May be stored off-site 006 Official copies of all City Policies and procedures PER Each department should have a current copy of the Policies & Procedures COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks Public Art Commission c) Minutes of all meetings PER GC 34090 011 Exhibits – Junior Museum & Baylands Interpretive Center PER Department Opinion Human Relations Commission c) Minutes of all meetings PER GC 34090 Parks and Recreation Commission c) Minutes of all meetings PER GC 34090 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks 004 PERMIT RECORDS Address changes, Permit applications, Building Use & Occupancy applications and certificates, Department correspondence. PER GC 34090 Electronically Stored in Geographic Information System (GIS) or Accela 005 INSPECTION RECORDS Survey letters, Special inspection – final inspection reports, SB407 certificate of compliance forms, Stop work correspondence. PER GC 34090 006 Plans PER H&S 19850 FIRE DEPARTMENT Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks 001(a) Code Books, Ordinances PER GC 34090(e) California Fire Code, PAMC amendments, etc. Employee accident and exposure reports PER Individual and summary statistics PER 008(b) FIRE/HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION REPORTS & PHOTOS PER PC 799 C+6 onsite; PER offsite Records of Inspection; routine, special, new construction & tenant improvement related. PER Electronically stored in Accela 012 CERTIFICATIONS GC 34090 Flame Resistance PER Electronically stored in Accela Use and Occupancy Certificate PER Electronically stored in Accela New Construction & Tenant Improvement Projects, including Underground tank installations and repairs PER Electronic Electronically stored in Accela Alternate means & methods PER 2007 CFC 104. 6.4 Electronically stored in Accela Plan review comments PER Electronically stored in Accela SUPPRESSION 015 INCIDENTS (fire, medical, hazmat, etc.) PER Electronically stored in RMS 015(b) Fire Incident Reports; all except arson related PER CFC 104.3.2; PC 801 Electronically stored in RMS 015(c) Fire Incident and other Field Reports; arson related PER CFC 104.3.2; PC 801 Electronically stored in RMS 015(d) Fire Incident and other Field Reports; arson with death involved PER PC 799 Electronically stored in RMS 015(e) Pre-Hospital Care Report (PCR) PER 45 CFR Part 164.530 Electronically stored in RMS 019 SITE CLEANUP Spill Reports & facility closure related information; related inspections. Does not include reports for activities regulated by California Regional Water Resources Control Board or California Dept. of Toxic Substances. PER GC 34090(a) Pertains to real property. Previous retention was 30 years-OHSA Guideline cited no specific document reference. Electronically stored in California Environmental Reporting Service (CERS) 022(a) UST closures and/or removals and related documentation. Does not include reports for activities regulated by California Regional Water Resources Control Board or California Dept. of Toxic Substances. PER GC 34090(a) Pertains to real property. May include blueprints, reports, inspection results, permits Electronically stored in CERS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (I.T.) No records retained permanently LIBRARY DEPARTMENT Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks Library Advisory Commission c) Minutes of Meetings PER GC34090 Historic Reference History of Palo Alto City Library PER Department Opinion OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks 002 DEPARTMENT PLANS PER Department Opinion PEOPLE STRATEGY AND OPERATIONS Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks 014 SAFETY REPORTS: PER Department Opinion PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks 005 PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (PTC), ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD, HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD AND DIRECTOR’S HEARINGS a) Minutes - Online PER GC 34090 Video and Audio Tapes are recycled after 90 days except for Director’s Hearing – 5 years of DVD/CD Hardcopy format, Boards – Summary. PTC – Verbatim 007 PLANS a) Approved PER Digital Format 008 DISCRETIONARY PLANNING ENTITLEMENTS a) Applications b) Maps-Zoning, Tentative Subdivision, Preliminary Parcel, Comp Plan Land Use, et al c) Permit Extensions (currently a 2-year window with a 1-yr extension) d) Record of Land Use Actions e) CEQA-EIR-Negative Declarations PER C+2 PER GC 34090 Digital Format (stored offsite) Digital format Saved within Application files that are scanned into GIS/DOXview 010 HISTORIC INVENTORY PER GC 34090 Digital Format – Currently updated via GIST 011 ZONING ORDINANCES PER Duplicate of City Clerk 012 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AMENDMENTS – Available Website reference only (Amendments acknowledged by Resolutions PER GC 34090 Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup w/ Amendments Resolutions Duplicate of City Clerk 015 HOUSING d) Below Market Rate (BMR) Units, In Lieu Hosing Mitigation PER Department Opinion 016 TRANSPORTATION-BICYCLES a) Bike Boulevard d) Bike Locker Rental Program PER PER GC 34090 Unique project, historical significance, model for other jurisdictions in and out of U.S. 017 FUNDING-Fuel Efficient Traffic Signal Management Program (FETSIM) Applications, Prop 116 Applications, Surface Transportation Program (STDP)/Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)Applications and Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Applications PER 019 Parking a) Assessment Districts c) Facilities(garages/lots) f) Structures PER PER PER GC 34090 Multiple Depts. Department Opinion Department Opinion 021 TRAFFIC REFERENCE b) Demographic Data c) Traffic Flow Maps PER 028 Plans PER H&S 19850 POLICE DEPARTMENT Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks 001e Police Reports – ODI (Optical Document Imaging) System and supporting hard copy Reports PER GC 34090 PC 800 PC 801 PC 799 Reports scanned into the ODI system from 6-15-92 to 12-31-06 Unless report is a Permanent Record or ordered Sealed by Court Order 001e Traffic Collision Fatality Reports PER GC 34090 Regardless of the medium 001e (1) Police Reports/PDF Scanned – All Felonies, high Misdemeanor cases. PER PC 800 PC 801 PC 799 (Felony Capital Crimes punishable by Death, Life Imprisonment PC 1054 Starting 2007 Hard Copies will be kept in conjunction with PDF Prosecution for an offense punishable by imprisonment in state prison for 8 years or more must commence within 6 years after offense commission. Commencement of prosecution defined in PC 804. *Exception: PC 803 – Tolling/Extension of time periods; Appeals process and “Three Strikes” also considerations in assigning retention. 001e (2) Registrants – Sex, Arson, Narcotics PER DOJ Guidelines Fingerprint Card, Photo and info forwarded to DOJ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks BUDGET Budget Change Requests PER Duplicate of Office of Management & Budget CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS a) Project Files, Work Orders, Schedules, Bidders List, Correspondence, Change Order b) Specifications, Reports Plans, Contracts and Subdivisions PER Life of Structure GRANTS Applications Awards PER PERMITS PER TENANT FILES Applications Payments/Receipts Log Leases PER 005 013 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Boundaries & Rolls PER GC 34090 006 020 BENCHMARK DATA Horizontal, Vertical & Control PER GC 34090 Department Opinion 007 011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS a) Project Files, Work Orders, Schedules, Bidders List, Correspondence, Change Order b) Specifications, Reports Plans, Contracts and Subdivisions c) Street Reports PER Life of Structure 008 014 CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE PER GC 34090 Duplicate of CLK 010 009 ENCROACHMENT PERMITS a) Permanent Encroachments PER GC 34090 011 012 FLOOD ZONE Elevation Certificates & Letter of Map Amendments PER GC 34090 015 016 SOIL REPORTS PER Department Opinion 016 008 STREET WORK PERMITS PER GC 34090 018 019 SURVEYS – Recording Data and Maps PER GC 34090 Department Opinion 019 022 ENVIRONMENTAL FILES PER Department Opinion 035 033 FLOW Discharge Data & Reports PER Department Opinion 037 032 NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) – Permits and Reports PER Department Opinion 039 031 SAFETY Training and accident reports PER GC 34090 Landfill reports & records PER Household Hazardous Waste Manifest & Reports PER 024 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS a) Project Files, Work Orders, schedules, Bidders List, Change Orders & Correspondence b) Specifications, Reports, Calculations, Plans, & Subdivision, Contracts PER PER CCP 337.15 Department Opinion UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks Master Plans PER Department Opinion 006 Internal working files PER Department opinion 007 Rates – All Services PER Department opinion 010 Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes of all meetings PER Service: Utilities Account Change Make Change to Account Demolition Request Demolition Application PER PER PER PER GC 34090 All listed will be scanned and retained electronically Project Pledge One time Submission PER PER 016 Acquisitions, Easement, Design, Drawings, Specifications, Photos, Permits, Soil Reports, Correspondence, Quotes, Payments & Schedules PER GC 34090 Historical CPAU Work Orders As-Built Maps Valve Cards PER Department of Transportation CPAU Work Orders of Abandoned Pipe PER Department Opinion As-Built Maps of Abandoned Pipe Valve Cards of Abandoned Valves Paradigm Data Sheets Cathodic Work Orders Cathodic Protection with Gas Distribution Map Exposed Pipe Reports PER PER PER PER Department of Transportation Welding Record (form 225A) PER Department of Transportation FSR Gas Leak Investigations (818 Form) FSR Stop Card Database Gas Shop Stop Card PER PER PER Department of Transportation Gas Receiving Stations Odorant and Oil Drip Water Meter Test Results Gas Meter Test Results Meter Leak Tags Abnormal Operating Conditions (AOC) PER PER PER PER PER PER Department of Transportation CPAU WGW Operations Pre- Tested Pipe Tag (Form 503) PER Department of Transportation 019 General Information Regulating Specifications & Testing Gas Leakage Survey Meter Leak Tag AOC CPAU/WGW Operations Pre-Tested Pipe Tag Gas/Water Shop Stop Card Odorant & Oil Dip Valve Cards Valve Cards of Abandoned Valve Welding Record Gas Receiving Station PER Form 503 Form 225A 054 050 Work Orders: Pacific Bell, Cable Co-op, PG&E, and Intents PER Department Opinion 055 051 Acquisitions, Design, Drawings, Specs, Permits, Correspondence quotes, Payments & Schedules CIP/Construction PER Department Opinion - Historical Refer to CIP Construction Projects 059 Compliance/Inspection/Locating *Field Switch/Man on Line Logs *Overhead/Underground Compliance Records *Underground Service Alert Notices PER PER C+1 on site C+1 on site 060 Customer Service – UCC *Dispatch Logs PER Electronic copy on S drive Marketing Services - Program Development PER Department Opinion 070 Commodity Invoices/payment records PER Department Opinion City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Department Head: Lalo Perez RIM Coordinator: Allen Krever Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATION 001 Correspondence, Messages, Staff Meetings, Studies C+3 Auditors Opinions 002 OTHER DEPARTMENTS While useful Duplicate of City Manager, City Auditor and City Clerk. 003 Gifts to the City, Cash & Tangible Property C+6 Scanned list on CD Rom in Admin Svcs Dept files TREASURY 004 003 INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT-Security Purchases, Sales & Investment Reports C+7 Auditors Opinion 005 004 DEBT MANAGEMENT- (a) Deceased Insurance C+3 Department Opinion (b) Final Bond TER+4 Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup (c) Covenant Compliance TER+7 Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup (d) Bank Records C+7 Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup 006 005 REVENUE COLLECTION (a) Deposit Documentation C+2 GC 34090 (b) Parking Permits C+4 GC 34090 (c) Collection Records – UUT, Parking Citations, Delinquent Accounts, Reconciliation, Transient Occupancy Tax C+5 Department Opinion (d) Utility Receipt Stubs C+2+2 months GC 34090 BUDGET 007 006 BUDGET (a) Final Budget, CIP Budgets, Fee Schedule TER+4 (b) Supporting Documents Change Requests, Amendment, Worksheets, Fee Schedules & Cost Plans C+2 Auditor Opinion (c) Long Range Plans Studies, Reports, Measurements, Forecasts & Projections C+3 Auditor Opinion REAL ESTATE 008 009 BINDING INSTRUMENTS (a) Land – Deeds, Easements While Useful Duplicate of City Clerk (b) Easement Vacations, Leases & Purchases Duplicate of City Clerk (c) Encroachments, Agreements & Conveyances Duplicate of City Clerk City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Department Head: Lalo Perez RIM Coordinator: Allen Krever Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE PURCHASING 009 010 (a) Council Approved Contracts, Solicitations & Documents All Open Council Approved Contracts, Solicitations & Documents +4 While Useful Duplicate of City Clerk (b) Service Contracts, Purchase Orders, Blanket Purchase Orders & Solicitations & Documents i. Purchase Orders/BlanketOrders ii. Service Order Contractsiii. Council Approved TER+3 TER+5 TER+7 While Useful All Open Service Contracts, Purchase Orders, Blanket Purchase Orders & Solicitations & Documents Duplicate of City Clerk (c) Bids Unawarded Solicitations & Documents C+2 GC 34090 Department Opinion vital while orders are open 010 011 INTERNAL VENDORS - (Stores & Print Shop) Reports, Orders, Returns, Disposal Forms Journal & Requisitions C+4 Department and Auditors Opinion ACCOUNTING 011 012 YEAR-END REPORTS (a) Budget-to-Actual C+2 GC 34090 (b) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (C.A.F.R.) PER Department and Auditors Opinion (c) General Ledger, Encumbrance Report C+2 GC 34090 (d) Management Benefits Transactions, Accruals C+2 GC 34090 (e) Audit Work Papers & Journal Entries C+2 GC 34090 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE (A/P) 012 016 A/P + UTILITY CHECK REGISTERS (WARRANTS) C+7 C+7 Department and Auditors Opinion 013 017 CANCELLED/VOIDED WARRANTS. CHECK VOID FORMS + BACKUP C+4 C+7 Department and Auditors Opinion (VOIDED CHECKS) 014 018 VOUCHER PACKETS. GENERAL WARRANT COPIES WITH BACKUP FOR A/P, UTILITY REFUNDS, 3RD PARTY AND WIRE TRANSFERS. C+5 C+7 Department and Auditors Opinion 015 019 CAPITAL PROJECTS- Project Files, Street Reports, & Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Billings TER+7 Department and Auditors Opinion City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Department Head: Lalo Perez RIM Coordinator: Allen Krever Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ANNUAL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION-STATE CONTROLLERS REPORT C+7 CALIFORNIA AVENUE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PARKING DISTRICT C+7 UNIVERSITY AVENUE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PARKING DISTRICT C+7 ANNUAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURES REPORT C+7 ZFIR03 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE COVER SHEETS. C+7 Cover sheet for batches of invoices from departments sent to A/P. Has list of invoices enclosed and department authorization to process the invoices. A/P JOURNAL LOG C+7 AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE FORMS C+7 TAX RECORDS – SALES TAX FILINGS, 1099 TAX FILINGS & REGISTERS C+7 GENERAL LEDGER- General Journal Entries 016 018 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE C+7 Federal & State Audit Requirements Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup Department Opinion (b) Invoices, Facility and Revenue Collections Cash Receipts, Cash Receipt Journals C+7 GC 34090, CCP 337 Federal & State Audit Requirements Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup Department Opinion 018 023 STATE REPORTS – City Reports, Transit Operators and Component Units C+7 Department and Auditors Opinion 019 024 UTILITIES- (a) Loan Reconciliation Work Papers, Bonds, Banking, Adjustments C+7 Department and Auditors Opinion (b) Receipts GC 34090 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Department Head: Lalo Perez RIM Coordinator: Allen Krever Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 020 025 FIXED ASSETS – Cost Reports, Reconciliation, Resume of Activity & Journal Entries TER 3 Department and Auditors Opinion 021 026 PAYROLL C+7 Public Employees Retirement System and Department Opinion - Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup Garnishment orders C+7 Direct Deposit/W4 changes C+7 Copies of PSO PAF C+7 CalPers Reporting C+7 Third Party Reporting C+7 Payroll Quarterly Tax Reports C+7 Payroll Masterfile C+7 Payroll Reconciliations C+7 Payroll Journals C+7 W2 Copies C+4 IRS Requirement Processing Reports by Paydate ENTERPRISE ACCOUNTING 022 Backup for invoices created (Airport, Avenidas, & Palo Alto Community Childcare) C+7 023 Loan reconciliations and backup C+7 024 Reconciliations of utility clearing accounts C+5 025 Receipts/stubs from the daily utility payments process (batch detail) C+2+2 months GC 34090 026 Audit backup & Journal entries backup C+2 GC 34090 027 Utility cash receipts C+7 028 Fixed assets backup of journal entries, capitalization, & reconciliations TER 3 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Department Head: Molly Stump RIM Coordinator: Stacy Lavelle Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 100 General Info/Subject Files C+9 GC 34090 Restricted access to any files may contain confidential documents. Keep files until subject matter is no longer active. Required to keep until reasonable threat of legal action has passed. 100-01 General Correspondence C+9 GC 34090 100-04 Chron File C+9 GC 34090 100-04 Newsletters C+2 GC 34090 SUBJECT FILES 202-01 Planning Reports As Needed Duplicate of Planning and Community Environment (PCE) 202-02 thru 202-11 Development Plan/Certificates of Compliance/Subdivision As Needed Duplicate of City Clerk, PCE & Public Works 202-12 thru 202-25 General Plan/Comprehensive Plan/State Mandated Planning As Needed Duplicate of PCE. Files to be reviewed for destruction on a file-by-file basis. 203-01 thru 203-10 Regional Planning As Needed Duplicate of PCE; review on a file by file basis 204-01 thru 204-04 Environmental Assessment C+4 Review on file-by-file basis for destruction 205-01 thru 205-13 Stanford University C+9 Review on file by file basis for destruction 206-01 thru 206-10 Building C+9 Review on file by file basis for destruction 207-01 thru 207-08 Transportation C+9 Duplicate of Transportation 301-01 thru 301-06 City Council C+11 Review on file by file basis for destruction 302-01 thru 302-11 Boards/Commissions/Committees C+11 303 American with Disabilities Act C+4 304 Records Management, Records Retention Schedule C+4 Duplicate of City Clerk 305 Management Studies/Surveys C+4 401-01 thru 401-14 Finance Administration C+4 Duplicate of Administrative Services, Public Works and Utilities 402-01 thru 402-07 Auditor Administration C+9 Duplicate of Auditor’s Files 403 General Audits C+9 500 Personnel Files C+9 GC 12946 & Title 29 Chpt XIV, Sections 1602.30; 32; 38. Some files may need to be retained until threat of legal action passed. Review on file by file basis for destruction City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Department Head: Molly Stump RIM Coordinator: Stacy Lavelle Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 600 Purchasing/Contracts C+10 Duplicate of Purchasing Division; Review on a file by file basis for destruction 700 Legislative/Legal C+14 Review on file by file basis for destruction 800 Public Works/Engineering/ Construction C+10 Review on file by file basis for destruction; 900 Litigation/claims C+10 Required to keep until reasonable threat of legal action has passed. On a file by file basis assign archive time 1000 Real Estate C+15 Duplication of Real Estate Division/CLK. Review on file by file basis for destruction 1100 Parks C+4 Duplicate of Community Services. Review on file by file basis for destruction 1200 Municipal Utilities C+4 Duplicate; review on file by file basis 1300 Police Administration C+9 GC 34090 Review on file by file basis for destruction 1400 Community Services C+4 GC 34090 Review on file by file basis for destruction 1500 Fire Administration C+9 GC 34090 Review on file by file basis for destruction 1600 Information Resources C+6 GC 34090 Review on file by file basis for destruction City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule CITY AUDITOR’S OFFICE CAO: Harriet Richardson RIM Coordinator: Deniz Tunc Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 001 Office Budget and A/P C+5 Department Policy 002 Meeting Notes, Memo’s, Correspondence, Management Reports, Office Administrative files and Working files C+5 Department Policy 003 Contracts (All Open Council Approved Contracts, Service Contracts, Purchase Orders, Blanket Purchase Orders, Solicitations, and Documents) C+4 Duplicating of Purchasing and City Clerk SUBJECT FILES 004 Publications (Audit Reports), Status Reports, Revenue Reports, Council Reports PER Department Policy 005 Work Papers (supporting documentation for published reports) C+7 Department Policy 006 Revenue Audit Work Papers (Sales, TOT, UUT, Prop. Tax etc.) C+7 Department Policy (Confidential) 007 Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline documentation CL+5 Department Policy City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule CITY CLERK’S OFFICE Department Head: Beth Minor RIM Coordinator: David Carnahan Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS a)Budgetb)Purchase Ordersc)Domestic PartnershipAffidavits & Statements C+2 C+2 PER GC 34090.7 Duplicate of Administrative Services Department Opinion General Correspondence C+2 GC 34090 PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS –Requests, responses and log.CL+2 GC 34090 CL = Resolution Date LEGISLATIVE HISTORY COUNCIL & STANDING COMMITTEES a)Agenda Packets – Docs. andinformation submitted to Council including questions and answers to Council agenda items. b) Minutesc)DVDsd)Proof of Agenda Posting C+2 PER PER C+2 GC 34090; GC 40801 54960.1(c)(1) GC 34090 Department Opinion Department Opinion 10/2014 STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS –DVD and Speech Hard Copy PER Department Opinion 8/2014 ORDINANCES PER GC 34090; PAMC 2.08.110 RESOLUTIONS PER GC 34090; PAMC 2.08.110 RECORDS & INFORMATION MANAGEMENT- a) Retention Schedules & Manuals b)Destruction Certificatesc)Transfer Listsd)Inventory Database C+4 PER C+2 C+2 CCP 343 GC 34090 GC 34090 Department Opinion 8/2014 Department Opinion Record of on/off-site records SUBJECT FILES SUBJECT FILES – All subject files included, unless specifically set forth elsewhere. C+2 GC 34090 Confidential Legal Opinions are not public information and are restricted from public access. PROCLAMATIONS C+2 GC 34090 LEGAL ADVERTISING C+4 CCP 337; 54960.1(c)(1); GC 34090 Includes public hearing notices, legal publications EXTERNAL VENDORS – a)Contracts awarded by City ClerkDepartment b)Contracts awarded by CityCouncil TER+4 TER+4 PAMC 2.08.110; CCP 337 PAMC 2.08.110; CCP 337 STANFORD (Including Sand Hill Road, Willow Rd. Extension) PER PAMC 2.08.110 City Attorney Opinion 9/1987 YACHT HARBOR PER PAMC 2.08.110 City Attorney Opinion 9/1987 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule CITY CLERK’S OFFICE Department Head: Beth Minor RIM Coordinator: David Carnahan Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSEDE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY – Agreements including Transmission Agency of Northern California PER PAMC 2.08.110 City Attorney Opinion 9/1987 CABLE TELEVISION – Franchise & Licenses PER City Attorney Opinion 9/1987 FLOOD BASIN PER City Attorney Opinion 9/1987 CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY C+2 PAMC 2.28.230 & 2.28.240 Duplicate of Attorney DIRECTOR’S HEARING APPEALS – Planning and Community Environment Director TER+2 TER = Project completion date Department Opinion 4/2015 POLICE AUDITOR REPORTS PER Department Opinion 4/2015 WATER RIGHTS – Agreements and Clean Up PER City Attorney Opinion 1995 PAC BELL/PG&E PER Department Opinion 1992 SISTER CITIES C+2 GC 34090 Department Opinion 8/2014 ELECTIONS/POLITICAL REFORM ACT CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS- a) Elected Members & Log of Filers (paper) b) Non-elected members (paper) c) Others – Committees, Supporting/Opposing Measures (paper) d) Copies received (e.g. Form 410) (paper) e) Electronically filed PER C+5 C+7 C+4 C+10 PAMC 2.08.110 GC 81009(b)(g) GC 81009(b) GC 81009(c) GC 81009(f) GC 84615(i) CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE C+4 Code is Adopted by Resolution, Resolution is Permanent STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST – Form 700 (Designated Filers) & Log of Filers C+7 GC 81009(e)(g) Originals retained C+7 “Wet”, paper filed forms can be digitized after 2 years STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST – Form 700 (GC 87200 Filers) & Log of Filers C+4 GC 81009(d)(g) Originals forwarded to State. Copies retained C+4 GC 87200 Filers include City Council Members, the City Attorney, City Manager, Planning Commissioners, and the Administrative Services Director (CFO) City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule CITY CLERK’S OFFICE Department Head: Beth Minor RIM Coordinator: David Carnahan Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSEDE FPPC AGENCY FORMS a) Gift to Agency Report – Form 801 b) Behested Payment Report – Form 803 b) 804 New Positions – Form 804 c) Consultants – Form 805 d) Public Official Appointments – From 806 C+7 C+7 C+4 C+4 C+2 FPPC 18944 GC 82015 FPPC 18734 FPPC 18734 FPPC 18705.5 GC 34090 Current on Agency Website Current on Agency Website NOMINATIONS/CANDIDATES a) Elected b) Non-elected PER TER+2 EC 17100 Department Opinion 6/2014 TER = Certif. of elections results date or failure date AB1234 ETHICS TRAINING – Proof of training attendance C+5 GC 53235.2(2)b OATHS OF OFFICE a) Elected Council Member TER+2 PER Department Opinion TER = Leaving Office date Department Opinion 8/2014 PETITIONS, INITIATIVES, REFERENDUM, RECALL & CHARTER AMENDMENTS TER+1 EC 17200 EC 17400 GC 6253.5 RESTRICTED ACCESS TER = Certif. of election results date or failure date Department Opinion 8/2014 BALLOTS TER+1 EC 17302, 17304, 17306; RESTRICTED ACCESS TER = date of election Department Opinion 8/2014 SAMPLE BALLOT PER GC 34090 BOARDS & COMMISSIONS a) Applications & Appointments I. Appointed II. Not Appointed b) Letters of Appointment c) Notices of Termination d) Recruitment Outreach e) General Correspondence TER+5 CL+2 TER+2 TER+2 C+2 C+2 GC 34090a; GC 40801 TER = Leaving Office date CL = Close of recruitment TER = Leaving Office date TER = Leaving Office date COUNCIL MEMBER – a) Individual Files b) Biographies c) Photos d) Emergency Standby Council Oaths of Office and Report TER+2 PER PER PER Department Opinion 10/2014 ROSTER PER Department Opinion Paper C+2 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule CITY CLERK’S OFFICE Department Head: Beth Minor RIM Coordinator: David Carnahan Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSEDE REAL PROPERTY BINDING INSTRUMENTS a) Land – Deeds, Easement b) Easement Vacations, Leases & Purchases c) Encroachments, Agreements & Conveyance d) Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) i. Deeds of Trust ii. Promissory Notes PER TER TER GC 34090a Duplicate of County Recorder TER = paid in full TER = paid in full LIENS, CONDEMNATION PER GC 34090a ANNEXATIONS/ACQUISTIONS PER GC 34090a BONDS While Useful Duplicate of County Recorder ASSESSMENTS TER+2 Department Opinion SUBDIVIDOR AGREEMENTS PER GC 65864 & 65869.5 DEED OF TRUST TER+6 CCP 336a ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING RECORDS 001 Alarm Hearings C+2 GC 34090 001 Animal Bite Hearings C+15 GC 34090 001 Utility User Tax Hearings C+10 GC 34090 001 Parking Ticket Hearings C+2 GC 34090 Includes Initial Review document 001t Administrative Citation C+5 GC 34090 Noise, Animal City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule CITY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENT Department Head: James Keene RIM Coordinator: Danille Rice Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 001 Personnel Information, Budget Information, Records Retention Schedule While useful Duplicate of other departments 002 Staff Reports CMRs (City Manager Reports) – including supporting documents PER GC34090.5 May be scanned after 5 years and paper copy offered to Palo Alto Historical Association 003 Economic Development Files for Projects throughout City of Palo Alto PER May be stored off-site Sister Cities C+2 GC 34090 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 004 Legislative Letters C+5 Consistent with State Legislation – Reviews and Changes SUBJECT FILES 005 Files established pertaining to various subjects, Project files, Chronological Files C + 2 GC 34090 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 006 Official copies of all City Policies and procedures PER Each department should have a current copy of the Policies & Procedures City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Rob de Geus RIM Coordinator: Erin Solheim Perez Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 001 Personnel – Current Employees Performance Reviews & Work Schedules C+2 Performance reviews are duplicates of People Strategy and Operations 002 Security Documents, Work Orders, Correspondence Inventories, Logs & Reports C+2 GC 34090 003 Policy – Policies, Procedures & Forms C CA Opinion 004 Other Departments – Stores Requisition Purchase Orders, Contracts & Records Retention Schedule C Duplicate of Administrative Services (ASD) and City Clerk 005 Volunteer Records C+2 GC 34090 006 Accounting – Sales Receipts, Deposits, Sales Logs, Ledgers, Fees/Fines, Contracts Under $85,000, Bills & Transit Books C+1 Department Opinion Duplicate of ASD ARTS & SCIENCES DIVISION 007 Art Loan Program C+2 GC 34090 008 Theatre Records – Costume & Prop Loans and Booth Level Settings C+2 GC 34090 009 Art Collection C Community Services Opinion Public Art Commission a) Action Agenda b) Proof of Publication c) Minutes of all meetings d) General Correspondence e) Proof of Agenda Posting C+2 C+2 PER C+2 C+2 GC 34090 011 Exhibits – Junior Museum & Baylands Interpretive Center PER Department Opinion 012 Animal Permits – Junior Museum & Zoo TER+2 Fish & Game Sections 3200, 3204 HUMAN SERVICES & CUBBERLEY DIVISION Human Relations Commission a) Action Agenda b) Proof of Publication c) Minutes of all meetings d) General Correspondence e) Proof of Agenda Posting C+2 C+2 PER C+2 C+2 GC 34090 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Rob de Geus RIM Coordinator: Erin Solheim Perez Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE RECREATION & GOLF DIVISION 020 Use Permits – Fields, Parks, Courts, Certificates of Insurance, Facilities Applications & Logs and Group Agreements C+2 GC 34090 021 Waivers, Cancellation/Transfer Forms C+2 GC 34090 022 Recreation Foundation – Minutes, Correspondence & Financial Information C+1 Department Opinion Parks and Recreation Commission a) Action Agenda b) Proof of Publication c) Minutes of all meetings d) General Correspondence e) Proof of Agenda Posting C+2 C+2 PER C+2 C+2 GC 34090 Fee Reduction Program C+1 Department Opinion 4/2015 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Department Head: Peter Pirnejad RIM Coordinator: Lisa Green Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSEDES ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 001 OTHER DEPARTMENTS Personnel Records, Purchase Orders, Payment Claim, Vouchers, Legislation, Final Budget, Correspondence with Other Departments and Records Requests While Useful GC 34090 Duplicate of other Departments 002 DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION Daily Deposit Copies, Department Procedures, Equipment, Inventories, Budget Preparation, Final Budget Correspondence, and Daily Counts & Wait Times. C+2 GC 34090 003 CONTRACTS a) Contracts under $85,000 plus all records associated b) Full Cost Recovery Contracts c) Contracts over $85,000 plus all records associated C+2 Until Completion C+2 PAMC 2.30.075 Duplicate of Administrative Services Duplicate of City Clerk SUBJECT FILES 004 PERMIT RECORDS Address changes, Permit applications, Building Use & Occupancy applications and certificates, Department correspondence. PER GC 34090 Electronically Stored in Geographic Information System (GIS) or Accela 005 INSPECTION RECORDS Survey letters, Special inspection – final inspection reports, SB407 certificate of compliance forms, Stop work correspondence. PER GC 34090 006 Plans PER H&S 19850 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule FIRE DEPARTMENT Department Head: Eric Nickel RIM Coordinator: James Henrikson Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR CL=COMPLETION OF INSPECTION/PROJECT COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT LOB=LIFE OF BUILDING TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 001 DEPTARTMENT MANAGEMENT C+2 GC 34090 General Order, Special Orders, Bulletins While Useful Policies and Procedures While Useful Memorandum of Agreements While Useful Duplicate of People Strategy and Operations (PSO) 001(a) Code Books, Ordinances PER GC 34090(e) California Fire Code, PAMC amendments, etc. 002 DEPARTMENT PLANS PER Department Opinion Strategic Plans/Master Planning Documents While Useful 003 GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE & REPORTS C+2 GC 34090 Correspondence, memos, emails, press releases While Useful Committee reports, minutes, public file review requests While Useful Special studies, community relations While Useful 004 BIDS-UNACCEPTED While Useful Duplicate of Purchasing 005 OTHER DEPARTMENTS While Useful Duplicate of other departments Staffing roster, timecards, leave reports While Useful Duplicate of Administrative Services (ASD) Contracts and accounting reports, purchase orders, deposits, receipts While Useful Duplicate of ASD and City Clerk Records retention schedule SUP Duplicate of City Clerk 006 EMPLOYEE FILES 006(a) Training records, certificates C+2 GC 34090 Duplicate of PSO 006(b) Employee records While Useful Duplicate of PSO 006(c) DMV Driver Tests and records C+2 GC 34090 Duplicate of PSO 007 EMPLOYEE INJURY/EXPOSURE While Useful Duplicate of PSO Employee accident and exposure reports PER Individual and summary statistics PER SUBJECT FILES FIRE PREVENTION 008 FIRE PREVENTION: Code Enforcement actions CL+5 CFC 104.6 Site Plans While Useful Requests for service, complaints. C+2 Sprinkler system & Fire Alarm periodic testing reports & inspections C+6 Electronic 5 Year tests: Keep C+6 Stored by 3rd Party Vendor 008(a) FIRE INVESTIGATION REPORTS & PHOTOS CL+6 CFC 104.3.2; PC 801 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule FIRE DEPARTMENT Department Head: Eric Nickel RIM Coordinator: James Henrikson Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR CL=COMPLETION OF INSPECTION/PROJECT COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT LOB=LIFE OF BUILDING TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 008(b) FIRE/HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION REPORTS & PHOTOS PER PC 799 C+6 onsite; PER offsite 008(c) ARSON /JUVENILE FIRESETTER SUSPECTS CL+6 CFC 104.3.2; PC 801 Include interviews, documentation and classroom materials for junior firesetters 009 ANNUAL FIRE (CFC) PERMITS C+2 GC 34090 010 STREET & NUMBER ASSIGNMENT While Useful Duplicate of Planning and Community Environment 011 FIRE INSPECTIONS (Bureau and Engine Company inspections) CL+6 CFC 103.3.4 Department Opinion CFC 103.3.4 requires CL +3. However, longer period desired due to 3 year inspection cycle for some facilities Records of Inspection; routine, special, new construction & tenant improvement related. PER Electronically stored in Accela Pre-Citation letters, Notice of Violation letters. While Useful 012 CERTIFICATIONS GC 34090 Flame Resistance PER Electronically stored in Accela Use and Occupancy Certificate PER Electronically stored in Accela 013 SPRINKLERS & FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS LoB GC 34090(a) Pertains to real property. May include blueprints, reports, inspection results, permits. C+2 onsite; PER offsite Design, Flow, Installation documents LoB Plan review comments LoB 014 BUILDING PROJECTS LoB GC 34090(a) Pertains to real property. May include blueprints, reports, inspection results, permits. C+2 onsite; PER offsite New Construction & Tenant Improvement Projects, including Underground tank installations and repairs PER Electronic Electronically stored in Accela Alternate means & methods PER 2007 CFC 104. 6.4 Electronically stored in Accela Plan review comments PER Electronically stored in Accela SUPPRESSION 015 INCIDENTS (fire, medical, hazmat, etc.) PER Electronically stored in RMS 015(a) Dispatch and daily logs C+2 GC 34090 Release to Union; do not destroy City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule FIRE DEPARTMENT Department Head: Eric Nickel RIM Coordinator: James Henrikson Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR CL=COMPLETION OF INSPECTION/PROJECT COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT LOB=LIFE OF BUILDING TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 015(b) Fire Incident Reports; all except arson related PER CFC 104.3.2; PC 801 Electronically stored in RMS 015(c) Fire Incident and other Field Reports; arson related PER CFC 104.3.2; PC 801 Electronically stored in RMS 015(d) Fire Incident and other Field Reports; arson with death involved PER PC 799 Electronically stored in RMS 015(e) Pre-Hospital Care Report (PCR) PER 45 CFR Part 164.530 Electronically stored in RMS 016 ENGINE/TRUCK EQUIPMENT 016(a) Daily & Monthly logs C+2 GC 34090 016(c) Maintenance Program. C+2 GC 34090 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 017 ANNUAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE PERMIT C+2 GC 34090 018 CALCULATIONS- Seismic and secondary containment C+2 GC 34090 019 SITE CLEANUP Spill Reports & facility closure related information; related inspections. Does not include reports for activities regulated by California Regional Water Resources Control Board or California Dept. of Toxic Substances. PER GC 34090(a) Pertains to real property. Previous retention was 30 years-OHSA Guideline cited no specific document reference. Electronically stored in California Environmental Reporting Service (CERS) 020 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS & UNDERGROUND TANK INSPECTIONS, routine, special, and enforcement related CL+6 CCR 27. 15188 Department Opinion C+5 Required. Keep additional time for consistency with other inspection records. Electronically stored in CERS 021 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS BUSINESS PLANS C+2 GC 34090 Electronically stored in CERS 022 UNDERGROUND TANKS 022(a) UST closures and/or removals and related documentation. Does not include reports for activities regulated by California Regional Water Resources Control Board or California Dept. of Toxic Substances. PER GC 34090(a) Pertains to real property. May include blueprints, reports, inspection results, permits Electronically stored in CERS 022(b) Periodic testing, monitoring and special reports C+2 GC 34090 Electronically stored in CERS 022(c) Reports, fact sheets and studies City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule FIRE DEPARTMENT Department Head: Eric Nickel RIM Coordinator: James Henrikson Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR CL=COMPLETION OF INSPECTION/PROJECT COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT LOB=LIFE OF BUILDING TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE PROGRAMS 023 SPECIAL PROGRAMS: Strike teams and mutual aid response C+12 GC 34090 Existing Department Opinion Is C+12. Note that GC 34090 requires only C+ 2 023 (a) Disaster Service Worker: All associated documents TER+30 CCR 19, 2573.2, GC 3105, 6250 Required for injury claims 024 PARAMEDICS: Training and testing C+4 CCR 22, Div 9, sec 100392 Retained by Human Resources? (TER+3, 29 CFR 1627.3) Patient Care Report-See Suppression Codes referenced that set retention times are listed below. Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1602 3 Years Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1627.3 3 Years Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1910.1020 30 Years Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 160-164 6 years California Government Code Section 3105, 6250 TER +30 Years California Government Code Section 34090 2 Years California Government Code Section 34090.5 Electronic retention California Penal Code Section 799 Permanent California Penal Code Section 800 6 Years California Fire Code Section 103.3.4 3 Years California Fire Code Section 104.3.2 3 Years California Code of Regulations, Title 19 Section 2573.2 TER + 30 Years California Code of Regulations, Title 22 Section 100170 5 Years California Code of Regulations, Title 22 Section 100392 4 Years California Code of Regulations, Title 27 Section 15188 5 Years Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 17.28.050 3 Years City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (I.T.) Department Head: Jonathan Reichental RIM Coordinator: Darren Numoto Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS a)Budget b)Purchase Orders C+2 C+2 GC 34090.7 Duplicate of Administrative Services (ASD) Duplicate of ASD SUBJECT FILES Phone Log Files C+2 GC 34090 Call records Service Desk Tickets C+2 GC 34090 IT Service Desk Tickets Financial System Data Backup C+7 SAP Database Backups Contracts a)Under $5,000b)$5,000 and overc) $85,000 and over TER+3 TER+3 TER+3 Duplicate of ASD Duplicate of City Clerk City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule LIBRARY DEPARTMENT Department Head: Monique Ziesenhenne RIM Coordinator: Evelyn Cheng Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS - Department Administration Work Schedules, Volunteer Records, Budget Preparation, Surveys, Statistics, Projects, Staff Reports, Org Chart, Memberships, Legal Opinion, Staff Development and Training, Community Relations, Benchmark Data C+2 GC34090 Standards Department Policies and Procedures, Strategic Plan, Safety/Security Manual, Disaster Plan Until Superseded GC34090 General Correspondence & Reports Correspondence, Memos, Emails, Press Releases, Committee Reports, Meeting Notes, Working Files C+2 GC34090 E-mail messages related to a current project or a policy-making decision should be retained along with related records Other Departments Staffing Roster, Timecards, Leave Requests, Contracts, Amendments, Purchase Orders, Change Orders, Invoices, Travel, Final Budget, Fines and Fees Schedule, Library Bond Measures, Building Plans, Deposits, Cash Receipts, Information Technology Management Records, Records Retention Schedule While useful GC 34090 Duplicate of other departments Employee Files (Regular & Hourly) PAFs, Appraisals, Work Injury, Job Descriptions, Requests for Reclassification, Recruitment – applications, resumes, While Useful Duplicate of People Strategy and Operations LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Library Advisory Commission a)Agendab)Proof of Publicationc)Minutes of Meetingsd)General Correspondencee)Proof of Agenda Posting C+2 C+2 PER C+2 C+2 GC34090 If posted by Library Staff City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE SUBJECT FILES Library Databases Customers, Circulation and Inventory Subscriptions and Licenses C+2 Registration and circulation records are exempt from Public Records Act under certain conditions; GC6254, GC6254.5, GC6255, GC6267 Grants & Donations Applications Awards Non-Monetary Donations Reimbursements C+5 Capital Improvements Project Files, Specifications, Contracts, Agreements, Equipment, Maintenance, Licenses, Inventory Life of Building Publicity/Publications Promotional Materials C+2 GC34090 State Library Public Library Survey Reimbursements C+2 Operational Reports Daily Log, Cash Handling, Bank Deposits, Debt Collection Management Incident Reports C+2 C+5 Public Programming Development and Administration of Programs for the Public (children, students, adults) C+2 Collection Development Records Records documenting the selection and acquisition of new materials for the Library’s collections. C+2 Collection Movement Records Records documenting the physical movement of materials between the facilities and storage areas C+2 Historic Reference History of Palo Alto City Library PER Department Opinion LIBRARY DEPARTMENT Department Head: Monique Ziesenhenne RIM Coordinator: Evelyn Cheng City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES Department Head: Kenneth Dueker RIM Coordinator: Nathan Rainey Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 001 DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT C+2 GC 34090 General Order, Special Orders, Bulletins Policies and Procedures Memorandum of Agreements While Useful Duplicate of People Strategy and Operations (PSO) 002 DEPARTMENT PLANS PER Department Opinion Strategic Plans/Master Planning Documents 003 GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE & REPORTS C+2 GC 34090 Correspondence, memos, emails, press releases Committee reports, minutes, public file review requests Special studies, community relations 003c Budgets, PO’s Time Keeping, Correspondence, Surveys, Statistical Reports C+5 GC 34090 004h Equipment Records TER+2 GC 34090 Retained until termination of equipment’s use; Manuals, instructions, procedures, assignments, maintenance EMPLOYEE FILES 006(a) Training records, certificates C+2 GC 34090 Retained by PSO (TER+3, 29 CFR 1627.3) 006(b) Employee records While Useful Retained by PSO (TER+3, 29 CFR 1627.3) SPECIAL PROGRAMS 023 (a) Disaster Service Worker: Emergency Services Volunteers All associated documents TER+30 CCR 19, 2573.2, GC 3105, 6250 Required for injury claims City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES Department Head: Kenneth Dueker RIM Coordinator: Nathan Rainey Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE Codes referenced that set retention times are listed below. Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1602 3 Years Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1627.3 3 Years Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1910.1020 30 Years Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 160-164 6 years California Government Code Section 3105, 6250 TER +30 Years California Government Code Section 34090 2 Years California Government Code Section 34090.5 Electronic retention California Penal Code Section 799 Permanent California Penal Code Section 800 6 Years California Fire Code Section 103.3.4 3 Years California Fire Code Section 104.3.2 3 Years California Code of Regulations, Title 19 Section 2573.2 TER + 30 Years California Code of Regulations, Title 22 Section 100170 5 Years California Code of Regulations, Title 22 Section 100392 4 Years California Code of Regulations, Title 27 Section 15188 5 Years Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 17.28.050 3 Years City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule PEOPLE STRATEGY AND OPERATIONS Department Head: Kathy Shen RIM Coordinator: Elizabeth Egli Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 001 GENERAL – Correspondence, Timecards, Contracts, Subject Files, Budgets, Projects, and Records Retention Schedule* C+2 GC 34090 Duplicate of City Clerk and Administrative Services *Note: Records Retention Schedules are only maintained while in effect (current/superseded) 002 STANDARDS – Policies, Rules, Bills, & Regulations C+2 GC 34090 EMPLOYMENT 004 RECRUITMENT – Applications, Resumes, Alternate Lists, Testing C+3 49 USC Sections 2000e-8; 2000e-12; 29 CFR Section 1602.12 and 1602.14 Restricted Access 005 PERSONNEL FILES (a) Regular Employees TER+15 29 CFR Section 1627.3 Labor Relations Section 1174 Access May digitally store after 2 years and shred Restricted Access PERSONNEL FILES (b) Water Quality Control Plant – Senior Chemist, Chemist, Laboratory Tech, Senior Industrial Waste Investigator, Industrial Waste Investigator, Senior Mechanic, Mechanic, Senior Operator, WQC Plant Operators I/II, Industrial Waste Inspectors, Electricians, Supervisor, WQCP Operations, Manager/Assistant Manager, WQCP, and Manager, Laboratory Services* TER+30 29 CFR 1910.1020; Cal OSHA 8 Cal Code Regs 3204 Access May digitally store after 2 years and shred Restricted Access *There may be other employees in safety-sensitive positions in other locations with same extended retention schedule 005 PERSONNEL FILES (c) Hourly Employees TER+5 29 CFR Section 1627.3 Labor Relations Section 1174 Access May digitally store after 2 years and shred Restricted Access 006 RETIREMENT – Public Employee Retirement System TER+4 29 USC Section 1001 – 1381 Restricted Access 007 CLASSIFICATION: Requests for reclassification, PDQ’s, Job Descriptions, Desk Audits C+2 Labor Code Section 1197.5(d) BENEFITS 008 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT FILES – DCCAP (dependent care), Deferred Compensation, Dental, EAP, Life, Medical, Vision/LTD Claim Applications, Leave Domestic Partner Reimbursement C+4 29 CFR Section 1627.3 Restricted Access EAP = Employee Assistance Program LTD = Long Term Disability City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule PEOPLE STRATEGY AND OPERATIONS Department Head: Kathy Shen RIM Coordinator: Elizabeth Egli Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE FPPC AGENCY FORMS a) 804 New Positions – Form 804 b) Consultants – Form 805 C+4 C+4 FPPC 18734 FPPC 18734 Duplicate of City Clerk Duplicate of City Clerk RISK MANAGEMENT/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 010 WORKERS COMPENSATION Claim Files, Timecards TER+5 (if claim is active) Labor Code Section 5410 Files are held at Administrator’s Office, City only keeps working file Restricted Access 011 ACCEL JPA Agenda Files C+3 Department Opinion 012 DMV – Pull Notices C+4 (only if employee has violation on record) Department Opinion Restricted Access 013 DRUG TESTING C+5 49 CFR Section 193-9 Restricted Access 014 SAFETY REPORTS: a) Investigation Reports b) Hearing Tests PER TERM+5 C+4 Department Opinion HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT 016 TRAINING – Program Lists, Instructor Lists, Class Rosters, & Evaluations C+4 Department Opinion EMPLOYEE RELATIONS 017 NEGOTIATIONS – Notes, Notebooks, Correspondence, Contracts, & Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) C+10 29 USC Sections 211 (c), 203 (m), 207 (g) Restricted Access 018 COMPENSATION – Mgmt. Salary History Sheets, Job Descriptions, Salary Surveys, Compensation Plans C+7 Department Opinion 019 GRIEVANCES – Arbitration, Grievances Reports, SEIU Window Period Requests, Sexual Harassment & Discrimination C+7 29 CFR Section 1602.21 (h) Restricted Access City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Department Head: Hillary Gitelman RIM Coordinator: Zariah Betten Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 001 OTHER DEPARTMENTS Personnel Records, Purchase Orders, Payment Claim Vouchers, Legislation, Final Budget, , Correspondence with Other Departments and Records Requests While Useful GC 34090 Duplicate of other Departments 002 DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION Department Procedures, Equipment, Inventories, Budget Preparation, and Final Budget Correspondence C+2 GC 34090 003 CONTRACTS a) Contracts under 85,000 plus all records associated b) Full Cost Recovery Contracts C+2 Until Completion PAMC 2.30 Department Opinion 004 ADMINISTRATIVE REFERENCE Fee Schedules, Orgs. List, Ordinance Binder, Planning Ethics, Data Collection. While Useful plus online archives Department Opinion LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 005 PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (PTC), ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD, HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD AND DIRECTOR’S HEARINGS a) Minutes - Online b) Agendas - Online c) Correspondence with Staff/Public – project based d) Proof of Publication e) Proof of Agenda Posting PER C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 GC 34090 Video and Audio Tapes are recycled after 90 days except for Director’s Hearing – 5 years of DVD/CD Hardcopy format, Boards – Summary. PTC – Verbatim SUBJECT FILES 006 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA While Useful Duplicate of Santa Clara County 007 PLANS a) Approved b) Superceded PER C+2 GC 34090 Digital Format Hardcopies 008 DISCRETIONARY PLANNING ENTITLEMENTS a) Applications b) Maps-Zoning, Tentative Subdivision, Preliminary Parcel, Comp Plan Land Use, et al c) Permit Extensions (currently a 2-year window with a 1-yr extension) d) Record of Land Use Actions e) CEQA-EIR-Negative Declarations PER C+2 PER GC 34090 Digital Format (stored offsite) Digital format Saved within Application files that are scanned into GIS/DOXview 010 HISTORIC INVENTORY PER GC 34090 Digital Format – Currently updated via GIST 011 ZONING ORDINANCES PER Duplicate of City Clerk City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Department Head: Hillary Gitelman RIM Coordinator: Zariah Betten Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 012 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AMENDMENTS – Available Website reference only (Amendments acknowledged by Resolutions PER GC 34090 Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup w/ Amendments Resolutions Duplicate of City Clerk 013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS (CDBG) a)Project Filesb)Deeds of Trust and Promissory Notes C+2 State of California Duplicate of City Clerk 014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS (CDBG) Program Reference Forms, Procedures and Brochures C+3 Human Relations Commission acts as Committee Department Opinion 015 HOUSING a) General Information and References-Outside Materials b) Housing Studies and Programsc)HOME Funding-General (If individualhome loans keep permanently) d) Below Market Rate (BMR) Units, InLieu Hosing Mitigation e)Below Market Rate Administration While Useful C+3 C+3 PER While Useful Department Opinion Federal regulation federally funded programs and labor standard compliance files Department Opinion 016 TRANSPORTATION-BICYCLES a) Bike BoulevardFinal Studies and Plans, Specs & Est.b) Bike Countsc)Bike Facilities, Lockers and Racksd) Bike Locker Rental Programe) Bike Operations (signing/striping,signal detection), paths, Routes andTrailsf)Pedestrian and Bicycle AdvisoryCommittee PER C+5 C+5 C+5 PER C+2 GC 34090 GC 34090 GC 34090 Unique project, historical significance, model for other jurisdictions in and out of U.S. Department Opinion 017 FUNDING-Fuel Efficient Traffic Signal Management Program (FETSIM) Applications, Prop 116 Applications, Surface Transportation Program (STDP)/Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)Applications and Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Applications PER 018 NEIGHBORHOOD STUDIES C+2 Department Opinion 019 Parking a)Assessment Districtsb) Carpool/Vanpool Programc)Facilities(garages/lots)d) Permit Policy/Managemente) Residential Permit Parkingf)Structuresg)Surveysh) Zonesi)Congestion Pricing PER C+2 PER C+2 C+5 PER C+2 C+2 C+5 GC 34090 GC 34090 Multiple Depts. Department Opinion Department Opinion Department Opinion Department Opinion Department Opinion City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Department Head: Hillary Gitelman RIM Coordinator: Zariah Betten Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 020 PERMITS/TRAFFIC CONTROL-Certificates of Insurance and Traffic Control Plans C+2 GC 34090 021 TRAFFIC REFERENCE a) Bike-correspondence, other jurisdiction bike plans, safety/education b) Demographic Data c) Traffic Flow Maps C+2 PER C+5 GC 34090 GC 34090 Department Opinion/Online Reference 022 REGIONAL AGENCIES C+2 GC 34090 023 SCHOOL SAFETY C+2 GC 34090 024 TRAFFIC STUDIES a) Traffic Calming b) Traffic Signals c) Other Traffic Studies C+5 GC 34090 Department Opinion 025 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Accidents (high accident location/accident data and reports) C+2 GC 34090 Department Opinion 028 Plans PER H&S 19850 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule POLICE DEPARTMENT Department Head: Chief Dennis Burns RIM Coordinator: Lisa Scheff Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 003 (a) Personnel Training SUP GC 34090 Bulletins 003 (a)(1) Lesson Plans C+15 GC 34090 Scope, content, time period of courses 003 (a)(2) Applicant Fingerprint Files TER+2 GC 34090 Includes paperwork authorizing fingerprinting and background checks for City employment applicants, all license and permit applicants and volunteer applicants 003 (a)(3) Personnel (copies) TER+7 GC 34090 Paperwork documenting officer & non-sworn internal and external training 003 (a)(b) Volunteer Files TER+2 GC 34090 Volunteer identification, contact information 003b Forms, Brochures TER+2 GC 34090 003c Budgets, PO’s, Time Keeping, Correspondence, Surveys, Statistical Reports C+5 GC 34090 003d Demographic Data Collection Cards C+2 GC 34090 Program ended 6-30-2010 003e Alarm Records C+2 GC 34090 Alarm packets, documents & correspondence 001q Administrative/Internal Affairs Investigations – Documents relating to complaints or investigations in response to citizen complaints regarding members of the Department. C+5 PC 832.5, EVC 1045, PC 801.5, PC 803(c), VC 2547 Provided documents are not evidence in any claim filed or pending litigation exists. 001k Press Releases C+2 GC 34090 001t Administrative Citations C+5 GC 34090 001r PAPD Policy Manual SUP GC 34090 Living Document ANIMAL SERVICES RECORDS 001p Nuisance Complaints, Animal Bite Reports, PAMC Violations and warnings issued. C+10 GC 34090 PAMC = Palo Alto Municipal Code 001s Veterinary Medical Records C+3 BP 4081 0010 Animal Licenses C+2 GC 34090 Dog – 3 years from expiration 001n Humane Officer – Activity records and logs C+2 GC 34090 001m Animal Control – All records relating to animal inventory and care C+2 GC 34090 COMMUNICATION RECORDS 001 (a) 911 Recordings (b) Other Phone Recordings, not on 911 lines 180 Days 180 Days GC 34090.6 PC 1054 Exception: Recordings used as evidence in a criminal prosecution or claim filed or litigation or potential claims and litigation shall be preserved for 100 days after conclusion of the court action City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule POLICE DEPARTMENT Department Head: Chief Dennis Burns RIM Coordinator: Lisa Scheff Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSEDE 003f Mobile Audio Video Records (MAV) DAR – Digital Audio Recordings C+2 GC 34090.6 PC 1054 Exception: Recordings used as evidence in a criminal prosecution or claim filed or litigation or potential claims and litigation shall be preserved for 100 days after conclusion of the court action 003g Interior Video Recordings Booking/AIB or Investigative Services Division (ISD) when initiated C+1 GC 34090.6 PC 1054 Exception: Recordings used as evidence in a criminal prosecution or claim filed or litigation or potential claims and litigation shall be preserved for 100 days after conclusion of the court action 003h Routine Perimeter Security Video 100 Days GC 34090.6 Automated self-recycled/re-use technology INVESTIGATIVE RECORDS 001e Police Reports – ODI (Optical Document Imaging) System and supporting hard copy Reports PER GC 34090 PC 800 PC 801 PC 799 Reports scanned into the ODI system from 6-15-92 to 12-31-06 Unless report is a Permanent Record or ordered Sealed by Court Order 001f Non-Criminal Police Reports – Lost/Found Property, Injured or sick persons; missing persons where person has returned; traffic collision reports not used as the basis for criminal charges etc. C+20 GC 34090 Any CLETS entry must be canceled prior to purge if applicable. Applies to Police Reports taken prior to 6-15-1992, prior to Optical Imagining. 001e Traffic Collision Fatality Reports PER GC 34090 Regardless of the medium 001e (1) Police Reports/PDF Scanned – All Felonies, high Misdemeanor cases. PER PC 800 PC 801 PC 799 (Felony Capital Crimes punishable by Death, Life Imprisonment PC 1054 Starting 2007 Hard Copies will be kept in conjunction with PDF Prosecution for an offense punishable by imprisonment in state prison for 8 years or more must commence within 6 years after offense commission. Commencement of prosecution defined in PC 804. *Exception: PC 803 – Tolling/Extension of time periods; Appeals process and “Three Strikes” also considerations in assigning retention. 001f (1) Noncriminal Police Reports/PDF Scanned – Lost/Found Property, Injured or sick persons; missing persons where person has returned; traffic collision reports not used as the basis for criminal charges etc. C+15 GC 34090 Starting 2007 Reports will be scanned to PDF. Any CLETS entry must be canceled prior to purge if applicable. City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule POLICE DEPARTMENT Department Head: Chief Dennis Burns RIM Coordinator: Lisa Scheff Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSEDE 001v Arrest/Conviction HS Section 11357 (b), (c), (d), (e) or H&S Section 11360 (b) violations – Occurring after January 1, 1996 Mandatory destruction from date of conviction or date of arrest with no conviction C+2 HS 11361.5 Applicable to convictions occurring after 1-1-1996 or arrests not followed by a conviction occurring after 1-1-1996; Exception: H&S 11357(e), the record shall be retained until a juvenile offender attains 18 years of age – then destroyed pursuant to 11361.5 001l FI Cards – Field interview Cards C+2 GC 34090 Includes photo if taken 001k (1) Daily Bulletins C+2 GC 34090 001e (2) Registrants – Sex, Arson, Narcotics PER DOJ Guidelines Fingerprint Card, Photo and info forwarded to DOJ 001e (3) Criminal Reports (Misdemeanor low Felony) and Domestic Violence Reports C+15 FC 6228(e) GC 34090 Remove property from CLETS, no suspect or open investigations pending MISC REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS 004a Court Board C+1 GC 34090 Court Notices 004b Court Liaison Tracking List C+2 GC 34090 Booking/Filing Lists and Logs, Informal Discovery requests and Correspondence 004c Subpoenas (Duplicate) C+2 GC 34090 Subpoena Duces Tecum (SDT) filed with case Report once completed 004d Statistical – Crime Analysis C+2 GC 34090 Internally generated information using activity logs, citizen calls, and current and past crime statistics. Reports created for a variety of purposes 004e Statistical – UCR (Uniform Crime Report) LEOKA, Homicide, Arson, DV, Hate, Arrest & Citation, Death in Custody, Crimes against Senior C+5 GC 34090 Originals to CA DOJ&FBI 004f Sealed – Adult/Factual Innocent Mandatory Destruction upon and pursuant to Court Order PC 851.8 Does not include letter of finding send to the defendant for grants/denials 001j Restraining Orders C or until SUP Destroy after law enforcement actions described in PC 273.5, 273.6, 646.9, 12028.5, 13700 and Family Code Sections 6380-6383 are fulfilled and effective date of Restraining Order has expired 001g Traffic Citations (copies) *Except Juvenile offender program graduates – those not forwarded to court of program successfully completed. C+2 GC 34090 Original is forwarded to court. Agency copy kept for processing. Parking Citations forwarded to Revenue Collections City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule POLICE DEPARTMENT Department Head: Chief Dennis Burns RIM Coordinator: Lisa Scheff Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSEDE 004h Equipment Records – PAS Records and Radar Calibration Logs, Weapons TER+2 GC 34090 Retained until termination of equipment use; Manuals, instructions, procedures, assignments, maintenance 004i License/Permits C+2 GC 34090 Parade, Noise Exemption, Special Events, Block Party, Taxi, Masseuse, Second Hand Dealer. No Longer Interested forms to be sent to DOJ for expired applicant information. 004j Warrants: (1) Felony (2) Misdemeanor (3) Infraction Felony – 10 Misdemeanor – 7 Infraction 7 GC 34090 PC 799 PC 800/801 Warrants attaining purge date are sent to Santa Clara Co DA’s office for review of extension of warrant/Active case or purge. All CLETS/AWS systems must be updated or cancelled. 004k NCIC Validations C+2 GC 34090 Copies sent monthly to DOJ 004l Records requests, correspondence, no record C+2 GC 34090 ** The destruction of felony, misdemeanor, and infraction Crime/Supplemental Reports is permitted providing: (1) Not related to an un-adjudicated arrest except for eligible HS 11357 or HS 11360 violations; (2) Not related to un-served warrants; (3) They do not involve identifiable items which have not been recovered; (4) Not related to PC 290, PC 457.1, or HS 11590 Registrants; (5) Not related relate to violations listed in PC Sections 799 and PC 800; (6) The cases are not presently involved in either a known civil or criminal litigation/Evidence City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Department Head: Mike Sartor RIM Coordinator: Lisa Navarret Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATION 001 001 PERSONNEL Confidential Documents While useful Duplicate of People Strategy and Operations (PSO) AIRPORT AGREEMENTS/CONTRACTS While useful Duplicate of Administrative Services (ASD) and City Clerk (CLK) BUDGET Budget Change Requests PER Duplicate of Office of Management & Budget CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS a) Project Files, Work Orders, Schedules, Bidders List, Correspondence, Change Order b) Specifications, Reports Plans, Contracts and Subdivisions PER Life of Structure GENERAL Correspondence Membership Information Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) C+2 GC 34090 GRANTS Applications Awards PER OPERATIONAL REPORTS Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly and Annually C+4 GC 34090 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) PERMITS PER STAFF Evaluations Personnel Action Forms SUP Duplicate of PSO TENANT FILES Applications Payments/Receipts Log Leases PER ENGINEERING SERVICES 005 013 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Boundaries & Rolls PER GC 34090 006 020 BENCHMARK DATA Horizontal, Vertical & Control PER GC 34090 Department Opinion City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Department Head: Mike Sartor RIM Coordinator: Lisa Navarret Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 007 011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS a) Project Files, Work Orders, Schedules, Bidders List, Correspondence, Change Order b) Specifications, Reports Plans, Contracts and Subdivisions c) Street Reports PER Life of Structure 008 014 CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE PER GC 34090 Duplicate of CLK 009 010 CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE SUP GC 34090 010 009 ENCROACHMENT PERMITS a) Permanent Encroachments b) Temporary Encroachments PER C+2 GC 34090 011 012 FLOOD ZONE Elevation Certificates & Letter of Map Amendments PER GC 34090 012 017 MAPS – Annexations, Park Dedication, Tract, & Block SUP GC 34090 Keep current map version only 013 PERSONNEL Evaluations Personnel Action Forms SUP Duplicate of PSO 014 018 PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS C+2 GC 34090 015 016 SOIL REPORTS PER Department Opinion 016 008 STREET WORK PERMITS PER GC 34090 017 015 SUBDIVISIONS a) Agreements b) Parcels and Subdivision Maps While Useful C GC 34090 Duplicate of CLK Keep current map version only 018 019 SURVEYS – Recording Data and Maps PER GC 34090 Department Opinion ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 019 022 ENVIRONMENTAL FILES PER Department Opinion Discharger permits and permit support documents Permit expiration or facility closure + 3 years 40CFR Federal Pretreatment Regulations 020 021 Other discharger data and records C+2 40CFR Federal Pretreatment Regulations City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Department Head: Mike Sartor RIM Coordinator: Lisa Navarret Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE Water Quality Control Plant 035 033 FLOW Discharge Data & Reports PER Department Opinion 036 030 MAINTENANCE Flow Strip charts, Instrument Calibrations, Operations, Maintenance & Laboratory Records, & Crane Maintenance and Certification, State Certification C+4 Department Opinion 037 032 NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) – Permits and Reports PER Department Opinion 038 034 PERMITS Pressurized Vessels, Air & Industrial Waste C+4 GC 34090 039 031 SAFETY Training and accident reports Routine tailgate topics PER C+4 GC 34090 040 SEPTIC & RECLAIMED WATER Permits, Fees, Billings C+4 GC 34090 Department Opinion PERSONNEL Staff with accident report, accident investigation, or important disciplinary matter resulting in change of policy TER+30 Department Opinion Duplicate of PSO Zero Waste Landfill Daily Log Operator assignments and Maintenance activities C+5 Landfill reports & records PER Landfill tollbooth receipts C+5 Household Hazardous Waste Manifest & Reports PER SMaRT Station & Kirby contract data C+10 Department Opinion Waste Contractor data – GreenWaste of Palo Alto C+10 Department Opinion PUBLIC SERVICES Equipment Management 021 029 Transactions – Parts, Fuel, and Gas Tags C+2 GC 34090 022 028 Vehicles – Registrations & DMV Correspondence Life of Vehicle VC 4000 DMV Requirement City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Department Head: Mike Sartor RIM Coordinator: Lisa Navarret Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE Facilities Management 023 BUILDING MAINTENANCE Custodial contract City Manager Reports Specifications Bidders List Change Orders Payment Files C+2 GC 34090 024 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS a) Project Files, Work Orders, schedules, Bidders List, Change Orders & Correspondence b) Specifications, Reports, Calculations, Plans, & Subdivision, Contracts PER PER CCP 337.15 Department Opinion 025 GENERAL - Correspondence Forms C+2 GC 34090 026 PERSONNEL Division Staff Schedules Personnel Action Forms Injury/Accident Reports TER Originals to PSO, copy kept in individual’s file until employee termination 027 REPORTS Quarterly Summary of maintenance labor and material costs for Parking Lots C+2 GC 34090 028 022 SUBJECT FILES Internal Working Files C+2 GC 34090 029 WORK REQUESTS Labor and Material Tracking Key Requests Service Calls C+2 GC 34090 Streets/Sidewalks/Storm Drain 030 026 DAILY REPORTS Operator assignments & equipment status C+5 032 025 Storm drain Work orders C+5 033 027 Tree line clearing, landscaping plans, pesticide spraying, inventory & irrigation plans C+2 034 WORK ORDERS Streets, sidewalk, signs, sweeping, trees C+5 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 001 Management books, CIP Budget, Working Files, Operating & Safety, Staff Meetings, Budget Change Requests, Journal Entries Shipping Receipts, Depreciation, Proof of Publication C+2 GC 34090 Master Plans PER Department Opinion WGW Ops Dailies WGW Ops Stand-by/Call Out Time Report Shipping records Internal vs. Outside Vendor C+2 C+2 C+2 Department Opinion SUBJECT FILES 002 Policies, Procedures, Processes, Marking Requirements, Engineering Standards, Electric Service Requirements, Cable Specs, Forms, Best Management Practices C+2 GC 34090 Department Opinion 003 Drivers License Records While Useful Duplicate of DMV 004 Other Departments – City Manager Reports, Personnel, Purchase Orders, Time Cards, Claim Vouchers, Invoices, Abandonments, Annexations, Council Agendas, Unaccepted bids, Finance Reports, Encroachment Permits & Records Retention Schedule While Useful Duplicate records – originating department maintains official record CONTRACTS 005 Construction & Services/Products over $85,000 While Useful Duplicate of City Clerk 005 Services/Products under $85,000 TER+5 City Attorney Opinion 005 Unaccepted Bids C+2 GC 34090 Electric and Gas Meter SUP+7 Duplicate of City Clerk Purchase and Sales Agreements -EEI & NAESB SUP+7 Department Opinion for retention in Dept. files Renewable Energy Certificate Master Agreement SUP+7 Duplicate of City Clerk Dept. Opinion for retention in Dept. files Master Agreement – Transaction and/or Confirmation Agreements – including supporting documentation (deal sheet, shopping sheet, authorization etc.) TER+7 Retained in Utilities Dept. City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE Bilateral Commodity and/or related service agreements TER+7 If within City Manager authority, then retained in Utilities Dept. If Council approved, retained in City Clerk’s Office PROJECT FILES 006 Internal working files PER Department opinion RATES 007 Rates – All Services PER Department opinion REPORTS 009 Statistical, sales, annual consumption analysis and various spreadsheets C+2 GC 34090 UTILITY ADVISORY COMMISSION 010 Agenda Proof of Publication Minutes of all meetings General Correspondence Proof of Agenda Posting C+2 C+2 PER C+2 C+2 Duplicate of City Clerk 010 Correspondence and Data Tapes C+2 GC 34090 TASK FORCE 011 City of Palo Alto and SCVWD Meetings C+2 GC 34090 SCVWD = Santa Clara Valley Water District 011 Any task force – internal and/or external C+2 GC 34090 REGULATIONS 013 National Gas Act Pipeline Safety Act Natural Gas Policy Act CVPIA While Useful Duplicate of Other Agency CVPIA = Central Valley Project Improvement Act 013 Correspondence w/ Agency C+2 GC 34090 STUDIES - SURVEYS 014 Gas System Study Distribution Electro Magnetic Field Survey and Energy Case Studies Commodity Resource C+2 GC 34090 CUSTOMER SERVICES Customer Correspondence Letters, faxes, emails C+2 Department Opinion Service: Residential Service Agreement Residential Service Application Commercial Service Agreement Commercial Service Application Utilities Account Change Make Change to Account Account Closure Request Close Utilities Account Revert to Owner Request Revert to Owner Application C+3 C+3 PER PER C+3 C+3 C+3 C+3 PER PER GC 34090 All listed will be scanned and retained electronically City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE Demolition Request Demolition Application Temporary Power Temporary Power Application Hydrant Water Application Hydrant Meter Application NN C+3 C+3 C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 Department Opinion Department Opinion Billing Consumption Adjustment Correct Misread and Billings Miscellaneous Adjustment Apply Credit or Debit Invoice Cancellation Cancel Rebill Invoice PV Statements Monthly PV Status C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 All are created and saved on electronic templates Bank drafts Bank Draft Confirmation Returned Items Bank Draft Applications C+2 C+2 C+2 Duplicate of Admin. Services Bank Items Credit & Collections Rate Assistance Annual Application Renewal Project Pledge One time Submission Bankruptcy LIHeap LIHeap send discs C+1 C+1 PER PER C+3 C+2 C+2 Department Opinion LIHeap = Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Meter Reading Customer Read Cards Reads Submitted by Customers Customer Read Emails Electronic Read Submitted by Customers On/and Off Orders Electronic in SAP C+1 C+1 C+2 C+2 C+1 C+1 Department Opinion CONSTRUCTION 016 Acquisitions, Easement, Design, Drawings, Specifications, Photos, Permits, Soil Reports, Correspondence, Quotes, Payments & Schedules PER GC 34090 Historical CPAU Work Orders As-Built Maps Valve Cards PER Department of Transportation CPAU Work Orders of Abandoned Pipe As-Built Maps of Abandoned Pipe Valve Cards of Abandoned Valves PER Department Opinion ICOMMM Lateral Work Orders ACP Forms C+5 C+5 Department Opinion City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE REGULATORY AGENCIES 017 Reports to Federal Register U.S. Dept of Energy PG&E State Regulatory Agencies (e.g., Public Utilities Commission) California Energy Commission California Air Resource Board C+2 For reports required on a period basis, retain for two report cycles GC 34090 REGULATORY RECORDS Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Reports C+5 RWQCB Water Discharge Form C+5 Annual Report for Public Works Storm Water Department Paradigm Data Sheets Cathodic Work Orders Cathodic Protection with Gas Distribution Map Exposed Pipe Reports Steel Pipeline Tapping Coupon Records Annual Report to DOT Emergency Response Plan Operations and Maintenance Manual PER PER PER PER TER+5 C+5 C+5 C+5 Department of Transportation EMPLOYEE TEST RECORDS Gas Operator Qualification C+5 Department of Transportation Employee Water Distribution Certification Employee Water Treatment Certification Employee Backflow Certification Employee Cross Connection Certification C+3 C+3 C+3 C+3 State Welding Record (form 225A) PER Department of Transportation TESTS / INSPECTIONS / SURVEYS Backflow Annual Certifications C+3 State FSR Gas Leak Investigations (818 Form) FSR Stop Card Database Gas Shop Stop Card Water Shop Stop Card C+7 PER PER PER Department of Transportation Gas Receiving Stations Odorant and Oil Drip Water Meter Test Results Gas Meter Test Results Meter Leak Tags Abnormal Operating Conditions (AOC) PER PER PER PER PER PER Department of Transportation Water Quality -Water Sources: Testing C+10 State City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE Fluoride Summary Ground Water Elevation Bacteriologic Analysis Chemical Analysis Reservoirs, Wells & Rainfall Gauge Water Maintenance Records Water Discharge Form C+5 C+5 Title 22 CCR 66261.24(a)(7) CPAU Gas Pipeline Patrol Program CPAU WGW Operations Pre- Tested Pipe Tag (Form 503) CPAU WGW Operations Grade 1 Leak Re-Checks Gas Leakage Survey C+5 PER C+5 C+5 Department of Transportation PERMANENT RECORDS 019 Equipment Records Life of Equip+2 GC 34090 019 General Information Regulating Specifications & Testing Gas Leakage Survey Meter Leak Tag AOC CPAU/WGW Operations Pre-Tested Pipe Tag Gas/Water Shop Stop Card Odorant & Oil Dip Valve Cards Valve Cards of Abandoned Valve Welding Record Gas Receiving Station PER Form 503 Form 225A City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ELECTRIC UTILITY 052 048 Electric – Circuit Map, Electric Distribution, Street Light Block, EV Charger Maps Maps: Electric Distribution, Pole Test Block, Distribution Block, Street Light Block, Hardwire and Coax C+2 Current while active,+ 2 years off site GC 34090 Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup 053 049 Underground District: Transmission Line Logs & Correspondence C+2 GC 34090 054 050 Work Orders: Pacific Bell, Cable Co-op, PG&E, and Intents PER Department Opinion 055 051 Acquisitions, Design, Drawings, Specs, Permits, Correspondence quotes, Payments & Schedules CIP/Construction PER Department Opinion - Historical Refer to CIP Construction Projects 056 Electric Vehicles: Power Delivery Records Life of Vehicle +2 off site GC 34090 057 Street Lights: Lighting, Program Materials C+2 GC 34090 058 Joint Pole Applications TER+5 Department Opinion Customer Service Projects C+2 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE Applications Plans, Invoices ELECTRIC OPERATIONS 059 Compliance/Inspection/Locating *Field Switch/Man on Line Logs*Overhead/UndergroundCompliance Records *Underground Service AlertNotices a. Completed Ticketsb. Original Email Notices PER PER C+6 C+1 C+1 on site C+1 on site On site 060 Customer Service – UCC *Dispatch Logs PER Electronic copy on S drive Safety/Security *Daily Worksite Safety TailboardCheck List C+6 Current year On site 061 Street Lights/Traffic Signal/Fiber *S.R.O – Street Lights*Notifications – SL & TS*Maintenance W.O. – TS C+7 SAP 062 055 Substations a) Equipment (transformers,switches, breakers, capacitors & relays Specifications Inspection Inventory Replacement Disposal Life of Equip +2 Department Opinion Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup 063 055 Substations b) Operations: troubleshooting,line logs, load reports, power factor, fences & cost data C+6 18 CFR Sections 125.3(23) & 125.3(26) Inspection records and equipment test records stored electronically on F:drive C+3 on site + 3 years off site 064 055 Substations c)Relay and fuse curves, faultcurrent, calculations, supervisory control, automation and distribution automation (SCADA) and Control Information C+2 GC 34090 Duplicate stored offsite as vital backup copy MARKETING SERVICES Program Development PER Department Opinion 061 064 Customer Applications Smart Energy Program CAP PV Partners Program Solar Water Heating Program Solar Water Heating Loan Program 1970 – 1990 Palo Alto Green Program Palo Alto Green Gas/New PA Green C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 GC 34090 Department Opinion Department Opinion Department Opinion Department Opinion City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE Fiber Program Customer Applications Rebate Application & agreement Rebate Applications Old Program – files at The State Old 10 yr program – Applications Customer Applications Signed agreements C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 Duplicate of City Clerk 062 065 Vendor contract invoices 3rd Party Programs Monthly/qrty/annual electronic records While contract is in effect Department Opinion Department Opinion 063 066 Key Account Engineering Audit Reports BI Reports Pcard receipts C+2 C+2 C+2 GC 34090 Department Opinion 067 Public Outreach Program marketing materials Customer Workshops & Facility Manager Meetings C+6 C+2 Department Opinion SUPPLY RESOURCE GROUP 070 Settlement Date Commodity Invoices/payment records TER+2 PER Department Opinion Keep for two years past contractual limitation of invoice dispute. 071 Regulatory Reference reference materials (e.g. – laws, rulings, orders, court cases, settlements) While Useful Duplicate of Other Agency Risk Management FO and BO Transaction oversight Monthly BO reports FO and BO Quarterly reports FO Weekly Reports C+6 Department Opinion 078 Rates Documents Rates/Pricing Cost of Service Studies SUP+7 080 Resource Plans Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan, Gas Long-term Plan, Water Integrated Resource Plan SUP+2 Department Opinion Adopted plans duplicate of City Manager and City Clerk Electric Portfolio Models Commodity Costs Protections & Uncertainty Assessment load and resource balance supply costs transmission cost interconnection agency costs C+7 for annual budget models Maintained in electronic models – overwritten as necessary City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE hydrology plant operation and maintenance regulatory costs Electric Procurement Plan Procurement Plans – Needs Analysis Load/Resource Balance Targets Authorizations C+5 Department Opinion Voluntary Certification and Verification Reports to certifying and verifying agencies such as The Climate Registry for GHG inventory and for Carbon Neutral Plan (Electric Power Sector) Reports from certifying and verification agencies such as audit reports C+7 R&D Program PET Projects related documentation C+6 Policies Analysis of plans, programs and policies that become adopted by Council C+2 Department Opinion READING THE RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE: A "HOW TO" GUIDE Background The Records Retention Schedule, as approved by the City Council through Resolution, is a legal document. It identifies the types of records and information used and managed by a department, how long that information needs to be retained at the office and/or offsite, and when it may be destroyed. Each department is required to have a current Schedule. It is the responsibility of the department to notify the City Clerk’s Office of any business, organizational, functional, or legal changes which would impact their specific Schedule. The City Clerk’s Office coordinates with the Office of the City Attorney the approval of Retention Schedules by the City Attorney (who reviews them for compliance with all government codes and regulations) and prior to approval by the City Council. The Schedules should be reviewed for accuracy every two to three years by the City Clerk’s and City Attorney’s Offices in conjunction with each respective department. Using Retention Schedules SERIES – Series numbers are assigned consecutively to each series in a department. They aid the user in researching information and may be used as a tool to cross reference data in an active file database. Series numbers crossed out refer to a former number used prior to 2/5/07. DESCRIPTION – This is the general description of a group of records with similar business functions and retention requirements. The description must coincide with file titles maintained by the department. TOTAL RETENTION – Refers to the length of time a document record must be kept before it is eligible for destruction. CUR – Current refers to any record or file made within the current calendar year. The Retention period begins the first day of the following calendar year. (For example, Cur+2 means that any record created in 2007 2015 is kept for the two following years, 2008 2016 and 20092017. The record would be eligible for destruction after December 31, 20102017). SUP – Supersede indicates that old items are replaced by a more current version. STATUTORY REFERENCE - This field includes regulations and codes that govern the retention of a specific record type. REMARKS – This field includes regulations, codes, and general comments about the information in this row. When "Department Opinion" is noted in this column, it means that the Department has determined the retention period to extend beyond the legal or audit requirement. "Attorney Opinion" indicates that the retention requirement was established pursuant to the opinion of the City Attorney based on research, past litigation history, and/or the potential for future litigation on this topic. LEGEND – A legend is provided at the bottom of the Retention Schedule assisting the reader with retention terminology. RECORDS PERMANENTLY RETAINED The following identifies records permanently retained by each department. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks (b) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (C.A.F.R.) PER Department and Auditors Opinion OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEYNo records retained permanently CITY AUDITOR’S OFFICE Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks 004 Publications (Audit Reports), Status Reports, Revenue Reports, Council Reports PER Department Policy CITY CLERK’S OFFICE Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks c)Domestic Partnership Affidavits & Statements PER Department Opinion COUNCIL & STANDING COMMITTEES b)Minutesc)DVDs PER PER GC 34090 Department Opinion STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS –DVD and Speech Hard Copy PER Department Opinion 8/2014 ORDINANCES PER GC 34090; PAMC 2.08.110 RESOLUTIONS PER GC 34090; PAMC 2.08.110 RECORDS & INFORMATION MANAGEMENT- b) Destruction Certificates PER Department Opinion 8/2014 STANFORD (Including Sand Hill Road, Willow Rd. Extension) PER PAMC 2.08.110 City Attorney Opinion 9/1987 YACHT HARBOR PER PAMC 2.08.110 City Attorney Opinion 9/1987 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY – Agreements including Transmission Agency of Northern California PER PAMC 2.08.110 City Attorney Opinion 9/1987 CABLE TELEVISION – Franchise & Licenses PER City Attorney Opinion 9/1987 FLOOD BASIN PER City Attorney Opinion 9/1987 POLICE AUDITOR REPORTS PER Department Opinion 4/2015 WATER RIGHTS – Agreements and Clean Up PER City Attorney Opinion 1995 PAC BELL/PG&E PER Department Opinion 1992 CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS- a) Elected Members & Log of Filers (paper) PER PAMC 2.08.110 GC 81009(b)(g) NOMINATIONS/CANDIDATES a) Elected PER EC 17100 Department Opinion 6/2014 OATHS OF OFFICE a) Elected Council Member TER+2 PER Department Opinion TER = Leaving Office date Department Opinion 8/2014 SAMPLE BALLOT PER GC 34090 COUNCIL MEMBER – b) Biographies c) Photos d) Emergency Standby Council Oaths of Office and Report PER PER PER ROSTER PER Department Opinion Paper C+2 BINDING INSTRUMENTS a) Land – Deeds, Easement b) Easement Vacations, Leases & Purchases c) Encroachments, Agreements & Conveyance PER GC 34090a Duplicate of County Recorder LIENS, CONDEMNATION PER GC 34090a ANNEXATIONS/ACQUISTIONS PER GC 34090a SUBDIVIDOR AGREEMENTS PER GC 65864 & 65869.5 CITY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENT Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks 002 Staff Reports CMRs (City Manager Reports) – including supporting documents PER GC34090.5 May be scanned after 5 years and paper copy offered to Palo Alto Historical Association 003 Economic Development Files for Projects throughout City of Palo Alto PER May be stored off-site 006 Official copies of all City Policies and procedures PER Each department should have a current copy of the Policies & Procedures COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks Public Art Commission c) Minutes of all meetings PER GC 34090 011 Exhibits – Junior Museum & Baylands Interpretive Center PER Department Opinion Human Relations Commission c) Minutes of all meetings PER GC 34090 Parks and Recreation Commission c) Minutes of all meetings PER GC 34090 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks 004 PERMIT RECORDS Address changes, Permit applications, Building Use & Occupancy applications and certificates, Department correspondence. PER GC 34090 Electronically Stored in Geographic Information System (GIS) or Accela 005 INSPECTION RECORDS Survey letters, Special inspection – final inspection reports, SB407 certificate of compliance forms, Stop work correspondence. PER GC 34090 006 Plans PER H&S 19850 FIRE DEPARTMENT Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks 001(a) Code Books, Ordinances PER GC 34090(e) California Fire Code, PAMC amendments, etc. Employee accident and exposure reports PER Individual and summary statistics PER 008(b) FIRE/HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION REPORTS & PHOTOS PER PC 799 C+6 onsite; PER offsite Records of Inspection; routine, special, new construction & tenant improvement related. PER Electronically stored in Accela 012 CERTIFICATIONS GC 34090 Flame Resistance PER Electronically stored in Accela Use and Occupancy Certificate PER Electronically stored in Accela New Construction & Tenant Improvement Projects, including Underground tank installations and repairs PER Electronic Electronically stored in Accela Alternate means & methods PER 2007 CFC 104. 6.4 Electronically stored in Accela Plan review comments PER Electronically stored in Accela SUPPRESSION 015 INCIDENTS (fire, medical, hazmat, etc.) PER Electronically stored in RMS 015(b) Fire Incident Reports; all except arson related PER CFC 104.3.2; PC 801 Electronically stored in RMS 015(c) Fire Incident and other Field Reports; arson related PER CFC 104.3.2; PC 801 Electronically stored in RMS 015(d) Fire Incident and other Field Reports; arson with death involved PER PC 799 Electronically stored in RMS 015(e) Pre-Hospital Care Report (PCR) PER 45 CFR Part 164.530 Electronically stored in RMS 019 SITE CLEANUP Spill Reports & facility closure related information; related inspections. Does not include reports for activities regulated by California Regional Water Resources Control Board or California Dept. of Toxic Substances. PER GC 34090(a) Pertains to real property. Previous retention was 30 years-OHSA Guideline cited no specific document reference. Electronically stored in California Environmental Reporting Service (CERS) 022(a) UST closures and/or removals and related documentation. Does not include reports for activities regulated by California Regional Water Resources Control Board or California Dept. of Toxic Substances. PER GC 34090(a) Pertains to real property. May include blueprints, reports, inspection results, permits Electronically stored in CERS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (I.T.) No records retained permanently LIBRARY DEPARTMENT Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks Library Advisory Commission c) Minutes of Meetings PER GC34090 Historic Reference History of Palo Alto City Library PER Department Opinion OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks 002 DEPARTMENT PLANS PER Department Opinion PEOPLE STRATEGY AND OPERATIONS Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks 014 SAFETY REPORTS: PER Department Opinion PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks 005 PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (PTC), ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD, HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD AND DIRECTOR’S HEARINGS a) Minutes - Online PER GC 34090 Video and Audio Tapes are recycled after 90 days except for Director’s Hearing – 5 years of DVD/CD Hardcopy format, Boards – Summary. PTC – Verbatim 007 PLANS a) Approved PER Digital Format 008 DISCRETIONARY PLANNING ENTITLEMENTS a) Applications b) Maps-Zoning, Tentative Subdivision, Preliminary Parcel, Comp Plan Land Use, et al c) Permit Extensions (currently a 2-year window with a 1-yr extension) d) Record of Land Use Actions e) CEQA-EIR-Negative Declarations PER C+2 PER GC 34090 Digital Format (stored offsite) Digital format Saved within Application files that are scanned into GIS/DOXview 010 HISTORIC INVENTORY PER GC 34090 Digital Format – Currently updated via GIST 011 ZONING ORDINANCES PER Duplicate of City Clerk 012 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AMENDMENTS – Available Website reference only (Amendments acknowledged by Resolutions PER GC 34090 Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup w/ Amendments Resolutions Duplicate of City Clerk 015 HOUSING d) Below Market Rate (BMR) Units, In Lieu Hosing Mitigation PER Department Opinion 016 TRANSPORTATION-BICYCLES a) Bike Boulevard d) Bike Locker Rental Program PER PER GC 34090 Unique project, historical significance, model for other jurisdictions in and out of U.S. 017 FUNDING-Fuel Efficient Traffic Signal Management Program (FETSIM) Applications, Prop 116 Applications, Surface Transportation Program (STDP)/Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)Applications and Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Applications PER 019 Parking a) Assessment Districts c) Facilities(garages/lots) f) Structures PER PER PER GC 34090 Multiple Depts. Department Opinion Department Opinion 021 TRAFFIC REFERENCE b) Demographic Data c) Traffic Flow Maps PER 028 Plans PER H&S 19850 POLICE DEPARTMENT Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks 001e Police Reports – ODI (Optical Document Imaging) System and supporting hard copy Reports PER GC 34090 PC 800 PC 801 PC 799 Reports scanned into the ODI system from 6-15-92 to 12-31-06 Unless report is a Permanent Record or ordered Sealed by Court Order 001e Traffic Collision Fatality Reports PER GC 34090 Regardless of the medium 001e (1) Police Reports/PDF Scanned – All Felonies, high Misdemeanor cases. PER PC 800 PC 801 PC 799 (Felony Capital Crimes punishable by Death, Life Imprisonment PC 1054 Starting 2007 Hard Copies will be kept in conjunction with PDF Prosecution for an offense punishable by imprisonment in state prison for 8 years or more must commence within 6 years after offense commission. Commencement of prosecution defined in PC 804. *Exception: PC 803 – Tolling/Extension of time periods; Appeals process and “Three Strikes” also considerations in assigning retention. 001e (2) Registrants – Sex, Arson, Narcotics PER DOJ Guidelines Fingerprint Card, Photo and info forwarded to DOJ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks BUDGET Budget Change Requests PER Duplicate of Office of Management & Budget CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS a) Project Files, Work Orders, Schedules, Bidders List, Correspondence, Change Order b) Specifications, Reports Plans, Contracts and Subdivisions PER Life of Structure GRANTS Applications Awards PER PERMITS PER TENANT FILES Applications Payments/Receipts Log Leases PER 005 013 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Boundaries & Rolls PER GC 34090 006 020 BENCHMARK DATA Horizontal, Vertical & Control PER GC 34090 Department Opinion 007 011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS a) Project Files, Work Orders, Schedules, Bidders List, Correspondence, Change Order b) Specifications, Reports Plans, Contracts and Subdivisions c) Street Reports PER Life of Structure 008 014 CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE PER GC 34090 Duplicate of CLK 010 009 ENCROACHMENT PERMITS a) Permanent Encroachments PER GC 34090 011 012 FLOOD ZONE Elevation Certificates & Letter of Map Amendments PER GC 34090 015 016 SOIL REPORTS PER Department Opinion 016 008 STREET WORK PERMITS PER GC 34090 018 019 SURVEYS – Recording Data and Maps PER GC 34090 Department Opinion 019 022 ENVIRONMENTAL FILES PER Department Opinion 035 033 FLOW Discharge Data & Reports PER Department Opinion 037 032 NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) – Permits and Reports PER Department Opinion 039 031 SAFETY Training and accident reports PER GC 34090 Landfill reports & records PER Household Hazardous Waste Manifest & Reports PER 024 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS a) Project Files, Work Orders, schedules, Bidders List, Change Orders & Correspondence b) Specifications, Reports, Calculations, Plans, & Subdivision, Contracts PER PER CCP 337.15 Department Opinion UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks Master Plans PER Department Opinion 006 Internal working files PER Department opinion 007 Rates – All Services PER Department opinion 010 Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes of all meetings PER Service: Utilities Account Change Make Change to Account Demolition Request Demolition Application PER PER PER PER GC 34090 All listed will be scanned and retained electronically Project Pledge One time Submission PER PER 016 Acquisitions, Easement, Design, Drawings, Specifications, Photos, Permits, Soil Reports, Correspondence, Quotes, Payments & Schedules PER GC 34090 Historical CPAU Work Orders As-Built Maps Valve Cards PER Department of Transportation CPAU Work Orders of Abandoned Pipe PER Department Opinion As-Built Maps of Abandoned Pipe Valve Cards of Abandoned Valves Paradigm Data Sheets Cathodic Work Orders Cathodic Protection with Gas Distribution Map Exposed Pipe Reports PER PER PER PER Department of Transportation Welding Record (form 225A) PER Department of Transportation FSR Gas Leak Investigations (818 Form) FSR Stop Card Database Gas Shop Stop Card PER PER PER Department of Transportation Gas Receiving Stations Odorant and Oil Drip Water Meter Test Results Gas Meter Test Results Meter Leak Tags Abnormal Operating Conditions (AOC) PER PER PER PER PER PER Department of Transportation CPAU WGW Operations Pre- Tested Pipe Tag (Form 503) PER Department of Transportation 019 General Information Regulating Specifications & Testing Gas Leakage Survey Meter Leak Tag AOC CPAU/WGW Operations Pre-Tested Pipe Tag Gas/Water Shop Stop Card Odorant & Oil Dip Valve Cards Valve Cards of Abandoned Valve Welding Record Gas Receiving Station PER Form 503 Form 225A 054 050 Work Orders: Pacific Bell, Cable Co-op, PG&E, and Intents PER Department Opinion 055 051 Acquisitions, Design, Drawings, Specs, Permits, Correspondence quotes, Payments & Schedules CIP/Construction PER Department Opinion - Historical Refer to CIP Construction Projects 059 Compliance/Inspection/Locating *Field Switch/Man on Line Logs *Overhead/Underground Compliance Records *Underground Service Alert Notices PER PER C+1 on site C+1 on site 060 Customer Service – UCC *Dispatch Logs PER Electronic copy on S drive Marketing Services - Program Development PER Department Opinion 070 Commodity Invoices/payment records PER Department Opinion City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Department Head: Carl YeatsLalo Perez RIM Coordinator: Janice AndersonAllen Krever Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATION 001 Correspondence, Messages, Timecards, Staff Meetings, Studies C+3 Auditors Opinions 002 OTHER DEPARTMENTS – Finance Committee-Agendas, Minutes, Records, Retention Schedule, Reports, Audit Work papers. While useful Duplicate of City Manager, City Auditor and City Clerk . 003 Gifts to the City, Cash & Tangible Property C+6 Scanned list on CD Rom in Admin Svcs Dept files TREASURY 004 003 INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT-Security Purchases, Sales & Investment Reports C+7 Auditors Opinion 005 004 DEBT MANAGEMENT- (a) Deceased Insurance C+3 Department Opinion (b) Final Bond TER+4 Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup (c) Covenant Compliance TER+7 Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup (d) Bank Records C+7 Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup 006 005 REVENUE COLLECTION (a) Deposit Documentation C+2 GC 34090 (b) Parking Permits C+4 GC 34090 (c) Collection Records – UUT, Parking Citations, Delinquent Accounts, Reconciliation, Transient Occupancy Tax C+5 Department Opinion (d) Utility Receipt Stubs C+2+2 months GC 34090 BUDGET 007 006 BUDGET (b) Final Bond (a) Final Budget, CIP Budgets, Fee Schedule C+5 PER TER+4 Auditors Opinion Duplicate Stored Offsite (b) Supporting Documents Change Requests, Amendment, Worksheets, Fee Schedules & Cost Plans C+2 Auditors Opinion (c) Long Range Plans Studies, Reports, Measurements, Forecasts & Projections C+3 Auditors Opinion REAL ESTATE 008 009 BINDING INSTRUMENTS (a) Land – Deeds, Easements While Useful Duplicate of City Clerk (b) Easement Vacations, Leases & Purchases Duplicate of City Clerk (c) Encroachments, Agreements & Conveyances Duplicate of City Clerk City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Department Head: Carl YeatsLalo Perez RIM Coordinator: Janice AndersonAllen Krever Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE PURCHASING 009 010 (a) Council Approved Contracts, Solicitations & Documents All Open Council Approved Contracts, Solicitations & Documents +4 While Useful Duplicate of City Clerk (b) Service Contracts, Purchase Orders, Blanket Purchase Orders & Solicitations & Documents i.Purchase Orders/BlanketOrders ii. Service Order Contractsiii. Council Approved TER+3 TER+5 TER+7 While Useful All Open Service Contracts, Purchase Orders, Blanket Purchase Orders & Solicitations & Documents Duplicate of City Clerk (c) Bids Unawarded Solicitations & Documents C+2 GC 34090 Department Opinion vital while orders are open 010 011 INTERNAL VENDORS - (Stores & Print Shop) Reports, Orders, Returns, Disposal Forms Journal & Requisitions C+4 Department and Auditors Opinion ACCOUNTING 011 012 YEAR-END REPORTS (a) Budget-to-Actual C+2 GC 34090 (b) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (C.A.F.R.) C+10 PER Department and Auditors Opinion (c) General Ledger, Encumbrance Report C+2 GC 34090 (d) Management Benefits Transactions, Accruals C+2 GC 34090 (e) Audit Work Papers & Journal Entries C+2 GC 34090 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE (A/P) 012 016 A/P + UTILITY CHECK REGISTERS (WARRANTS) 6C+7 C+7 Department and Auditors Opinion 013 017 CANCELLED/VOIDED WARRANTS. CHECK VOID FORMS + BACKUP C+4 C+7 Department and Auditors Opinion (VOIDED CHECKS) 014 018 VOUCHER PACKETS. GENERAL WARRANT COPIES WITH BACKUP FOR A/P, UTILITY REFUNDS, 3RD PARTY AND WIRE TRANSFERS. C+5 C+7 Department and Auditors Opinion City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Department Head: Carl YeatsLalo Perez RIM Coordinator: Janice AndersonAllen Krever Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 015 019 CAPITAL PROJECTS- Project Files, Street Reports, & Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Billings TER+7 Department and Auditors Opinion ANNUAL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION-STATE CONTROLLERS REPORT C+7 CALIFORNIA AVENUE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PARKING DISTRICT C+7 UNIVERSITY AVENUE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PARKING DISTRICT C+7 ANNUAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURES REPORT C+7 ZFIR03 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE COVER SHEETS. C+7 Cover sheet for batches of invoices from departments sent to A/P. Has list of invoices enclosed and department authorization to process the invoices. A/P JOURNAL LOG C+7 AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE FORMS C+7 TAX RECORDS – SALES TAX FILINGS, 1099 TAX FILINGS & REGISTERS C+7 GENERAL LEDGER- General Journal Entries 016 018 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE C+7 Federal & State Audit Requirements Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup Department Opinion (b) Invoices, Facility and Revenue Collections Cash Receipts, Cash Receipt Journals C+7 GC 34090, CCP 337 Federal & State Audit Requirements Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup Department Opinion 017 022 TAX RECORDS – Sales Tax Filings, 1099 Tax Filings & Registers C+4 MOVED TO ACCTS PAYABLE Department and Auditors Opinion 018 023 STATE REPORTS – City Reports, Transit Operators and Component Units C+7 Department and Auditors Opinion City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Department Head: Carl YeatsLalo Perez RIM Coordinator: Janice AndersonAllen Krever Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 019 024 UTILITIES- (a) Loan Reconciliation Work Papers, Bonds, Banking, Adjustments C+7 Department and Auditors Opinion (b) Receipts GC 34090 020 025 FIXED ASSETS – Cost Reports, Reconciliation, Resume of Activity & Journal Entries TER 3 Department and Auditors Opinion 021 026 PAYROLL – Allowances, Auto Deposits, Deductions, Deferred Compensation, Payroll Reports, File Maintenance, Gross-to-Net & Hours-to-Gross C+7 Public Employees Retirement System and Department Opinion - Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup Garnishment orders C+7 Direct Deposit/W4 changes C+7 Copies of PSO PAF C+7 CalPers Reporting C+7 Third Party Reporting C+7 Payroll Quarterly Tax Reports C+7 Payroll Masterfile C+7 Payroll Reconciliations C+7 Payroll Journals C+7 W2 Copies C+4 IRS ReguirementRequirement Processing Reports by Paydate ENTERPRISE ACCOUNTING 022 Backup for invoices created (Airport, Aavenidas, & Palo Alto Community Childcare) C+7 023 Loan reconciliations and backup C+7 024 ReconiciliationsReconciliations of utility clearing accounts C+5 025 Receipts/stubs from the daily utility payments process (batch detail) C+2+2 months GC 34090 026 Audit backup & Journal entries backup C+2 GC 34090 027 Utility cash receipts C+7 028 Fixed assets backup of journal entries, capitalization, & reconciliations TER 3 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Department Head: Gary BaumMolly Stump RIM Coordinator: Stacy Lavelle Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 100 General Info/Subject Files C+9 GC 34090 Restricted access to any files may contain confidential documents. Keep files until subject matter is no longer active. Required to keep until reasonable threat of legal action has passed. 100-01 General Correspondence C+9 GC 34090 100-04 Chron File C+9 GC 34090 100-04 Newsletters C+2 GC 34090 SUBJECT FILES 202-01 Planning Reports As Needed Duplicate of Planning and Community Environment (PCE) 202-02 thru 202-11 Development Plan/Certificates of Compliance/Subdivision As Needed Duplicate of City Clerk, Planning PCE & Public Works 202-12 thru 202-25 General Plan/Comprehensive Plan/State Mandated Planning As Needed Duplicate of PlanningPCE. Files to be reviewed for destruction on a file-by-file basis. 203-01 thru 203-10 Regional Planning As Needed Duplicate of PlanningPCE; review on a file by file basis 204-01 thru 204-04 Environmental Assessment C+4 Review on file-by-file basis for destruction 205-01 thru 205-13 Stanford University C+9 Review on file by file basis for destruction 206-01 thru 206-10 Building C+9 Review on file by file basis for destruction 207-01 thru 207-08 Transportation C+9 Duplicate of Transportation 301-01 thru 301-06 City Council C+11 Review on file by file basis for destruction 302-01 thru 302-11 Boards/Commissions/Committees C+11 303 American with Disabilities Act C+4 304 Records Management, Records Retention Schedule C+48 Duplicate of City Clerk 305 Management Studies/Surveys C+4 401-01 thru 401-14 Finance Administration C+4 Duplicate of Administrative Services, Public Works and Utilities 402-01 thru 402-07 Auditor Administration C+9 Duplicate of Auditor’s Files 403 General Audits C+9 500 Personnel Files C+9 GC 12946 & Title 29 Chpt XIV, Sections 1602.30; 32; 38. Some files may need to be retained until threat of legal action passed. Review on file by file basis for destruction City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Department Head: Gary BaumMolly Stump RIM Coordinator: Stacy Lavelle Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 600 Purchasing/Contracts C+10 Duplicate of Purchasing Division; Review on a file by file basis for destruction 700 Legislative/Legal C+14 Review on file by file basis for destruction 800 Public Works/Engineering/ Construction C+10 Review on file by file basis for destruction; 900 Litigation/claims C+10 Required to keep until reasonable threat of legal action has passed. On a file by file basis assign archive time 1000 Real Estate C+15 Duplication of Real Estate Division/CLK. Review on file by file basis for destruction 1100 Parks C+4 Duplicate of Community Services. Review on file by file basis for destruction 1200 Municipal Utilities C+4 Duplicate; review on file by file basis 1300 Police Administration C+9 GC 34090 Review on file by file basis for destruction 1400 Community Services C+4 GC 34090 Review on file by file basis for destruction 1500 Fire Administration C+9 GC 34090 Review on file by file basis for destruction 1600 Information Resources C+6 GC 34090 Review on file by file basis for destruction City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule CITY AUDITOR’S OFFICE CAO: Harriet Richardson RIM Coordinator: Deniz Tunc Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 001 Office Budget and A/P C+5 Department Policy 002 Meeting Notes, Memo’s, Correspondence, Management Reports, Office Administrative files and Working files C+5 Department Policy 003 Contracts (All Open Council Approved Contracts, Service Contracts, Purchase Orders, Blanket Purchase Orders, Solicitations, and Documents) C+4 Duplicating of Purchasing and City Clerk Retention Schedule SUBJECT FILES 004 Publications (Audit Reports), Status Reports, Revenue Reports, Council Reports PER Department Policy 005 Work Papers (supporting documentation for published reports) C+7 Department Policy 006 Revenue Audit Work Papers (Sales, TOT, UUT, Prop. Tax etc.) C+7 Department Policy (Confidential) 007 Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline documentation CL+5 Department Policy City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule CITY CLERK’S OFFICE Department Head: Donna RogersBeth Minor RIM Coordinator: Deanna RidingDavid Carnahan Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSCEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 001 a)Timecards & Budgetb)Purchase Ordersc)Domestic PartnershipAffidavits & Statements C+2 C+2 PER GC 34090.7 Duplicate of Administrative Services Department Opinion 002 General Correspondence C+2 GC 34090 PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS –Requests, responses and log.CL+2 GC 34090 CL = Resolution Date LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 004 COUNCIL & STANDING COMMITTEES a)Agenda Packets – Docs. andinformation submitted to Council including questions and answers to Council agenda items. ba) Minutes b) Questions and Answers toCouncil agenda items c)Audio/Video TapesDVDsd)Proof of Agenda Posting C+2 PER PER PER6 mos. C+2 GC 34090; GC 40801 54960.1(c)(1) GC 34090 Department Opinion. Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup Department Opinion 10/2014 005 STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS –DVD and Speech/Video HardCopy PER Department Opinion 8/2014 006 005 ORDINANCES PER GC 34090; PAMC 2.08.110 Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup. 007 006 RESOLUTIONS PER GC 34090; PAMC 2.08.110 Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup. 008 007 RECORDS & INFORMATION MANAGEMENT- a) Retention Schedules & Manuals b)Destruction Certificatesc)Transfer Listsd)Inventory Database/Signature Authorization C+4 PER C+2 C+2 CCP 343 GC 34090 GC 34090 Department Opinion Department Opinion 8/2014 Department Opinion Record of on/off-site records SUBJECT FILES 009 008 SUBJECT FILES – Docs. and information submitted to Council including packets, address files and legal opinions rendered by the City Attorney. All subject files included, unless specifically set forth elsewhere. C+2 GC 34090 Confidential Legal Opinions are not public information and are restricted from public access. PROCLAMATIONS C+2 GC 34090 LEGAL ADVERTISING C+4 CCP 337; 54960.1(c)(1); GC 34090 Includes public hearing notices, legal publications City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule CITY CLERK’S OFFICE Department Head: Donna RogersBeth Minor RIM Coordinator: Deanna RidingDavid Carnahan Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSCEDE 010 009 EXTERNAL VENDORS – a) Indexes – Proposal Logs, P.O. & Contract List b) Awarded Proposals and Bids, Contracts & Agreements c) Bids – Unaccepted d) Order, Blanket, change, signature Authorizations & software Purchase Recordsa) Contracts awarded by City Clerk Department b) Contracts awarded by City Council TER+3 TER+94 TER+43 C+2 PAMC 2.08.110; CCP 337 PAMC 2.08.110; CCP 337 GC 34090 Department and Auditor’s Opinion Department Opinion vital while orders are open 013 012 STANFORD (Including Sand Hill Road, Willow Rd. Extension) PER PAMC 2.08.110 City Attorney Opinion 9/1987 014 013 YACHT HARBOR PER PAMC 2.08.110 City Attorney Opinion 9/1987 015 014 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY – Agreements including Transmission Agency of Northern California PER PAMC 2.08.110 City Attorney Opinion 9/1987 016 015 CABLE TELEVISION – MCMC, Franchise & Licenses PER City Attorney Opinion 9/1987 Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup. 017 016 FLOOD BASIN PER City Attorney Opinion 9/1987 018 017 CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY C+2 PAMC 2.28.230 & 2.28.240 Duplicate of Attorney DIRECTOR’S HEARING APPEALS – Planning and Community Environment Director TER+2 TER = Project completion date Department Opinion 4/2015 POLICE AUDITOR REPORTS PER Department Opinion 4/2015 019 018 WATER RIGHTS – Agreements and Clean Up PER City Attorney Opinion 1995 020 019 PAC BELL/PG&E PER Department Opinion 1992 021 020 SISTER CITIES – a) General Correspondence and Information b) Legal and Historical Document C+2 GC 34090 Department Opinion 8/2014 ELECTIONS/POLITICAL REFORM ACT 022 021 CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS- a) Elected Members & Log of Filers (paper) b) Non-elected members (paper) c) Others – Committees, Supporting/Opposing Measures (paper) d) Copies received (e.g. Form 410) (paper) e) Electronically filed PER C+25 C+72 C+4 C+10 PAMC 2.08.110 GC 81009(b)(g) GC 81009(b) GC 81009 (c) GC 81009(f) GC 84615(i) City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule CITY CLERK’S OFFICE Department Head: Donna RogersBeth Minor RIM Coordinator: Deanna RidingDavid Carnahan Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSCEDE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE C+4 Code is Adopted by Resolution, Resolution is Permanent 023 022 STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST – Form 700 (Designated Filers) & Log of Filers C+7 GC 81009(e)(g) Originals retained C+7 “Wet”, paper filed forms can be digitized after 2 years 024 023 STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST – Form 700 (GC 87200 Filers) & Log of Filers C+4 GC 81009(d)(g) Originals forwarded to State. Copies retained C+4 GC 87200 Filers include City Council Members, the City Attorney, City Manager, Planning Commissioners, and the Administrative Services Director (CFO) FPPC AGENCY FORMS a) Gift to Agency Report – Formrm 801 b) Behested Payment Report – Form 803 b) 804 New Positions – Form 804 c) Consultants – Form 805 d) Public Official Appointments – From 806 C+7 C+7 C+4 C+4 C+2 FPPC 18944 GC 82015 FPPC 18734 FPPC 18734 FPPC 18705.5 GC 34090 Current on Agency Website Current on Agency Website 025 024 NOMINATIONS/CANDIDATES a) Elected b) Non-elected PER TER+2 EC 17100 Department Opinion 6/2014 TER = Certif. of elections results date or failure date AB1234 ETHICS TRAINING – Proof of training attendance C+5 GC 53235.2(2)b 027 026 OATHS OF OFFICE a) Elected Council Member TER+2 PER Department Opinion TER = Leaving Office date Department Opinion 8/2014 028 PETITIONS, INITIATIVES, REFERENDUM, RECALL & CHARTER AMENDMENTS TER+8 months1 EC 17200 EC 17400 GC 6253.5 RESTRICTED ACCESS TER = Certif. of election results date or failure date Department Opinion 8/2014 029 BALLOTS AND PACKAGE MATERIALS TER+6 months1 EC 17302, 17304, 17306; RESTRICTED ACCESS TER = date of election Department Opinion 8/2014 SAMPLE BALLOT PER GC 34090 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule CITY CLERK’S OFFICE Department Head: Donna RogersBeth Minor RIM Coordinator: Deanna RidingDavid Carnahan Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSCEDE 033 031 BOARDS & COMMISSIONS a) Applications & Appointments I. Appointed II. Not Appointed b) Notices Letters of Appointment c) Notices of Termination d) Recruitment d) Action Agenda e) Proof of Publication f) Minutes of all meetingsOutreach e) General Correspondence TER+5 CLTER+2 TER+2 TER+2 C+1 C+2 PERC+2 GC 34090a; GC 40801 TER = Leaving Office date CL = Close of recruitment TER = Leaving Office date TER = Leaving Office date 036 COUNCIL MEMBER – a) Individual Files & b) Biographies cb) Photos dc) ProclamationsEmergency Standby Council Oaths of Office and Report TER+2 PER PER C+2PER Department Opinion 10/2014 037 COUNCIL DIRECTORY/ROSTER PER Department Opinion Paper C+2 REAL PROPERTY 038 BINDING INSTRUMENTS a) Land – Deeds, Easement b) Easement Vacations, Leases & Purchases c) Encroachments, Agreements & Conveyance d) Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) i. Deeds of Trust ii. Promissory Notes While UsefulPER TER TER GC 34090a DuplicatesDuplicate of County Recorder TER = paid in full TER = paid in full 039 LIENS, CONDEMNATION PER GC 34090a 041 ANNEXATIONS/ACQUISTIONS PER GC 34090a 042 BONDS While Useful Duplicate of ASDCounty Recorder 043 ASSESSMENTS TER+2 Department Opinion SUBDIVIDOR AGREEMENTS PER GC 65864 & 65869.5 DEED OF TRUST TER+6 CCP 336a ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING RECORDS 001 Alarm Hearings C+2 GC 34090 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule CITY CLERK’S OFFICE Department Head: Donna RogersBeth Minor RIM Coordinator: Deanna RidingDavid Carnahan Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSCEDE 001 Animal Bite Hearings C+15 GC 34090 001 Utility User Tax Hearings C+10 GC 34090 001 Parking Ticket Hearings C+2 GC 34090 Includes Initial Review document 001t Administrative Citation C+5 GC 34090 Noise, Animal City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule CITY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENT Department Head: Frank BenestJames Keene RIM Coordinator: Margaret FlickDanille Rice Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 001 Personnel Information, Budget Information, Records Retention Schedule While useful Duplicate records of other departments 002 Staff Reports CMRs (City Manager Reports) – including supporting documents PER GC34090.5 May be scanned to CD after 5 years and paper copy offered to the Palo Alto Historical Society Association 003 Economic Development Files for Projects throughout City of Palo Alto PER May be stored off-site Sister Cities C+2 GC 34090 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 004 Legislative Letters C+5 Consistent with State Legislation – Reviews and Changes SUBJECT FILES 005 Files established pertaining to various subjects, Project files, Chronological Files Current C + 2 GC 34090 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 006 Official copies of all City Policies and procedures PER Each department should have a current copy of the Policies & Procedures City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Richard JamesRob de Geus RIM Coordinator: Erin Solheim Perez Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 001 Personnel – Current Employees Performance Reviews & Work Schedules C+2 Performance reviews are duplicates of Human ResourcesPeople Strategy and Operations 002 Security Documents, Work Orders, Correspondence Inventories, Logs & Reports C+2 GC 34090 003 Policy – Policies, Procedures & Forms C CA Opinion 004 Other Departments – Stores Req,uisition Purchase Orders, Contracts & Records Retention Schedule C Duplicatieon of ASD Administrative Services (ASD) and City Clerk 005 Volunteer Records C+2 GC 34090 006 Accounting – Sales Receipts, Deposits, Sales Logs, Ledgers, Fees/Fines, Contracts Under $825,000, Bills & Transit Books C+1 Community Services Opinion Department Opinion Duplicate of ASD ARTS & SCIENCES DIVISION 007 Art Loan Program C+2 GC 34090 008 Theatre Records – Costume & Prop Loans and Booth Level Settings C+2 GC 34090 009 Art Collection C Community Services Opinion 010 Public Art Commission – Agendas & Minutes PER Community Services Opinion Public Art Commission a) Action Agenda b) Proof of Publication c) Minutes of all meetings d) General Correspondence e) Proof of Agenda Posting C+2 C+2 PER C+2 C+2 GC 34090 011 Exhibits – Junior Museum & Baylands Interpretive Center PER Community Services Opinion Department Opinion 012 Animal Permits – Junior Museum & Zoo TER+2 Fish & Game Sections 3200, 3204 HUMAN SERVICES & CUBBERLEY DIVISION 019 Human Relations Commission – Agendas & Minutes PER GC 34090 Human Relations Commission a) Action Agenda b) Proof of Publication c) Minutes of all meetings d) General Correspondence e) Proof of Agenda Posting C+2 C+2 PER C+2 C+2 GC 34090 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Rob de Geus RIM Coordinator: Erin Solheim Perez Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE RECREATION & GOLF DIVISION 020 Use Permits – Fields, Parks, Courts, Certificates of Insurance, Facilities Applications & Logs and Group Agreements C+2 GC 34090 021 Waivers, Cancellation/Transfer Forms C+2 GC 34090 022 Recreation Foundation – Minutes, Correspondence & Financial Information C+1 Community Services Opinion Department Opinion 023 Parks & Recreation Commission - Minutes PER GC 34090 Parks and Recreation Commission a) Action Agenda b) Proof of Publication c) Minutes of all meetings d) General Correspondence e) Proof of Agenda Posting C+2 C+2 PER C+2 C+2 GC 34090 Fee Reduction Program C+1 Department Opinion 4/2015 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Department Head: Peter Pirnejad RIM Coordinator: Lisa Green Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSEDES ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 001 OTHER DEPARTMENTS Personnel Records, Purchase Orders, Payment Claim, Vouchers, Legislation, Final Budget, , Correspondence with Other Departments and Records Requests While Useful GC 34090 Duplicate of other Departments 002 DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION Daily Deposit Copies, Department Procedures, Equipment, Inventories, Budget Preparation, Final Budget Correspondence, and Daily Counts & Wait Times. C+2 GC 34090 003 CONTRACTS a) Contracts under $85,000 plus all records associated b) Full Cost Recovery Contracts c) Contracts over $85,000 plus all records associated C+2 Until Completion C+2 PAMC 2.30.075 Duplicate of ASDAdministrative Services Duplicate of CLKCity Clerk SUBJECT FILES 004 PERMIT RECORDS Address changes, Permit applications, Building Use & Occupancy applications and certificates, Department correspondence. PER GC 34090 In Electronically Stored in Geographic Information System (GIS) or Accela 005 INSPECTION RECORDS Survey letters, Special inspection – final inspection reports, SB407 certificate of compliance forms, Stop work correspondence. PER GC 34090 006 Plans PER H&S 19850 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule FIRE DEPARTMENT Department Head: Nick MarinaroEric Nickel RIM Coordinator: Gordon SimpkinsonJames Henrikson Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR CL=COMPLETION OF INSPECTION/PROJECT COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT LOB=LIFE OF BUILDING TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 001 DEPTARTMENT MANAGEMENT C+ 2 GC 34090 General Order, Special Orders, Bulletins While Useful Policies and Procedures While Useful Memorandum of Agreements While Useful Retained by Human Resources (C+2, GC 34090)Duplicate of People Strategy and Operations (PSO) 001(a) Code Books, Ordinances PER GC 34090(e) California Fire Code, PAMC amendments, etc. 002 DEPARTMENT PLANS PER Department Opinion Strategic Plans/Master Planning Documents While Useful 003 GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE & REPORTS C+ 2 GC 34090 Correspondence, memos, emails, press releases While Useful Committee reports, minutes, public file review requests While Useful Special studies, community relations While Useful 004 BIDS-UNACCEPTED While Useful Retained by Purchasing (C+2, GC 34090)Duplicate of Purchasing 005 OTHER DEPARTMENTS While Useful Retained by ASD and City Clerk (C+2, GC 34090)Duplicate of other departments Staffing roster, timecards, leave reports While Useful Duplicate of Administrative Services (ASD) Contracts and accounting reports, purchase orders, deposits, receipts While Useful Duplicate of ASD and City Clerk Records retention schedule C+2SUP Duplicate of City Clerk 006 EMPLOYEE FILES 006(a) Training records, certificates C+ 2 GC 34090 Retained by Human Resources (TER+3, 29 CFR 1627.3)Duplicate of PSO 006(b) Employee records While Useful Retained by Human Resources(TER+3, 29 CFR 1627.3)Duplicate of PSO 006(c) DMV Driver Tests and records C+ 2 GC 34090 Retained by Human Resources (TER+3, 29 CFR 1627.3)Duplicate of PSO 007 EMPLOYEE INJURY/EXPOSURE While Useful Retained by Human Resources Risk Management (TER +30, 29 CFR 1910.1020)Duplicate of PSO Employee accident and exposure reports PER City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule FIRE DEPARTMENT Department Head: Nick MarinaroEric Nickel RIM Coordinator: Gordon SimpkinsonJames Henrikson Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR CL=COMPLETION OF INSPECTION/PROJECT COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT LOB=LIFE OF BUUILDING TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE Individual and summary statistics PER SUBJECT FILES FIRE PREVENTION 008 FIRE PREVENTION: Code Enforcement actions CL+5 CFC 104.6 Site Plans While Useful Requests for service, complaints. C+2 Sprinkler system & Fire Alarm periodic testing reports & inspections C+6 Electronic 5 Year tests: Keep C +6 Stored by 3rd Party Vendor 008(a) FIRE INVESTIGATION REPORTS & PHOTOS CL+ 6 CFC 104.3.2; PC 801 008(b) FIRE/HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION REPORTS & PHOTOS PER PC 799 Support prosecution resulting in homicide Keep 6 years onsite, permanent offsiteC+6 onsite; PER offsite 008(c) ARSON /JUVENILE FIRESETTER SUSPECTS CL+ 6 CFC 104.3.2; PC 801 Include interviews, documentation and classroom materials for junior firesetters 009 ANNUAL FIRE (CFC) PERMITS C+ 2 GC 34090 010 STREET & NUMBER ASSIGNMENT While Useful Duplicate of Planning. (P, GC 34090(a) and Community Environment 011 FIRE INSPECTIONS (Bureau and Engine Company inspections) CL+ 6 CFC 103.3.4 Department Opinion CFC 103.3.4 requires CL +3. However, longer period desired due to 3 year inspection cycle for some facilities Records of Inspection; routine, special, new construction & tenant improvement relatedimprovement related. PER Electronically stored in Accela Pre-Citation letters, Notice of Violation letters. While Useful 012 CERTIFICATIONS GC 34090 Flame Resistance PER Electronically stored in Accela Use and Occupancy Certificate PER Electronically stored in Accela Test & Flush 013 SPRINKLERS & FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS LoB GC 34090(a) Pertains to real property. May include blueprints, reports, inspection results, permits. Keep 2 years onsite, permanent offsiteC+2 onsite; PER offsite Design, Flow, Installation documents LoB Plan review comments LoB City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule FIRE DEPARTMENT Department Head: Nick MarinaroEric Nickel RIM Coordinator: Gordon SimpkinsonJames Henrikson Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR CL=COMPLETION OF INSPECTION/PROJECT COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT LOB=LIFE OF BUUILDING TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 014 BUILDING PROJECTS LoB GC 34090(a) Pertains to real property. May include blueprints, reports, inspection results, permits. C+2 onsite; PER offsiteKeep 2 years onsite, permanent offsite New Construction & Tenant Improvement Projects, including Underground tank installations and repairs PER Electronic Electronically stored in Accela Alternate means & methods PER 2007 CFC 104. 6.4 Electronically stored in Accela Plan review comments PER Electronically stored in Accela SUPPRESSION 015 INCIDENTS (fire, medical, hazmat, etc.) PER Electronically stored in RMS 015(a) Dispatch and daily logs C+ 2 GC 34090 Release to Union; do not destroy 015(b) Fire Incident Reports; all except arson related PER CFC 104.3.2; PC 801 Electronically stored in RMS 015(c) Fire Incident and other Field Reports; arson related PER CFC 104.3.2; PC 801 Electronically stored in RMS 015(d) Fire Incident and other Field Reports; arson with death involved PER PC 799 Electronically stored in RMS 015(e) Pre-Hospital Care Report (PCR) PER 45 CFR Part 164.530 Electronically stored in RMS 016 ENGINE/TRUCK EQUIPMENT 016(a) Daily & Monthly logs C+ 2 GC 34090 016(b) DMV Audit C+ 17 DMV Requirement per old schedule 016(c) Maintenance Program. C+ 2 GC 34090 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 017 ANNUAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE PERMIT C+ 2 GC 34090 018 CALCULATIONS- Seismic and secondary containment C+ 2 GC 34090 019 SITE CLEANUP Spill Reports & facility closure related information; related inspections. Does not include reports for activities regulated by California. Regional Water Resources Control Board or California Dept. of Toxic Substances. PER GC 34090(a) Pertains to real property. Previous retention was 30 years-OHSA Guideline cited,cited no specific document reference. Electronically stored in ???California Environmental Reporting Service (CERS) SCAN City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule FIRE DEPARTMENT Department Head: Nick MarinaroEric Nickel RIM Coordinator: Gordon SimpkinsonJames Henrikson Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR CL=COMPLETION OF INSPECTION/PROJECT COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT LOB=LIFE OF BUUILDING TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 020 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS & UNDERGROUND TANK INSPECTIONS, routine, special, and enforcement related CL + 6 CCR 27. 15188 Department Opinion Should be C+5 Required. Keep additional time for consistency with other inspection records. Electronically stored in CERS 021 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS BUSINESS PLANS C+ 2 GC 34090 Electronically stored in CERS 022 UNDERGROUND TANKS 022(a) UST closures and/or removals and related documentation. Does not include reports for activities regulated by California. Regional Water Resources Control Board or Califfornia. Dept. of Toxic Substances. PER GC 34090(a) Pertains to real property. May include blueprints, reports, inspection results, permits Electronically stored in CERS???SCAN 022(b) Periodic testing, monitoring and special reports C+ 2 GC 34090 Electronically stored in CERS 022(c) Reports, fact sheets and studies Incorporated into 022(b) PROGRAMS 023 SPECIAL PROGRAMS: Strike teams and mutual aid response C+12 GC 34090 Existing Department Opinion Is C+12. Note that GC 34090 requires only C+ 2 023 (a) Disaster Service Worker: All associated documents TERer + 30 CCR 19, 2573.2, GC 3105, 6250 Required for injury claims 024 PARAMEDICS: Training and testing C+ 4 CCR 22, Div 9, sec 100392 Retained by Human Resources? (TER+3, 29 CFR 1627.3) Patient Care Report-See Suppression Codes referenced that set retention times are listed below. Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1602 3 Years Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1627.3 3 Years Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1910.1020 30 Years Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 160-164 6 years California Government Code Section 3105, 6250 Ter TER +30 Years California Government Code Section 34090 2 Years California Government Code Section 34090.5 Electronic retention California Penal Code Section 799 Permanent California Penal Code Section 800 6 Years California Fire Code Section 103.3.4 3 Years California Fire Code Section 104.3.2 3 Years California Code of Regulations, Title 19 Section 2573.2 Ter TER + 30 Years City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule FIRE DEPARTMENT Department Head: Nick MarinaroEric Nickel RIM Coordinator: Gordon SimpkinsonJames Henrikson Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR CL=COMPLETION OF INSPECTION/PROJECT COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT LOB=LIFE OF BUUILDING TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE California Code of Regulations, Title 22 Section 100170 5 Years California Code of Regulations, Title 22 Section 100392 4 Years California Code of Regulations, Title 27 Section 15188 5 Years Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 17.28.050 3 Years City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (I.T.) Department Head: Jonathan Reichental RIM Coordinator: Darren Numoto Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS a)Budget b)Purchase Orders C+2 C+2 GC 34090.7 Duplicate of Administrative Services (ASD) Duplicate of ASD SUBJECT FILES Phone Log Files C+2 GC 34090 Call records Service Desk Tickets C+2 GC 34090 IT Service Desk Tickets Financial System Data Backup C+7 SAP Database Backups Contracts a)Under $5,000b)$5,000 and overc) $85,000 and over TER+3 TER+3 TER+3 Duplicate of ASD /Duplicate of City Clerk City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule LIBRARY DEPARTMENT Department Head: Monique Ziesenhenne RIM Coordinator: Evelyn Cheng Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS - 001 (a) INTERNAL OPERATIONS DOCS –Employee Reviews, DepartmentAdministration Work Schedules, Volunteer Records, Correspondence, Messages, Reports, Logs, Indexes, BudgetsBudget Preparation, Surveys, Policies, Procedures, Work Orders, News Clippings, NewslettersStatistics, Projects, Staff Reports, Org Chart, Memberships, Legal Opinion, Staff Development and Training, Community Relations, Benchmark Data C+2 GC34090 Employee reviews are duplicate of Human Resources Standards Department Policies and Procedures, Strategic Plan, Safety/Security Manual, Disaster Plan Until Superseded GC34090 General Correspondence & Reports Correspondence, Memos, Emails, Press Releases, Committee Reports, Meeting Notes, Working Files C+2 GC34090 E-mail messages related to a current project or a policy-making decision should be retained along with related records 001 (b) INTERNAL OPERATIONS DOCS –Other DepartmentsStaffing Roster, Timecards, Leave Requests, Contracts, Amendments, Purchase Orders, Payment Claim Vouchers, Legal OpinionsChange Orders, Invoices, Travel, Final Budget, Fines and Fees Schedule, Library Bond Measures, Building Plans, Deposits, Cash Receipts, Information Technology Management Records, Records Retention Schedule While Usefuluseful GC 34090 Duplicate records of other departmentsof other departments 002 BIDS – UnacceptedEmployee Files (Regular & Hourly) PAFs, Appraisals, Work Injury, Job Descriptions, Requests for Reclassification, Recruitment – applications, resumes, While Useful C+2 GC34090 Duplicate of People Strategy and Operations LEGISLATIVE HISTORY City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 003 COMMISSION: Library Advisory Commission – a)Agenda &b)Proof of Publicationc)Minutes of Meetingsd)General Correspondencee) Proof of Agenda Posting C+2 PER C+2 C+2 GC34090 If posted by Library Staff SUBJECT FILES 012 LIBRARY DATABASES – customers, circulation and inventoryLibrary Databases Customers, Circulation and Inventory Subscriptions and Licenses CC+2 Duplicate copies stored offsite as vital copy backup. Registration and circulation records are exempt from Public Records Act under certain conditions; GC 6254, GC 6254.5, GC 6255, GC 6267 013 GRANTSGrants & Donations Applications Awards Non-Monetary Donations Reimbursements Audit + 4 yearsC+5 Subject to audit by the granting agency 014 HISTORICAL DOCUMENTSCapital Improvements Project Files, Specifications, Contracts, Agreements, Equipment, Maintenance, Licenses, Inventory PERLife of Building Archivist Opinion 015 PUBLICITY/PUBLICATIONSPublicity/Publications Promotional Materials C+32 GC34090 Department Opinion 016 STATE LIBRARY - State Library Public Library Survey Reimbursements C+2 May be audited by State Operational Reports Daily Log, Cash Handling, Bank Deposits, Debt Collection Management Incident Reports C+2 C+5 Public Programming Development and Administration of Programs for the Public (children, students, adults) C+2 PER C+2 LIBRARY DEPARTMENT Department Head: Monique Ziesenhenne RIM Coordinator: Evelyn Cheng City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE Collection Development Records Records documenting the selection and acquisition of new materials for the Library’s collections. C+2 Collection Movement Records Records documenting the physical movement of materials between the facilities and storage areas C+2 Historic Reference History of Palo Alto City Library PER Department Opinion LIBRARY DEPARTMENT Department Head: Monique Ziesenhenne RIM Coordinator: Evelyn Cheng City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES Department Head: Kenneth Dueker RIM Coordinator: Nathan Rainey Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 001 DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT C+ 2 GC 34090 General Order, Special Orders, Bulletins Policies and Procedures Memorandum of Agreements While Useful Duplicate of People Strategy and Operations (PSO) 002 DEPARTMENT PLANS PER Department Opinion Strategic Plans/Master Planning Documents 003 GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE & REPORTS C+ 2 GC 34090 Correspondence, memos, emails, press releases Committee reports, minutes, public file review requests Special studies, community relations 003c Budgets, PO’s Time Keeping, Correspondence, Surveys, Statistical Reports C+5 GC 34090 004h Equipment Records TERM+2 GC 34090 Retained until termination of equipmentsequipment’s use; Manuals, instructions, procedures, assignments, maintenance EMPLOYEE FILES LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 006(a) Training records, certificates C+ 2 GC 34090 Retained by Human ResourcesPSO (TER+3, 29 CFR 1627.3) 006(b) Employee records While Useful Retained by Human ResourcesPSO (TER+3, 29 CFR 1627.3) SSPECIAL PROGRAMSUBJECT FILES 023 (a) Disaster Service Worker: Emergency Services Volunteers All associated documents TER+30Ter + 30 CCR 19, 2573.2, GC 3105, 6250 CCR 19, 2573.2, Govt Code 3105, 6250 Required for injury claims City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES Department Head: Kenneth Dueker RIM Coordinator: Nathan Rainey Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE Codes referenced that set retention times are listed below. Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1602 3 Years Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1627.3 3 Years Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1910.1020 30 Years Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 160-164 6 years California Government Code Section 3105, 6250 TER +30 Years California Government Code Section 34090 2 Years California Government Code Section 34090.5 Electronic retention California Penal Code Section 799 Permanent California Penal Code Section 800 6 Years California Fire Code Section 103.3.4 3 Years California Fire Code Section 104.3.2 3 Years California Code of Regulations, Title 19 Section 2573.2 TER + 30 Years California Code of Regulations, Title 22 Section 100170 5 Years California Code of Regulations, Title 22 Section 100392 4 Years California Code of Regulations, Title 27 Section 15188 5 Years Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 17.28.050 3 Years City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENTPEOPLE STRATEGY AND OPERATIONS Department Head: Russ CarlsenKathy Shen RIM Coordinator: Janet HanleyElizabeth Egli Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 001 GENERAL – Correspondence, Timecards, Contracts, Subject Files, Budgets, Projects, and Records Retention Schedule* C+2 GC 34090 Duplicate of City Clerk and Administrative Services *Note: Records Retention Schedules are only maintained while in effect (current/supercededsuperseded) 002 STANDARDS – Policies, Rules, Bills, & Regulations C+2 GC 34090 003 VMC’s – Awards PER Human Resources Opinion EMPLOYMENT 004 RECRUITMENT – Applications, Resumes, Alternate Lists, Testing C+3 49 USC Sections 2000e-8; 2000ce-12; 29 CFR Section 1602.12 and 1602.14 Restricted Access 005 PERSONNEL FILES (a) Regular Employees TER+15 29 CFR Section 1627.3 Labor Relations Section 1174 Access May microfilm digitally store after 2 years and throw shred paper away Restricted Access PERSONNEL FILES (b) Water Quality Control Plant – Senior Chemist, Chemist, Laboratory Tech, Senior Industrial Waste Investigator, Industrial Waste Investigator, Senior Mechanic, Mechanic, Senior Operator, WQC Plant Operators I/II, Industrial Waste Inspectors, Electricians, Supervisor, WQCP Operations, Manager/Assistant Manager, WQCP, and Manager, Laboratory Services* TER+30 29 CFR 1910.1020; Cal OSHA 8 Cal Code Regs 3204 Access May digitally store after 2 years and shred Restricted Access *There may be other employees in safety-sensitive positions in other locations with same extended retention schedule 005 PERSONNEL FILES (cb) Hourly Employees TER+5 29 CFR Section 1627.3 Labor Relations Section 1174 Access May microfilm digitally store after 2 years and throw shred paper away Restricted Access 006 RETIREMENT – Public Employee Retirement System TER+4 29 USC Section 1001 – 1381 Restricted Access 007 CLASSIFICATION: Requests for reclassification, PDQ’s, Job Descriptions, Desk Audits C+2 Labor Code Section 1197.5(d) BENEFITS City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule PEOPLE STRATEGY AND OPERATIONS Department Head: Kathy Shen RIM Coordinator: Elizabeth Egli Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 008 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN FILES -– DECAPDCCAP (dependent care), Deferred Compensation, Dental, EAP, Life, Medical, Vision/ Travel LTD Claim Applications, Leave& Vision Domestic Partner Reimbursement C+4 29 CFR Section 1627.3 Restricted Access EAP = Employee Assistance Program LTD = Long Term Disability FPPC AGENCY FORMS a) 804 New Positions – Form 804 b) Consultants – Form 805 C+4 C+4 FPPC 18734 FPPC 18734 Duplicate of City Clerk Duplicate of City Clerk RISK MANAGEMENT/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 010 WORKERS COMPENSATION Claim Files, Timecards TER+5 (if claim is active) Labor Code Section 5410 Files are held at Administrator’s Office, City only keeps working file Restricted Access 011 ACCEL JPA Agenda Files C+73 Human ResourcesDepartment Opinion 012 DMV – Pull Notices C+4 (only if employee has violation on record) Human ResourcesDepartment Opinion Restricted Access 013 DRUG TESTING C+5 49 CFR Section 193-9 Restricted Access 014 SAFETY REPORTS: a) Investigation Reports b) Hearing Tests PER TERM+5 C+4 Human ResourcesDepartment Opinion HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT 016 TRAINING – Program Lists, Instructor Lists, Class Rosters, & Evaluations C+4 Department Opinion EMPLOYEE RELATIONS 017 NEGOTIATIONS – Notes, Notebooks, Correspondence, Contracts, & Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) C+10 29 USC Sections 211 (c), 203 (m), 207 (g) Restricted Access 018 COMPENSATION – Mgmt. Salary History Sheets, Job Descriptions, Salary Surveys, Compensation Plans C+7 Department Opinion 019 GRIEVANCES – Arbitration, Grievances Reports, SEIU Window Period Requests, Sexual Harassment & Discrimination C+7 29 CFR Section 1602.21 (h) Restricted Access City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Department Head: Hillary Gitelman RIM Coordinator: Zariah Betten Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 001 OTHER DEPARTMENTS Personnel Records, Safety Files, Purchase Orders, Payment Claim Vouchers, City Manager’s Reports, Legislation, Litigation, Final Budget, Equipment and Facility Maintenance, Time Sheets, Correspondence with Other Departments and Retention Schedules and Records Requests While Useful GC 34090None Duplicate of other Departments 002 DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION Department Procedures, Equipment, Inventories, Budget Preparation, and Final Budget Correspondence C+2 GC 34090 003 CONTRACTS a) Contracts under 85,000 plus all records associated b) Full Cost Recovery Contracts C+2 Until Completion PAMC 2.30.075 Department Opinion 004 ADMINISTRATIVE REFERENCE Special and Area Studies, Fee Schedules, Orgs. List, Ordinance Binder, Planning Ethics, Data Collection,. Hazardous Waste, Substance List and Toxics Log While Useful plus online archives Department Opinion LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 005 PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (PTC), ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD, AND HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD AND DIRECTOR’S HEARINGS a) Minutes - Online b) Agendas - Online c) Correspondence with Staff/Public – project based d) Proof of Publication e) Proof of Agenda Posting PER C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 GC 34090 Video and Audio Tapes are recycled after 90 days except for Director’s Hearing – 5 years of DVD/CD Hardcopy and microfilm format, (need to determine type of mins. for Brds.)Boards – Summary. PTC –- Verbatim SUBJECT FILES 006 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA While Useful Duplicate of Santa Clara County 007 PLANS a) Approved b) DeniedWithdrawn (there is really no denied plans) Superceded ones incl. PER C+2 GC 34090 Department OpinionDigital Format Hardcopies City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Department Head: Hillary Gitelman RIM Coordinator: Zariah Betten Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 008 DISCRETIONARY PLANNING ENTITLEMENTS a) Applications b) Maps-Zoning, Tentative Subdivision, Preliminary Parcel, Comp Plan Land Use, et al c) Permit Extensions (currently a 2-year window with a 1-yr extension) d) Record of Land Use Actions e) CEQA-EIR-Negative Declarations PER C+2 PER? GC 34090 Digital Format (stored offsite) Digital format Saved within Application files that are scanned into GIS/DOXview 010 HISTORIC INVENTORY PER GC 34090 Digital Format – Currently updated via GIST 011 ZONING ORDINANCES While UsefulPER Duplicate of City Clerk(2-yr window) 012 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AMENDMENTS – Available Website reference only (Amendments acknowledged by Resolutions PER GC 34090 Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup w/ Amendments Clerk’s ofc keeps ResosResolutions Duplicate of City Clerk. 013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS (CDBG) a) Project Files a) b) Deeds of Trust and Promissory NotesCitizen Committee Applications Plans-Citizen Participation, Community Develop. & consolidated pla C+2 State of California Duplicate of City Clerk 014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS (CDBG) Program Reference Forms, Procedures and Brochures C+3 Department OpinionHRCuman Relations Commission acts as Committee Department Opinion Department Opinion 015 HOUSING a) General Information and References-Outside Materials b) Housing Studies and Programs c) HOME Funding-General (If individual home loans keep permanently) d) Below Market Rate (BMR) Units, In Lieu Hosing Mitigation e) Below Market Rate Administration While Useful C+3 C+3 C+3PER CWhile Useful Department Opinion Federal regulation federally funded programs and labor standard compliance files Department Opinion Department Opinion City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Department Head: Hillary Gitelman RIM Coordinator: Zariah Betten Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 016 TRANSPORTATION-BICYCLES a) Bike BoulevardFinal Studies and Plans, Specs & Est.b) Bike Bridges Bike Counts c)Bike Facilities, Lockers and Racksd) Bike Locker Rental Programe) Bike Operations (signing/striping,signal detection), paths, Routes andTrailsf)Pedestrian and Bicycle AdvisoryCommittee PER PER C+52 C+52 C+52 C+2PER C+25 GC 34090 GC 34090 GC 34090 GC 34090 Unique project, historical significance, model for other jurisdictions in and out of U.S. Department Opinion 017 FUNDING-Fuel Efficient Traffic Signal Management Program (FETSIM) Applications, Prop 116 Applications, Surface Transportation Program (STDP)/Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)Applications and Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Applications PER 018 NEIGHBORHOOD STUDIES C+2 Department Opinion 019 Parking a)Assessment Districtsb) Carpool/Vanpool Programc)Facilities(garages/lots)d) Permit Policy/Managemente) Residential Permit Parkingf)Structuresg)Surveysh) Zonesi)Congestion Pricing PER C+2 PER C+2 C+52 PER C+2 C+2 C+5 GC 34090 GC 34090 Multiple Depts. Department Opinion Department Opinion Department Opinion Department Opinion Department Opinion 020 PERMITS/TRAFFIC CONTROL-Certificates of Insurance and Traffic Control Plans C+2 GC 34090 021 TRAFFIC REFERENCE a)Aerial PhotographsAmericans with Disabilities Act Bike-correspondence, other jurisdiction bike plans, safety/education b)Congestion PricingDemographic Data c)Geographic Information Systems(GIS) Traffic Control Devices Committee Traffic Flow Maps C+2 C+10 C+2 C+5 PERMElectronic C+2 C+5 GC 34090 GC 34090 GC 34090GC 34090 GC 34090 Department Opinion/Online Reference 022 REGIONAL AGENCIES C+2 GC 34090 023 SCHOOL SAFETY C+2 GC 34090 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Department Head: Hillary Gitelman RIM Coordinator: Zariah Betten Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 024 TRAFFIC STUDIES a) Sand hill Road Caltrain-General, Peninsula Corridor JPB, Operation Lifesaver, San Antonio Station, S.F.ExtensionTraffic Calming b) Traffic Signals c) Other Traffic Studies PERC+5 C+2 While Useful GC 34090 Department OpinionDepartment Opinion 025 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Accidents (high accident location/accident data and reports)Caltrans-Project Development, Ramp Metering, Route Concept, Reports, Sound walls C+2C+2 GC 34090 Department OpinionDuplicate of Caltrans 028 Plans PER H&S 19850 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule POLICE DEPARTMENT Department Head: Chief Lynne JohnsonDennis Burns RIM Coordinator: Lisa Scheff Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 003 (a) Personnel Training SUP GC 34090 Bulletins 003 (a)(1) Lesson Plans C+15 GC 34090 Scope, content, time period of courses 003 (a)(2) Applicant Fingerprint Files TERM+2 GC 34090 Includes paperwork authorizing fingerprinting and background checks for City employment applicants, all license and permit applicants and volunteer applicants 003 (a)(3) Personnel (copies) TERM+7 GC 34090 Paperwork documenting officer & non-sworn internal and external training 003 (a)(b) Volunteer Files TERM+2 GC 34090 Volunteers’ identification, contact information 003b Policy, Forms, Brochures CTER+2 GC 34090 003c Budgets, PO’s, Time Keeping, Correspondence, Surveys, Statistical Reports C+5 GC 34090 003d Demographic Data Collection Cards C+2 GC 34090 Program ended 6-30-2010 003e Alarm Records C+2 GC 34090 Alarm packets, documents & correspondence 001q Administrative/Internal Affairs Investigations – Documents relating to complaints or investigations in responsees to citizens complaints regarding members of the Department. C+5 PC 832.5, EVC 1045, PC 801.5, PC 803©,(c), VC 2547 Provided documents are not evidence in any claim filed or pending litigation exists. 001k Press Releases C+2 GC 34090 001t Administrative Citationses C+5 GC 34090 001r PAPD Policy Manual SUP GC 34090 Living Document ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING RECORDS 001 (1) Alarm Hearings C+2 GC 34090 001 (u)(2) Animal Bite Hearings C+15 GC 34090 001 (u)(3) Utility User Tax Hearings C+10 GC 34090 001 (u)(4) Parking Ticket Hearings C+2 GC 34090 Includes Initial Review document 001t Administrative Citation C+5 GC 34090 Noise, Animal ANIMAL SERVICES RECORDS 001p Nuisance Complaints, Animal Bite Reports, PAMC Violations and warnings issued. C+10 GC 34090 PAMC = Palo Alto Municipal Code 001s Veterinary Medical Records C+3 BP 4081 0010 Animal Licenses C+2 GC 34090 Dog – 3 years from expiration 001n Humane Officer – Activity records and logs C+2 GC 34090 001m Animal Control – All records relating to animal inventory and care C+2 GC 34090 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule POLICE DEPARTMENT Department Head: Chief Dennis Burns RIM Coordinator: Lisa Scheff Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSEDE COMMUNICATION RECORDS 001 (a) 911 Recordings (b) DAR – Digital AudioRecordingsOther Phone Recordings, not on 911 lines C+2 180 Days 180 Days GC 34090.6 PC 1054 Exception: Recordings used as evidence in a criminal prosecution or claim filed or litigation or potential claims and litigation shall be preserved for 100 days after conclusion of the court action 003f Mobile Audio Video Records (MAV) DAR – Digital Audio Recordings C+2 GC 34090.6 PC 1054 Exception: Recordings used as evidence in a criminal prosecution or claim filed or litigation or potential claims and litigation shall be preserved for 100 days after conclusion of the court action 003g Interior Video Recordings Booking/AIB or Investigative Services Division (ISD) when initiated C+1 GC 34090.6 PC 1054 Exception: Recordings used as evidence in a criminal prosecution or claim filed or litigation or potential claims and litigation shall be preserved for 100 days after conclusion of the court action 003h Routine Perimeter Security Video 100 Days GC 34090.6 Automated self-recycled/re-use technology INVESTIGATIVE RECORDS 001e Police Reports – ODI (Optical Document Imaging) System and supporting hard copy Reports PER GC 34090 PC 800 PC 801 PC 799 Reports scanned into the ODI system from 6-15-92 to 12-31-06 Unless report is a Permanent Record or ordered Sealed by Court Order 001f Non- Criminal Police Reports – Lost/Found Property, Injured or sick persons; missing persons where person has returned; traffic collision reports not used as the basis for criminal charges etc. C+20 GC 34090 Any CLETS entry must be canceled prior to purge if applicable. Applies to Police Reports taken prior to 6-15-1992, prior to Optical Imagining. 001e Traffic Collision Fatality Reports PER GC 34090 Regardless of the medium City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule POLICE DEPARTMENT Department Head: Chief Dennis Burns RIM Coordinator: Lisa Scheff Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSEDE 001e (1) Police Reports/PDF Scanned –All Felonies, high Misdemeanorcases. PER PC 800 PC 801 PC 799 (Felony Capital Crimes punishable by Death, Life Imprisonment PC 1054 Starting 2007 Hard Copies will be kept in conjunction with PDF Prosecution for an offense punishable by imprisonment in state prison for 8 years or more must commence within 6 years after offense commission. Commencement of prosecution defined in PC 804. *Exception: PC 803 – Tolling/Extension of time periods; Appeals process and “Three Strikes” also considerations in assigning retention. 001f (1) Non CriminalNoncriminal Police Reports/PDF Scanned – Lost/Found Property, Injured or sick persons; missing persons where person has returned; traffic collision reports not used as the basis for criminal charges etc. C+15 GC 34090 Starting 2007 Reports will be scanned to PDF. Any CLETS entry must be canceled prior to purge if applicable. 001v Arrest/Conviction HS Section 11357 (b), (c), (d), (e) or H&S Section 11360 (b) violations – Occurring after January 1, 1996 Mandatory destruction from date of conviction or date of arrest with no conviction C+2 HS 11361.5 Applicable to convictions occurring after 1-1-1996 or arrests not followed by a conviction occurring after 1-1-1996; Exception: H&S 11357(e), the record shall be retained until a juvenile offender attains 18 years of age – then destroyed pursuant to 11361.5 001l FI Cards – Field interview Cards C+2 GC 34090 Includes photo if taken 001k (1) Daily Bulletins C+2 GC 34090 001e (2) Registrants – Sex, Arson, Narcotics PER DOJ Guidelines Fingerprint Card, Photo and info forwarded to DOJ 001e (3) Criminal Reports (Misdemeanor low Felony) and Domestic Violence Reports C+15 FC 6228(e) GC 34090 Remove property from CLETS, no suspect or open investigations pending MISC REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS 004a Court Board C+1 GC 34090 Court Notices 004b Court Liaison Tracking SystemsList C+2 GC 34090 Booking/Filing Lists and Logs, In/FormalInformal Discovery requests and Correspondence 004c Subpoenas (Duplicate) C+2 GC 34090 Subpoena Duces Tecum (SDT) filed with case Report once completed 004d Statistical – Crime Analysis C+2 GC 34090 Internally generated information using activity logs, citizen calls, and current and past crime statistics. Reports created for a variety of purposes City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule POLICE DEPARTMENT Department Head: Chief Dennis Burns RIM Coordinator: Lisa Scheff Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSEDE 004e Statistical – UCR (Uniform Crime Report) LEOKA, Homicide, Arson, DV, Hate, Arrest & Citation, Death in Custody, Crimes against Senior C+5 GC 34090 Originals to CA DOJ/&FBI 004f Sealed – Adult /Factual Innocent Mandatory Destruction upon and pursuant to Court Order PC 851.8 Does not include letter of finding send to the defendant for grants/denials 004g Property Control Logs C+5 GC 34090 Tracking of items coming into and going out of Property Room not listed in RMS 001j Restraining Orders C or until SUP Destroy after law enforcement actions described in PC 273.5, 273.6, 646.9, 12028.5, 13700 and Family Code Sections 6380-6383 are fulfilled and effective date of Restraining Order has expired 001g Traffic Citations (copies) *Except Juvenile offenderprogram graduates – those not forwarded to court of program successfully completed. C+2 GC 34090 Original is forwarded to court. Agency copy kept for processing. Parking Citations forwarded to Revenue Collections 004h Equipment Records – includes Drager Logs, PAS Records and Radar Calibration Logs, Weapons TERM+2 GC 34090 Retained until termination of equipments use; Manuals, instructions, procedures, assignments, maintenance 004i License/Permits C+2 GC 34090 Parade, Noise Exemption, Special Events, Block Party, Taxi, Masseuse., Second Hand Dealer. No lLonger Iinterested forms to be sent to DOJ for applicant expired applicant information. 004j Warrants: (1) Felony (2) Misdemeanor (3) Infraction Felony – 10 Misdemeanor – 7 Infraction 7 GC 34090 PC 799 PC 800/801 Warrants attaining purge date are sent to Santa Clara Co DA’s office for review of extension of warrant/Active case or purge. All CLETS/AWS systems must be updated or cancelled. 004k NCIC Validations C+2 GC 34090 Copies sent monthly to DOJ 004l Records requests, correspondence, no record C+2 GC 34090 ** The destruction of felony, misdemeanor, and infraction Crime/Supplemental Reports is permitted providing: (1) They do not relateNot related to an unadjudicatedun-adjudicated arrest except for eligible HS 11357 or HS 11360 violations; (2) They do not relateNot related to unservedun-served warrants; (3) They do not involve identifiable items which have not been recovered; (4) The do notNot related relate to PC 290, PC 457.1, or HS 11590 Registrants; City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule POLICE DEPARTMENT Department Head: Chief Dennis Burns RIM Coordinator: Lisa Scheff Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERSEDE (5) They do notNot related relate to violations listed in PC Sections 799 and PC 800; (6) The cases are not presently involved in either a known civil or criminal litigation./Evidence City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Department Head: Glenn RobertsMike Sartor RIM Coordinator: Karen DavisLisa Navarret Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATION 001 002 BUDGET Budget Change Requests Work Papers SUP Duplicate of Administrative Services 002 003 GENERAL Correspondence Customer Responses Division Head Meeting Agendas Membership Information C+2 GC 34090 003 004 OTHER DEPARTMENTS City Manager Reports Retention Schedule While useful Duplicate of City Manager’s Office City Clerk’s Office 004 001 001 PERSONNEL Confidential Documents Division Head Evaluations While useful Duplicate of Human ResourcesPeople Strategy and Operations (PSO) AIRPORT AGREEMENTS/CONTRACTS While usefulPER Duplicate of Administrative Services (ASD) and City Clerk (CLK) BUDGET Budget Change Requests PER Duplicate of Administrative Services Department: Office of Management & Budget CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS a)Project Files, Work Orders, Schedules, Bidders List, Correspondence, Change Order b)Specifications, Reports Plans, Contracts and Subdivisions PER Life of Structure CONTRACTS PER Duplicate of Administrative Services and City ClerkASD and CLK GENERAL Correspondence Membership Information Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) C+2 GC 34090 GRANTS Applications Awards PER OPERATIONAL REPORTS Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly and Annually C+4 GC 34090 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) PERMITS PER STAFF Evaluations Personnel Action Forms SUP Duplicate of Human ResourcesPSO City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Department Head: Glenn RobertsMike Sartor RIM Coordinator: Karen DavisMitchellLisa Navarret Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE TENANT FILES Applications Payments/Receipts Log Leases PER ENGINEERING SERVICES 005 013 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Boundaries & Rolls PER GC 34090 006 020 BENCHMARK DATA Horizontal, Vertical & Control PER GC 34090 Department Opinion 007 011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS a) Project Files, Work Orders, Schedules, Bidders List, Correspondence, Change Order b) Specifications, Reports Plans, Contracts and Subdivisions c) Street Reports PER Life of Structure 008 014 CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE PER GC 34090 Duplicate of City ClerkCLK 009 010 CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE SUP GC 34090 010 009 ENCROACHMENT PERMITS a) Permanent Encroachments b) Temporary Encroachments PER C+2PER GC 34090 Temporary Encroachment Permits are kept for 2 years 011 012 FLOOD ZONE Elevation Certificates & Letter oOf Map Amendments PER GC 34090 012 017 MAPS – Annexations, Park Dedication, Tract, & Block SUP GC 34090 Keep current map version only 013 NEW PERSONNEL Evaluations Personnel Action Forms SUP Duplicate of Human ResourcesPSO 014 018 PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS C+2 GC 34090 015 016 SOIL REPORTS PER Department Opinion 016 008 STREET WORK PERMITS PER GC 34090 017 015 SUBDIVISIONS a) Agreements b) Parcels and Subdivision Maps PERWhile Useful C GC 34090 Duplicate of CLK Keep current map version only City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Department Head: Glenn RobertsMike Sartor RIM Coordinator: Karen DavisMitchellLisa Navarret Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 018 019 SURVEYS – Recording Data and Maps PER GC 34090 Department Opinion ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE SERVICES Watershed Protection 019 022 ENVIRONMENTAL FILES PER Department Opinion Discharger pPermits and permit support documents Permit expiration or facility closure + 3 years 40CFR Federal Pretreatment Regulations 020 021 INDUSTRIAL WASTE PERMIT FILESOther discharger data and records PERC+2 40CFR Federal Pretreatment RegulationsDepartment Opinion Water Quality Control Plant 035 033 FLOW Discharge Data & Reports PER Department Opinion 036 030 MAINTENANCE Flow Strip charts, Instrument Calibrations, Operations, Maintenance & Laboratory Records, & Crane Maintenance and Certification, State Certification C+4 Department Opinion 037 032 NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) – Permits and Reports PER Department Opinion 038 034 PERMITS Pressurized Vessels, Air & Industrial Waste C+4 GC 34090 039 031 SAFETY Meetings and Training and accident reports Routine tailgate topics PER C+4 GC 34090 040 NEW SEPTIC & RECLAIMED WATER Permits, Fees, Billings C+4 GC 34090 Department Opinion NEW PERSONNEL Staff with accident report, accident investigation, or important disciplinary matter resulting in change of policy Duplicate of Human Resources on termination date + 10 years for inactive employeesTER+3010 Department Opinion Duplicate of PSO City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Department Head: Glenn RobertsMike Sartor RIM Coordinator: Karen DavisMitchellLisa Navarret Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE Zero Waste Landfill Daily Logreports Operator assignments & equipment statusand Maintenance activities C+5 NEW Landfill reports & records monitoring records PER Need from CM NEW Landfill tollbooth receipts C+5 Need from CM NA NEW Household Hazardous Waste Manifest & Reports PER Need from CM NEW SMaRT Station & Kirby contract data C+10 Department Opinion Waste Contractor data – GreenWaste of Palo Alto C+10 Department Opinion PUBLIC SERVICES EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENTEquipment Management 021 029 Transactions – Parts, Fuel, and Gas Tags C+2 GC 34090 022 028 Vehicles – Registrations & DMV Correspondence Life of Vehicle VC 4000 DMV Requirement FACILITIESFacilities Management 023 BUILDING MAINTENANCE Custodial contract City Manager Reports Specifications Bidders List Change Orders Payment Files C+2 GC 34090 024 NEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS a) Project Files, Work Orders, schedules, Bidders List, Change Orders & Correspondence b) Specifications, Reports, Calculations, Plans, & Subdivision, Contracts PER PER CCP 337.15 Department Opinion 025 NEW GENERAL - Correspondence Forms C+2 GC 34090 026 NEW PERSONNEL Division Staff Schedules Personnel Action Forms Injury/Accident Reports TER Originals to HRPSO, copy kept in individual’s file until employee termination City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Department Head: Glenn RobertsMike Sartor RIM Coordinator: Karen DavisMitchellLisa Navarret Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 027 NEW REPORTS Quarterly Summary of maintenance labor and material costs for Parking Lots C+2 GC 34090 028 022 SUBJECT FILES Internal Working Files C+2 GC 34090 029 NEW WORK REQUESTS Labor and Material Tracking Key Requests Service Calls C+2 GC 34090 OPERATIONS/REFUSEUrban Forestry OperationsStreets/Sidewalks/Storm Drain 030 026 DAILY REPORTS Operator assignments & equipment status C+5 032 025 Storm drain Work orders C+5 033 027 Tree line clearing, landscaping plans, pesticide spraying, inventory & irrigation plans C + 2 034 NEW WORK ORDERS Streets, sidewalk, signs, sweeping, trees C+5 WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT 035 033 FLOW Discharge Data & Reports PER Department Opinion 036 030 MAINTENANCE Flow Strip charts, Instrument Calibrations, Operations, Maintenance & Laboratory Records, & Crane Maintenance and Certification, State Certification C+4 Department Opinion 037 032 NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) – Permits and Reports PER Department Opinion 038 034 PERMITS Pressurized Vessels, Air & Industrial Waste C+4 GC 34090 039 031 SAFETY Meetings and Training C+4 GC 34090 040 NEW SEPTIC & RECLAIMED WATER Permits, Fees, Billings C+4 GC 34090 Department Opinion City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 001 a) a) Dailies b) Time Cards (?) c) WGW Stand-by/Call Out Time Report d) Vendor Invoice* e) Staff Minutes f) Correspondence g) Reservations** f) Shipping records Internal vs. Outside Vendor g) Management books, CIP Budget, Working Files, Operating & Safety, Staff Meetings, Correspondence, Budget Change Requests, Journal Entries Shipping Receipts, Depreciation, Proof of Publication C+2 GC 34090 Duplicate of Purchasing *Duplicate of Accounts Payable **Duplicate of Stores Warehouse b) Master Plans PER Department Opinion WGW Ops Dailies WGW Ops Stand-by/Call Out Time Report Shipping records Internal vs. Outside Vendor C+2 C+2 C+2 Department Opinion SUBJECT FILES 002 Policies, Procedures, Processes, Marking Requirements, Engineering Standards, Electric Service Requirements, Cable Specs, Forms, Best Management Practices C+2 GC 34090 Department Opinion 003 Drivers License Records While Useful Duplicate of DMV 004 Other Departments – City Manager Reports, Personnel, Purchase osOrders, Time Cards, Claim Vouchers, Invoices, Abandonments, Annexations, Council Agendas, Unaccepted bids, Finance Reports, Encroachment Permits & Records Retention Schedule While Useful Duplicate records – originating department maintains official documentrecord CONTRACTS 005 Construction & Services/Products over $2585,000 While Useful Duplicate of City Clerk 005 Services/Products under $825,000 TER+5 City Attorney Opinion 005 Unaccepted Bids C+2 GC 34090 Electric and Gas Meter SUP + 7 Duplicate of City Clerk City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE Purchase and Sales Agreements -EEI & NAESB SUP + 7 Department Opinion for retention in Dept. files Renewable Energy Certificate Master Agreement SUP + 7 Duplicate of City Clerk Dept. Opinion for retention in Dept. files Master Agreement – Transaction and/or Confirmation Agreements – including supporting documentation (deal sheet, shopping sheet, authorization etc.) Contract deliveryTER +7 Retained in Utilities Dept. Bilateral Commodity and/or related service agreements Contract deliveryTER + 7 If within City Manager authority, then retained in Utilities Dept. If Council approved, retained in City Clerk’s Office PROJECT FILES 006 Internal working files PER Department opinion RATES 007 Rates – All Services PER Department opinion REFERENCE MATERIALS 008 Weather data, benchmark files While Useful Records & Information produced and/or owned by another department or agency 008 WQCP General Information While Useful Records & Information produced and/or owned by another department or agency 008 Geographical Information System Files While Useful Records & Information produced and/or owned by another department or agency 008 Marketing Materials While Useful Records & Information produced and/or owned by another department or agency 008 Manuals While Useful Records & Information produced and/or owned by another department or agency 008 Vendor Files While Useful Records & Information produced and/or owned by another department or agency 008 US Forest Fire Prev Guide While Useful Records & Information produced and/or owned by another department or agency 008 Gas Research Institute While Useful Records & Information produced and/or owned by another department or agency REPORTS 009 Statistical, sales, annual consumption analysis and various spreadsheets C+2 GC 34090 UTILITY ADVISORY COMMISSION 010 Agenda Do not destroy PER C+2 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE Proof of Publication Minutes of all meetings General Correspondence Proof of Agenda Posting Minutes and Agendas C+2 PER C+2 C+2 Duplicate – clerk’s office has originalof City Clerk 010 Correspondence and Data Tapes C+2 GC 34090 TASK FORCE 011 City of Palo Alto and SCVWD Meetings C+2 GC 34090 SCVWD = Santa Clara Valley Water District 011 Any task force – internal and/or external C+2 GC 34090 METER READINGS 012 Customer Read Cards, Hand-held Readings, Dispatch Slips C+2 GC 34909 012 Hydrant Meter Histories Close of Account + 2 REGULATIONS 013 National Gas Act Pipeline Safety Act Natural Gas Policy Act CVPIA While Useful Duplicate of Other Agency CVPIA = Central Valley Project Improvement Act 013 Correspondence w/ Agency C+2 GC 34090 STUDIES - SURVEYS 014 Gas System Study Distribution Electro Magnetic Field Survey and Energy Case Studies Commodity Resource C+2 GC 34090 CUSTOMER SERVICES 015 Billing RegistersCustomer Correspondence Letters, faxes, emails C+31-C+2 GC 34090 Department Opinion 015 Service Orders: On/Off Changes, Interruptions & Exchanges Service: 1. Residential Service Agreement 1. Residential Service Application 2. Commercial Service Agreement 2. Commercial Service Application 3. Utilities Account Change 3. Make Change to Account 4. Account Closure Request 4. Close Utilities Account 5. Revert to Owner Request 5. Revert to Owner Application 6. Demolition Request C+2 C+3 C+3 PER PER C+3 C+3 C+3PER C+31-C+3 PER PER2-PER C+3 C+3 C+23 3-C+23 PER PER4-C+3 GC 34090 All listed will be scanned and retained electronically 5 – Department Opinion Department Opinion - Keep City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 6. Demolition Application 7. Temporary Power 7. Temporary Power Application 8. Hydrant Water Application 8. Hydrant Meter Application NMN C+3 C+35-PER C+2 C+26-C+3 C+2 C+27-C+2 8-C+2 015 Claims Against City Billing 1. Consumption Adjustment 1. Correct Misread and Billings 2. Miscellaneous Adjustment 2. ApplyApply Credit or Debit 3. Invoice Cancellation 3. Cancel Rebill Invoice 4. PV Statements 4. Monthly PV Status While useful C+2 C+2 C+2 C+21-C+2 C+2 C+22-C+2 C+2 3-C+2 C+2 Duplicate record of City Attorney All are created and saved on electronic templates 015 Address files Bank drafts 1 WF Bank Draft Confirmation 2 WF Returned Items 3 Bank Draft Applications C+2 C+2 1-C+2 2-C+2 C+23-C+2C+2 C+2C+2 C+2 GC34090 Department Opinion ASD has copies of all previousDuplicate of Admin. Services WF Bbank Iitems 015 Customer Account Histories Credit & Collections 1-Rate Assistance 1-Annual Application Renewal 2-Project Pledge 2-One time Submission 3-Bankruptcy 4-LIHeap 4-LIHeap send discs Close of Account + 2 1-C+12 C+12 PER 2-PER PERPER 3-C+3C+3 4-C+2C+2 C+2C+2 GC 34090 Department Opinion LIHeap = Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Meter Reading 1-Customer Read Cards 1-Reads Submitted by Customers 2-Customer Read Emails 2-Electronic Read Submitted by Customers 3-On/and Off Orders 3-Electronic in SAP C+1 C+1 PER12 Months C+2 PER2-PER C+2C+1 C+1 C+1C+1 3-C+1 Department Opinion City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE CONSTRUCTION 016 Acquisitions, Easement, Design, Drawings, Specifications, Photos, Permits, Soil Reports, Correspondence, Quotes, Payments & Schedules PER GC 34090 Historical CPAU Work Orders As-Built Maps Valve Cards PER Department of Transportation CPAU Work Orders of Abandoned Pipe As-Built Maps of Abandoned Pipe Valve Cards of Abandoned Valves PER Department Opinion ICOMMM Lateral Work Orders ACP Forms C+5 C+5 Department Opinion REGULATORY AGENCIES 017 Reports to Federal Register U.S. Dept of Energy PG&E State Regulatory Agencies (e.g., Public Utilities Commission) California Energy Commission California Air Resource Board C+2 For repsorts required on a period basis, retain for two report cycles GC 34090 REGULATORY RECORDS Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Reports C+5 RWQCB Water Discharge Form C+5 Annual Report for Public Works Storm Water Department Paradigm Data Sheets Cathodic Work Orders Cathodic Protection with Gas Distribution Map Exposed Pipe Reports Steel Pipeline Tapping Coupon Records Annual Report to DOT Emergency Response Plan Operations and Maintenance Manual PER PER PER PER TER+5 C+5 C+5 C+5 Department of Transportation EMPLOYEE TEST RECORDS Gas Operator Qualification C+5 Department of Transportation Employee Water Distribution Certification Employee Water Treatment Certification Employee Backflow Certification Employee Cross Connection Certification C+3 C+3 C+3 C+3 State Welding Record (form 225A) PER Department of Transportation TESTS / INSPECTIONS / SURVEYS City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE Backflow Annual Certifications C+3 State FSR Gas Leak Investigations (818 Form) FSR Stop Card Database Gas Shop Stop Card Water Shop Stop Card C+7 PER PER PER Department of Transportation Gas Receiving Stations Odorant and Oil Drip Water Meter Test Results Gas Meter Test Results Meter Leak Tags Abnormal Operating Conditions (AOC) PER PER PER PER PER PER Department of Transportation Water Quality -Water Sources: Testing Fluoride Summary Ground Water Elevation Bacteriologic Analysis Chemical Analysis Reservoirs, Wells & Rainfall Gauge Water Maintenance Records Water Discharge Form C+10 C+5 C+5 Title 22 CCR 66261.24(a)(7) State CPAU Gas Pipeline Patrol Program CPAU WGW Operations Pre- Tested Pipe Tag (Form 503) CPAU WGW Operations Grade 1 Leak Re-Checks Gas Leakage Survey C+5 PER C+5 C+5 Department of Transportation GAS UTILITY 018 Gas leaks: Investigations Reports Survey Specifications Control Programs Leak Surveys CPAU WGW Operations Grade 1 Leak Re-Checks CPAU Gas Pipeline Patrol Program Gas Leakage Survey C+5 Department Opinion and Department of Transportation PERMANENT RECORDS 019 Equipment Records Life of Equip + 2 GC 34090 019 General Information Regulating Specifications & Testing Gas Leakage Survey PER *Form 503 **Form 225A City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE Meter Leak Tag AOC CPAU/WGW Operations Pre-Tested Pipe Tag* Gas/Water Shop Stop Card Odorant & Oil Dip Valve Cards Valve Cards of Abandoned Valve Welding Record ** Gas Receiving Station Form 503 Form 225A GAS OPERATIONAL REPORTS AND PLANS 020 Recording and gas measuring instrument charts – methane regulators Inspection Maintenance Emergency plans Periodic reports Logs & Surveys C+5 Department Opinion 021 Natural Gas Vehicle: Articles, Equipment, Maintenance and Legislation On site for life of vehicle + 2 GC 34090 022 Odorization Records: Gas Odorant C+2 GC 34090 023 Corrosion Program: Program Information, Correspondence and Golden Gate Committee C+5 Department Opinion 024 Soil: Reports, Measurements and Investigations PER Do Not Destroy 025 Gas Receiving Station: Pressure Charts C+5 026 Gas Main Replacement PER Department Opinion Refer to Series 016 retention requirements for Gas Main Replacement Construction Projects 027 Service Orders: Repairs, Replacement and Installation of Gas Mains and Service C+2 GC 34090 028 Valve Cards: Triangulated Location of Main Service Valves While Current SUP Department Opinion WATER Backflow Tests Emp. Backflow Certification Emp. Cross Connection Certification. Annual test certification Certification for Testing Backflow Devices Cross Connection Control C+3 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE Specialist Emp. Water Distribution Emp Water Treatment Operator Certification C+3 029 027 Water Reclamation Projects PER Department Opinion Refer to Series 016 retention requirements for Gas Main Replacement Construction Projects 030 028 Feasibility Study: Analysis and Design PER Department Opinion 031 028 Water Main Replacement PER Department Opinion Refer to Series 016 retention requirements for Gas Main Replacement Construction Projects 032 030 Soil Investigation: Reports, Measurements and Investigations PER Department Opinion Refer to Series 016 retention requirements for Gas Main Replacement Construction Projects 033 031 Water Quality -Water Sources: Testing Fluoride Summary Ground Water Elevation Bacteriologic Analysis Chemical Analysis Reservoirs, Wells & Rainfall Gauge PER Department Opinion Historical Data 034 032 Magnetic Field System Network: Technical Fiber Optic Conduit Program PER GC 34090 035 033 Water Production: Production Reports Pumping Stations Cross Connection Logs Inspection Reports Seismic Evaluations C+2 GC 34090 036 035 Specifications: Asbestos Cold Water Meter & Displacement Velocity Term of SPEC+2 GC 34090 037 036 San Francisco Water Department: Analysis & Contract Rates Public Utilities Commission: Analysis & Contract Rates While Useful Duplicate of San Francisco Water DepartmentPublic Utilities Commission 038 037 Water Quality San Francisco Bay Regional Board C+2 GC 34090 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 039 038 Water System Acquisition PER GC 34090 DO NOT DESTROY 040 039 Water Usage Reports C+10 GC 34090 5 years on site & 5 years off site 041 040 Lead & Copper Compliance C+12 Keep 5 years on site & 7 years off site 40 CFR 141.9 5 Years on site + 7 years off site 042 Service Orders: Repair, Replacement, Installation of Water Mains, Service and Related Facilities C+2 GC 34090 043 Valve Cards Valve Cards of Abandoned Valve: Triangulated Locations of Main and Service Valves Stock card form completed when a valve is installed/replaced in the infrastructure. It displays on the front the size, material, type, depth, etc. and on the back a drawing with measurements from other permanent landmarks, such as manhole, catch basin, other valves, etc. C+2 SUP Department Opinion Water Meter Test Results Meters tested in test/out test/QC PER WASTE WATER ENGINEERING 044 041 Sanitary Sewer Replacement PER Department Opinion Refer to Sanitary Sewer Replacement Construction Projects 045 042 Waste Water Master Plan PER Department Opinion 046 043 Water Discharge Form Treatment and Discharge Form to document the unplanned discharges to the Portable Water System. This form is used to complete the data sent to Joe Teresi in August of every year C+5 Title 22 CCR 66261.24(a)(7) 047 044 Inspection Records C+3 Department Opinion 048 045 Dewatering: Correspondence & Reports C+2 GC 34090 049 046 Analysis: Bacteriological & Chemical C+10 Keep 5 years on site & 5 years off Department Opinion 5 years on site + 5 years off site City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE site 050 047 Permits Life of Permit +2 GC 34090 051 Service Orders: Repair, Replacement and Installation of Mains, Laterals and Manholes C+2 GC 34090 ACP Form Form to document the disposal of Asbestos concreate pipe from the infrastructure C+2 Currently entered in SOGEN database WASTE WATER ENGINEERING As Built Maps/As built maps of Abandoned Pipe CPA Utilities Work Order CPA Utilities Work Order of Abandoned Pipe FSR Stop Card Database Plans document the utility pipe construction of major infrastructure projects Form to document the type of work performed/completed Daily Stops (Calls/Notification) PER Infrastructure/DOT ELECTRIC UTILITY 052 048 Electric – Circuit Map, Electric Distribution, Street Light Block, EV Charger Maps Maps: Electric Distribution, Pole Test Block, Distribution Block, Street Light Block, Hardwire and Coax C+2 Current while active,+ 2 years off site GC 34090 Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup 053 049 Underground District: Transmission Line Logs & Correspondence C+2 GC 34090 054 050 Work Orders: Pacific Bell, Cable Co-op, PG&E, and Intents PER Department Opinion 055 051 Acquisitions, Design, Drawings, Specs, Permits, Correspondence quotes, Payments & Schedules CIP/Construction PER Department Opinion - Historical Refer to CIP Construction Projects 056 052 Electric Vehicles: Power Delivery Records Life of Vehicle +2 off site GC 34090 057 053 Street Lights: Lighting, Program Materials C+2 GC 34090 058 Joint Pole Applications TER+5 Department Opinion City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 054 Customer Service Projects Applications Plans, Invoices C+2 ELECTRIC OPERATIONS 059 Compliance/Inspection/Locating *Field Switch/Man on Line Logs*Overhead/UndergroundCompliance Records *Underground Service AlertNotices a. Completed Ticketsb. Original Email Notices PER PER C+6 C+1 C+1 oOn site C+1 on site On siteEmails – 1 year 060 Customer Service – UCC *Dispatch Logs PER Electronic copy on S drive Safety/Security *Daily Worksite Safety TailboardCheck List C+6 Current year On site 061 Street Lights/Traffic Signal/Fiber *S.R.O – Street Lights*Notifications – SL & TS*Maintenance W.O. – TS ?C+7 SAP 059062 055 Substations a)Equipment (transformers,switches, breakers, capacitors & relays Specifications Inspection Inventory Replacement Disposal Life of Equip +2 Department Opinion Duplicate stored offsite as vital copy backup 059063 055 Substations b) b). Operations: troubleshooting,line logs, load reports, power factor, fences & cost data C+6 (Current +3 on site & 3 offsite) 18 CFR Sections 125.3(23) & 125.3(26) Inspection records and equipment test records stored electronically on F:drive C+3 on site + 3 years off site 059064 055 Substations c) c). Relay and fuse curves, faultcurrent, calculations, supervisory control, automation and distribution automation (SCADA) and Control Information C+2 GC 34090 Duplicate stored offsite as vital backup copy MARKETING SERVICES 060 063 Program Development PER Department Opinion 061 Customer ApplicationsCustomer C+2 GC 34090 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE 064 Files Smart Energy Program CAP PV Partners Program Solar Water Heating Program Solar Water Heating Loan Program 1970 – 1990 Palo Alto Green Program Palo Alto Green Gas/New PA Green Fiber Program Customer Applications Rebate Application & agreement Rebate Applications Old Program – files at The State Old 10 yr program – Applications Customer Applications Signed agreements C+2PER C+2PER C+2PER C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2 C+2PER Department Opinion – Keep Department Opinion – Keep Department Opinion – Keep Department Opinion – Keep Duplicate of City Clerk 062 065 Solar Energy – weather program files Vendor contract invoices 3rd Party Programs Monthly/qrty/annual electronic records While contract is in effect TER+6 Life of program + 3 onsite + 4 offsite Department Opinion Department Opinion 063 066 Insulation: Inspection records, Project cards, Addresses, Declaration of Service, Cellulose Test Report Key Account Engineering Audit Reports BI Reports Pcard receipts C+2 C+2 C+2 GC 34090 Department Opinion -Keep 064 067 Public Outreach Booklets, pProgram marketing materials (low flush, commercial lighting, resource conservation services methodology, fluorescent lighting & partners program) Customer Workshops & Facility Manager Meetings C+6 3 years onsite & 3 years offsite C+2 Department Opinion SUPPLY RESOURCE GROUP 065070 Settlement Date Commodity Financials: Billings, costs to city, comparisons Invoices/payment records C+6 3 years onsite & 3 years offsiteTIER+2 Electronic PER Department Opinion Keep for two years past contractual limitation of invoice dispute. Only destroy paper copies if electronic records exist. 066071 Regulatory Reference a). reference materials (e.g. – While Useful Duplicate of Other Agency City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE laws, rulings, orders, court cases, settlements, performance based rate making) 069 Risk Management Portfolio management Decision analysis Risk Oversight Committee New Models Standards of ConductFO and BO Transaction oversight Monthly BO reports FO and BO Quarterly reports FO Weekly Reports C+2+3 2 onsite/3 offsite C+6 Department Opinion 070078 Rates Documents Rates/Pricing RatesCost of Service Studies Rate Analysis Transition Cost Recovery Competition Transmission Charge C+3+2 (3 onsite 2 offsite) SUP+7 Department Opinion 072080 Supply AnalysisResource Plans Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan, Gas Long-term Plan, Water Integrated Resource Plan C+3+2 (3 onsite 2 offsite) SUP +2 Department Opinion Adopted plans are duplicate inof City Manager and City Clerk City Clerk’s office as well as staff reports and resolutions Electric Portfolio Models Commodity Costs Protections & Uncertainty Assessment load and resource balance supply costs transmission cost interconnection agency costs hydrology plant operation and maintenance regulatory costs C+7 for annual budget models Maintained in electronic models – overwritten as necessary Electric Procurement Plan Procurement Plans – Needs Analysis Load/Resource Balance Targets Authorizations C+5 Department Opinion Voluntary Certification and Verification Reports to certifying and verifying agencies such as The Climate Registry for GHG C+7 City of Palo Alto Records Retention Schedule UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department Head: Val Fong RIM Coordinator: Jennie Castelino Series Description Total Retention Statutory Reference Remarks C= CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR COUNCIL APPROVAL: PER=PERMANENT TER=TERMINATION SUP=SUPERCEDE inventory and for Carbon Neutral Plan (Electric Power Sector) Reports from certifying and verification agencies such as audit reports R&D Program PET Projects related documentation C+6 years Policies Analysis of plans, programs and policies that become adopted by Council Minimum C+2 or while useful Department Opinion CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL EXCERPT DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 1 Special Meeting November 16, 2015 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:03 P.M. Present: Berman arrived at 5:41 P.M., Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach Absent: Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Agenda Item Number 7- Adoption of a Resolution Revising the Citywide Records Retention Schedule… removed from the Agenda at the request of Staff to be heard on December 7, 2015 with changes as outlined in At Place Memorandum. Consent Calendar 7. Adoption of a Resolution Revising the Citywide Records Retention Schedule and Repealing Resolution No. 8688. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned in recognition of people around the world who have died as the result of terrorism, particularly, but not limited to those in Paris, France at 11:04 P.M. TO: FROM: DATE: CITY OF PALO ALTO HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL BETH MINOR, CITY CLERK NOVEMBER 16, 2015 [ Placed Before Me.eting ( ] Received at Meeung 7 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7-Adoption of a Resolution Revising the Citywide Records Retention Schedule and Repealing Resolution Number 8688 Staff requests this item be pulled to allow us time to prepare a cover document, designed to be readable and understandable to the general public, that clearly identifies important City records that are retained permanently. At the same time we will also correct under the City Clerk's section that meeting DVD's will be retained permanently. Staff will bring this back to Council on the Consent calendar: n December 7, 2015. Beth Minor City Clerk City of Palo Alto (ID # 6399) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/7/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Stanford Fire Agreement 3rd Amendment Title: Approval of Amendment Number Three to the Palo Alto-Stanford Fire Protection Agreement with the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Extending the Term for One Year for a Total Fee of $6.5 Million, and Approval of a Related Budget Amendment Ordinance Reducing the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve by $675,000 to Offset a Reduction in FY 2016 Fire Department Revenues From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council approve the Third Amendment to the Palo Alto- Stanford Fire Protection Agreement with the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (“Stanford”) in the amount of $6.5 million for the extended term of one year through October 8, 2016 and approval of the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance. Background The City of Palo Alto has provided fire protection services to Stanford University since 1976, when the City’s fire department and Stanford’s private fire protection company were consolidated. Under this agreement, either party may terminate the Agreement by providing written notice to the other party. The Agreement was amended in 1981 and restated in 2006 related to services provided to the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC). In 2012, fire protection services to SLAC were transitioned from the City of Palo Alto to the Menlo Park Fire Protection District. On October 8, 2013, Stanford notified the City that it was exercising its option to terminate the Agreement effective at least one year, and no more than two years, from the date of notice. Stanford subsequently solicited proposals from other fire protection service providers, but to date has not selected an alternative provider. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Discussion Representatives from the City and Stanford have met periodically to discuss alternative service and cost allocation models for current and future service requirements, but were unable to reach agreement on terms prior to termination of the Agreement. The recommended Amendment will provide the time needed to facilitate negotiation of financial terms for a new Agreement. Resource Impact City and Stanford negotiators have tentatively agreed that the City will continue to provide fire protection services during the one-year extension for the fee of $6.5 million. In agreeing to this fee, the parties have acknowledged that a new negotiated Agreement could result in a different annual cost allocation to Stanford, and may involve reconciliation of payments made by Stanford since discontinuance of the City of Palo Alto providing fire protection services to SLAC. The current fiscal year 2016 budget anticipates a higher revenue from Stanford equal to $7.4 million. Since the contract extension is effective Oct. 9, 2016, the revenue loss for Fiscal Year 2016 is approximately $675,000. In order to reflect the lower revenues during the one-year Amendment, the Fire Department is developing an alternative staffing strategy that is expected to maintain response performance while reducing expenses. Once this strategy is finalized, the Department will meet and confer with the International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1319. Staff anticipates to bring forward for City Council consideration the staffing reductions to offset the revenue loss as part of the Fiscal Year 2016 Midyear Budget Review report. In the meantime, the Fire Department will continue to keep six positions vacant. To address the revenue loss for Fiscal Year 2016, staff recommends approval of the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance which reflects a reduction in revenue of $675,000 offset with a reduction to the Budget Stabilization Reserve. Policy Implications The recommended Amendment will provide time for the City and Stanford to reach mutually agreeable terms for the continued provision of fire protection services into the future. The current Agreement has demonstrated the efficiency and mutual benefit to both agencies gained by integrated services on campus and throughout the City; therefore, approval of the Amendment is in the City’s best interest to complete negotiations and establish a new Agreement. Attachments: Attachment: BAO XXXX - Stanford Fire Services Contract (DOCX) 1 XXXX/so Revised November 17, 2015 Ordinance No. XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 TO REDUCE THE REVENUE FROM STANFORD UNIVERSITY FOR FIRE SERVICES BY $675,000 TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OPERATING BUDGET OFFSET WITH A REDUCTION TO THE BUDGET STABILIZATION RESERVE. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 15, 2015 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2016; and B. The City of Palo Alto has provided fire protection services to Stanford University since 1976, when the City’s fire department and Stanford’s private fire protection company were consolidated; and C. On October 8, 2013, Stanford notified the City that it was exercising its option to terminate the Agreement effective at least one year, and no more than two years, from the date of notice; and D. Representatives from the City and Stanford have met periodically to discuss alternative service and cost allocation models for current and future service requirements, but were unable to reach agreement on terms prior to termination of the Agreement; and E. The Fiscal Year 2016 Budget assumed revenue for Fire Services in the amount of $7.4 million; and F. Staff anticipates that the recommended extension of the agreement to October 8, 2016 for $6.5 million in revenue will provide the time needed to facilitate negotiation of financial terms for a new Agreement; and G. The estimated revenue loss to the City from Stanford for Fiscal Year 2016 is $675,000. SECTION 2. Therefore, revenue of Six Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($675,000) is hereby reduced in the Fire Department Operating Budget offset with a decrease to the Budget Stabilization Reserve. SECTION 3. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. 2 XXXX/so Revised November 17, 2015 SECTION 4. The actions taken in this ordinance do not constitute a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ____________________________ Fire Chief ATTACHMENT B The contract will be a late packet delivery on Thursday, December 2, 2015. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6333) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/7/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Planning Codes Update Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Review and Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Land Use Related Portions of Titles 16 and 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Purposes of the Code Amendments and Additions are to: (1) Improve the Use and Readability of the Code, (2) Clarify Certain Code Provisions, and (3) Align Regulations to Reflect Current Practice and Council Policy Direction. The Affected Chapters of Title 16 Include but are not Limited to Title 16 (Building Regulations), Chapters 16.20 (Signs), 16.24 (Fences), and 16.57 (In-Lieu Parking Fees for New Non-Residential Development in the Commercial Downtown (CD) Zoning District)), and Title 18 (Zoning), Chapters 18.01 (Adoption, Purposes and Enforcement), 18.04 (Definitions), 18.08 (Designation and Establishment of Districts), 18.10 (Low Density Residential RE, R-2 and RMD Districts), (18.12 (R-1, Single Family Residence District), 18.13 (Multiple Family Residential (RM-15, RM-30, RM- 40) Districts)), 18.14 (Below Market Rate Housing Program), 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus), 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial (CN,CC and CS) Districts)), 18.18 (Downtown Commercial (CD) Districts)), 18.20 (Office, Research and Manufacturing (MOR, ROLM, RP and GM) Districts)), 18.23 Performance Criteria for Multiple Family, Commercial, Manufacturing and Planned Community Districts), 18.31 (CEQA Review - a new Chapter), 18.34 (PTOD Combining District Regulations), 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions), 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), 18.70 (Non-conforming Uses and Non-complying Facilities), 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), and 18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft ordinance containing City of Palo Alto Page 2 proposed amendments to planning codes contained within the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Titles 16 and 18 (Attachment A) and consider other amendments provided in Attachment E. Executive Summary This report transmits a draft ordinance containing proposed amendments to planning codes contained within the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Titles 16 and 18. These changes represent an effort to annually update the Planning Codes to: Improve administration and readability Clarify code provisions Align regulations to reflect current city policy or past practice Introduce some new, non-controversial, policies These changes are not intended to be controversial or create significant new policy initiatives, though some new policies are proposed, including changes related to single family home development, implementing state housing density bonus laws and items discussed by the Council’s Policy and Services Committee, among others. It is anticipated that this effort will occur annually and items not addressed this year can be addressed in next year’s update, or sooner if directed by Council. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) staff reports provide additional information about this amendment effort. Background The City’s zoning codes were last updated on a comprehensive basis in 2005. For the most part, the code has been implemented as prescribed, but there are some conflicts, outmoded references and changes in city policy that suggests certain amendments are needed. Moreover, there are a number of provisions that are unclear and have led to an inconsistent application of the code to development projects. This effort was intended to recalibrate aspects of the planning codes to improve the administration, ensure greater consistency in implementation, and establish clearer expectations for community members using these codes and those relying on city staff to ensure compliance with the codes. It is anticipated that this will be an annual effort, but that will be determined by Council’s support and other assignments given to the Planning and Community Environment Department in a given year. Importantly, this effort is not intended to establish new policy, but there are some amendments proposed that will change the way the city applies certain code provisions. These amendments are requested because they represent immediate challenges faced by city staff and experienced in the community almost on a daily basis. These items will be elaborated upon further in the report, but include topics related to basements and additions/alterations to existing single family homes. Other proposed new policies are intended to improve transparency and create clear processes for how to make future planning code interpretations. City of Palo Alto Page 3 The attached ordinance (Attachment A) reflects the PTC recommendation. One of the overriding themes of this effort during the PTC public hearings was to advance only those items that are noncontroversial; these ‘Tier 1’ items are contained in the draft ordinance, and also shown in Attachment B. Staff introduced the public to this effort in a noticed PTC study session on September 9, 2015. The PTC then conducted noticed public hearings on the subject code changes on September 30, October 14 and October 28, 2015. Staff has provided excerpted meeting minutes of the PTC hearings as Attachment D. The four PTC staff reports are available at the following website address: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp The initial draft ordinance presented to the PTC included a placeholder item to implement State density bonus law that becomes effective in January 2016. This item, ‘additional parking incentives for transit oriented projects’ is included in the draft ordinance and now appears on the Tier 1 matrix. Included further in this report are other provisions the Council may want to discuss and consider adding to the ordinance, or discuss at a future meeting following outreach and PTC discussion. The Tier 2 list of amendments (Attachment C) can be expanded upon and addressed at a future update, though some of the Tier 2 items are independent projects that require outreach, funding or more time to analyze and would not likely be included in an annual code update effort. Staff has identified on that matrix items believed to be suitable for future efforts. This list can be further refined with the City Council reviews the department work programs as part of the budget cycle. Discussion Administrative Changes The attached ordinance includes several modifications to the planning codes. Nearly half of the amendments are ‘administrative’ meaning they correct typographical errors, cross section references, add or delete words or punctuation to clarify intent or improve awkwardly written sentences. Further explanation for these changes can be found on Attachment B, which contains a matrix of all the proposed changes included in the ordinance; this list has been referred to as the Tier 1 Matrix. Reference numbers 1 – 24 represent the administrative changes. This matrix also includes references back to the draft ordinance pages with the proposed language to implement the change. Interpretations Another group of changes are identified as ‘interpretations’. These are code changes that reflect current practice, but are not written in the code. A brief explanation for these changes is provided below and is included in the Tier 1 Matrix, reference numbers 25 – 30. Wall Sign (Matrix #25) The definition of a wall sign is being modified to explicitly state signs atop canopies are considered wall signs and do not require approval of a sign exception, as had been past City of Palo Alto Page 4 practice. More recently, staff has been interpreting such signs as wall signs. The code already allows signs to be placed below a canopy. The pictures below illustrate the type of sign that would be expressly allowed and not require a sign adjustment: Projecting Sign Standards (Matrix #26) The code permits blade or projecting signs, but only if located under canopy. Approval of a sign exception is required to place a blade sign when there is no canopy overhead. The proposed change would allow these signs to be established without the need for a sign exception or a canopy structure above as illustrated in the following photographs: Gross Floor Area Definition – Related to Stairs and Elevators (Matrix #27) The code is unclear how to address floor area when stairs or elevators are placed in non- residential structures. The proposed code amendment ensures that such floor area is counted. This reflects a longstanding policy. Usable Open Space (Matrix #28) The code requires useable open space for some projects, however the code does not define City of Palo Alto Page 5 what this means. Open space has been approved in projects when the open space is open to the sky above but surrounded by walls, and when covered by a roof but not enclosed on the sides. This amendment seeks to add more specificity to this practice. Architectural Projections (Matrix #29) The code does not permit first floor bay windows within a street side yard setback, but allows a three foot projection into the required front yard setback. This change allows design flexibility for a limited encroachment of bay windows into street side yards. Multiple Family Development Standards Related to Minimum Density (Matrix #30) The code establishes a range of densities that are permitted in the RM-15, RM-30 and RM-40 zone districts: eight to 15 dwelling units (DUs) per Acre, 16-30 DUs/Acre, and 31-40 DUs/Acre, respectively. However, in practice, the city has allowed development to occur below that range. The code amendment simply clarifies that a range of densities is permitted, but shall not exceed the maximum density for the zone. New Policy A third group of changes included in the ordinance are identified as ‘New Policy’. These can be found in Tier 1 Matrix 31 – 50. These amendments are labeled new policy to draw people’s attention to the fact that these changes deviate to varying degrees from current code or practice. Staff intends that these modifications will reflect city policy, or would improve staff administration of the code, improve project review, and address some challenges that frequently arise at the public counter. Some of these changes also reflect changes in state law. Concurrent to this process, the City Council also directed the Policy & Services Committee to review some possible code amendments related to director’s approval appeal processes; these too are included in the draft ordinance. Interpretations (Matrix #31) When drafting zoning regulations it is difficult to foresee every possible application and as a result, planning staff is routinely asked to issue code interpretations. This is typical for most jurisdictions. However, the city’s code does not establish a process for how formal interpretations are documented and does not provide a path for some aggrieved person(s) to appeal an interpretation. Moreover, past practice has lacked transparency in providing those interpretations to the public. The proposed amendment establishes a process whereby the director can issue a formal determination, which would be available online and give people an opportunity to appeal that interpretation directly to the Council. If the Director’s decision is not appealed, it becomes binding on future projects. Likewise, any interpretation ruled on by Council also becomes binding on future projects. It is anticipated interpretations would then be included in future annual code updates. Use Classifications (Matrix #32) City of Palo Alto Page 6 A new Section 18.08.080 (Interpretation of Land Use Classifications) is added to address situations where a proposed use does not correspond with the existing use classifications described in the Definitions chapter. As the Council indicated in their recent discussion of the Land Use Element, the Zoning Code’s existing classifications are outdated and do not reflect the current range of existing uses. While the Comprehensive Plan update will look at this issue in more detail, the proposed regulations authorize the Director to make reasonable interpretations on whether a land use is similar to other permitted or conditionally permitted uses. To make this process more transparent, this regulation also provides for direct appeals to the Council, similar to the process described above. Gross Floor Area Exclusions – ADA Accessibility, On-Site Laundry Facilities (Matrix #33) The Gross Floor Area Exclusions definition has no maximum restriction on the amount of accessible area that may be excluded from gross floor area calculations. It also does not prevent this excluded area from being recaptured in new construction on a property. This can be problematic when a building is torn down in the future, given that building interiors are changed over time with only building permit reviews, and later these buildings can be replaced with buildings having the same amount of gross floor area. This change is to clarify it is only the incremental area required to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is excluded. This change would impose a one-time cap of 500 square feet and restrict the re-use of this exempt area in rebuilds on the site. This change also would replace the term ‘dry cleaners’ with the term ‘on-site laundry facilities’ as being exempt from floor area. Currently the ADA upgrade area within the Definitions section of the code only applies to zones other than the CD zone. This change would define and limit the amount of excluded floor area, and prevent re-use of such area in rebuilds. Noise Producing Equipment Replacement, Chapters 18.10 (Matrix #34) and 18.12 (Matrix #35) Many homes have mechanical equipment, such as air conditioning units, in required setbacks. Today’s code prohibits the placement of mechanical equipment in required setbacks. As this equipment fails, owners and tradespeople seek a permit to replace it in the same location, but are unable to obtain a permit from the city due to its location. This may lead to units being replaced without permits or the continuation of underperforming equipment. In any event, this solution does not seem to benefit anyone. The purpose of this amendment is to allow the replacement of legally established mechanical equipment even if located in areas not permitted by today’s code. Staff has also heard that homeowners believe such equipment should be allowed closer to rear yard property lines, since it is allowed to be located six or eight feet from side property lines depending upon the zone district. In the original Tier 1 matrix, staff proposed to also allow noise-producing equipment eight feet from the rear property line, but this was deferred to Tier 2 by the PTC. Single Story Overlay Rezone Application Fee Deletion (Matrix #36) City of Palo Alto Page 7 This change removes the application fee requirement per Council direction in June 2015. Home Improvement Exception – Wall Retention (Matrix #37) A home improvement exception (HIE) is a permit that allows for a minor addition to a home when the addition itself is not compliant with certain zoning standards. Exceptions are granted to accommodate a significant or protected tree or to protect the integrity of a historic structure. When granting an HIE one criterion requires at least 75% of the existing exterior walls of the residential structure be retained. The purpose of this amendment is to reflect a longstanding practice and explicitly state that the retained walls must include the exterior siding or cladding. (Note: this is distinguished from substantially remodeled or “replaced” homes which are addressed later in this report.) Density Bonus (Matrix #38-40) The Governor recently signed two density bonus bills which are binding on all cities. To implement these state law changes, the attached ordinance contains conforming amendments to the City’s local density bonus law codified at Chapter 18.15. The first bill (AB 2222) provides more protections for affordable units by increasing the required affordability period for rentals from 35 years to 50 years. Matrix item 39 is to increase the affordability period from 30 years to 55 years found in ‘Affordable Units Development Standards’ (Section 18.15.040) and ‘Regulatory Agreement’ (Section 18.15.100). AB 2222 also clarifies that any proposed density bonus project which displaces affordable housing must provide suitable replacement housing on site. The replacement housing must be in addition to any affordable units qualifying for a density bonus or concession. Matrix item 38 is to modify ‘Density Bonus Definitions’ (PAMC Section 18.15.020) to define ‘Replace’. The second bill (AB 744) provides additional density bonus incentives for projects within ½ mile of a transit stop by reducing the parking requirements to 0.5 parking space per each bedroom. The legislation defines transit stop as a site containing an existing rail transit station, the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods and any major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan. Matrix item 40 is to modify ‘Development Concessions and Incentives’ (PAMC Section 18.15.050) to add item (b) “Additional parking incentives for transit oriented projects.” The ordinance also allows the Council to increase the parking requirements if an appropriate parking study is completed. Office Use Restrictions (Matrix #41) This amendment relates to properties zoned CN, CC, and CS. For these properties there are restrictions on when office uses can be established. The section being amended includes a list of conditions that, if met, would allow a certain amount of office to be established. The construction of this section is such that if one meets any one of the criteria, then office can be established. One of the criterion states, for CS zoned properties, if no housing existed on the City of Palo Alto Page 8 property as of a date in 2001, office can be established. This provision overrides other criteria that restrict office conversion if the space was previously occupied by retail, personal services, automobile services, eating and drinking uses in 2001. Consistent with recent Council action regarding efforts to preserve retail and retail-like uses, staff believes an amendment to this section would ensure more of these types of uses are not converted to office and may reflect the original intent of the code. Additionally, staff recommends including the ‘neighborhood business service’ land use to the list of uses noted above that, if existing as of 2001, would not be allowed to convert to office. The caveat to this change is that if office was legally established following 2001 and is in operation today, such office use would be allowed to change to other office uses. Site and Design Review - Unit Threshold (Matrix #42) The Site & Design Review approval process is currently applicable to mixed use projects of more than four units. This requirement applies in the downtown (CD zone, Section 18.18.060 item (b)(1)) and to properties zoned CS or CN (Section 18.16.060 item (b)(1)). The City has received a number of mixed-use projects containing four or fewer dwelling units in recent years. Staff believes the current five-unit threshold for Site and Design Review may be an impediment to getting additional units. Staff proposes raising this threshold to nine units to (1) encourage more density and smaller units in mixed use projects, (2) reduce this potential barrier to rental housing projects, and (3) advance a Housing Element policy that seeks to raise the threshold to nine units. The mixed use projects with less than nine rental dwellings would still be subject to ARB review and a Director’s Decision (and subject to Council appeals). CD Zone District - Exempt Floor Area (Matrix #43) Bonus floor area gained from building improvements intended to meet accessibility (ADA) regulations and to rehabilitate a historic resource is currently exempt from the Gross Floor Area (GFA) calculation and parking requirements. The existing code language does not use the word “existing” to refer to a building “being expanded”. This proposed change would clarify that such GFA and parking exemptions are only for the incremental area added to an existing building (and not to be used for a new building). Grandfathered Facilities (Matrix #44) In 2014, the City Council clarified the city’s intent with regard to grandfathered uses and facilities. Specifically, the Council stated that the Commercial Downtown Zone District regulations Section 18.18.120 ‘Grandfathered Uses and Facilities’ prohibits shifting a “grandfathered” building’s footprint area in the Downtown, including the shifting of below grade floor area to above grade floor area. The proposed amendment updates the code to reinforce this provision. Additionally, staff is recommending with this amendment that the City Council permit minor changes to the building’s footprint, height, length and envelope when such changes represent minor architectural improvements or to improve a building’s pedestrian orientation, provided there is no increase to the degree of any non-complying feature. This change would allow City of Palo Alto Page 9 existing grandfathered facilities to receive minor upgrades that could benefit the larger community. Review of any request would be processed through an Architectural Review permit. CEQA Procedures (Matrix #45) A new Chapter 18.31 (CEQA Review) is added to the Zoning Code to formalize several current CEQA practices: staff approval of certain CEQA documents, incorporation of recent CEQA guidelines and process for CEQA appeals. While it is common practice for the PCE Director to make the CEQA determinations for any project which she has authority to approve, our Code does not expressly grant the Director this authority. The proposed ordinance clarifies that the Director also has the authority to approve environmental documents related to the underlying entitlement. This ordinance reflects current practice, and is made to address a recent court decision holding that this environmental authority should be expressly included in the zoning code. The new section 18.31.010 (Delegation of CEQA Authority) also clarifies that any EIR containing a Statement of Overriding Considerations should be considered by the City Council. This latter caveat also reflects current practice. While the City has been using the current state adopted CEQA Guidelines, it has never updated its zoning code to reflect this practice. Section 18.31.020 (Incorporation of State CEQA Guidelines) of the proposed ordinance repeals Resolution No. 6232 which contains an outdated set of CEQA Guidelines and incorporates the current State CEQA Guidelines. To avoid amending the zoning code every time the State guidelines are updated, the proposed ordinance also adopts by references subsequent amendments to the State guidelines. Finally, PAMC Section 18.31.030 (CEQA Appeals) implements a state law authorizing any person to appeal any CEQA decision directly to the City Council. This provision is also a codification of existing policy. In response to a public member’s suggestion at the PTC meeting, the timing for such appeal corresponds with the timing of the underlying entitlement. If there is no right to appeal the underlying entitlement, the appeal time is 14 days. Architectural Review Approval Findings (Matrix #46) All projects that go before the Architectural Review Board (ARB) are recommended for approval, conditional approval, or denial to the PCE Director. These recommendations and the Director’s determination (and City Council on appeal) are based on 16 required approval findings. The ARB approval findings in the current code are supplemented by Context Based Design Criteria findings and, for some projects, by Design Enhancement Exception findings. It is not uncommon for an ARB level project to be subject to 21 findings. Many of the existing findings have recurring concepts. Some are unnecessary because the city has updated the code since the finding was established. The ARB also recognized these shortcomings. Staff reports to City of Palo Alto Page 10 the ARB have, during the past year, grouped similar findings to facilitate an easier review, reduce writing and reading fatigue, and improve the qualitative analysis of those findings. Findings detail how the local agency evaluated the project and documented its conformance to local plans, regulations and other criteria. Review of a project to the findings enables the ARB to make recommended conditions of approval or project modifications. If a project is appealed, the City Council will review the project findings to affirm, modify or reject the Director conclusions. A similar review is conducted by a judge if a project is challenged in court. For these reasons, project findings are very important when acting on a project. Increasingly, some community members and Councilmembers have asserted a need to improve the analysis provided for project findings. The ARB discussed revised findings during two recent public hearings, on September 3 and October 1, 2015. The ARB has supported staff’s efforts to reduce the number. The ARB discussed the positive aspects of the existing Architectural Review approval findings and had a key role is shaping the new findings proposed in this ordinance The proposed five ARB findings are designed to enhance the review process efficiency and achieve the following benefits: Improve qualitative responses Focus project review on key criteria Provide applicants a better understanding of how projects will be evaluated Reduce writing and reading fatigue (preparing and reviewing redundant findings) Strengthen the legal standing of projects challenged in court Help to address some of the criticisms related to the ARB process and more specifically the findings Reduce, to some degree, the amount of paper generated to print reports. Most projects reviewed by the ARB also are subject to Context Based Design Criteria evaluation in the staff report and findings. Staff will also be reexamining the ARB application checklist, the staff report template, and ARB process. ARB staff reports and minutes on this topic are viewable via these links: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48766 (9-3-15 ARB report) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49026 (9-3-15 ARB minutes) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49218 (10-1-15 ARB report) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49410 (10-1-15 ARB minutes) Request for Hearings – Timeline to Scheduled Council Hearings (Matrix #47) Conditional Use Permits (CUPs), Variance, and Neighborhood Preservation Exceptions (NPEs) receive “tentative” Director Decisions, with a 14 day “effectiveness” period following the decision, during which any aggrieved party may request a PTC hearing followed by Council consent agenda review. Staff proposes to increase days between the PTC hearing and Council City of Palo Alto Page 11 agenda from 30 days to 45 days, to align this work effort with the City’s staff report review process and desire to publish Council reports two weeks in advance of Council meetings. Appeal Process (Matrix #48 and #50) Currently there are several different procedures for appealing staff decisions to the City Council. In response to an earlier direction to the Policy and Services Committee, the proposed ordinance unifies the process for such appeals. The new process codified in Chapter 18.77 follows the same two step appeal process (consent item followed by subsequent hearing), but specifies that three votes are needed to pull an Individual Review or Home Improvement Exception appeal from the consent calendar (lowered from four votes) to align with the Council’s current procedural rules. The proposed ordinance also deletes the option for hearing the appeal based solely on the administrative record. This option was never utilized and limits the community’s ability to provide public input. This change allows for a more predictable process, and eliminates the need for an applicant or appellant team and City consultants to attend a Council meeting unnecessarily. Timelines for Approvals and Forwarding Appeals (Matrix #48-50) Staff has also proposed modification of the timeline between the ARB recommendation to a Director’s decision from three work days to five work days, and an increase in days between receipt of an appeal of a Director’s decision and Council hearing from 30 days to 45 days for similar reasons as stated above. Amendments Deferred to Tier 2 (Attachment E to Staff Report) The PTC identified ten items it believed did not qualify for Tier 1 because there was a need for greater community input; the changes represented a distinct policy shift; or the changes were potentially controversial or generated a significant amount of discussion, which had the potential to stall the overall effort. The PTCs review of the ordinance was consistent with the guidance provided by staff. The Commission was not necessarily opposed to the ten items discussed below, but believed a more robust discussion was required. The draft ordinance that went to the PTC on October 28th included language for nine of the ten items pulled off the Tier 1 matrix. The tenth item was removed from the Tier 1 list early on (on September 30th) and code language was never developed for that item. For eight of the nine following possible amendments, staff prepared ordinance language that can be included in the draft ordinance with majority Council support. This language is provided in Attachment E. All of the items listed in this section are included in the Tier 2 Matrix. This matrix, as noted earlier, also includes other items staff did not have time to address or required more direction from Council. The ten items pulled off Tier 1 by the PTC are summarized below. As noted, the PTC voted to only include prior Tier 1 matrix items within the ordinance. The Attachment E code language also includes four staff-proposed items that were not originally on the Tier 1 matrix that had been inserted into the original draft ordinance. Because City of Palo Alto Page 12 the PTC did not have any discussion regarding the four items and may not have been aware of these additional changes, staff has removed them from the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A). These four items, discussed in the next report section, are: Home Improvement Exception (HIE) Approval Finding #4 (a new HIE finding), Height Exceptions – Rooftop Equipment Screens (two items, in two PAMC Chapters) and Noncomplying Facilities Replacement – wording to address single family home damage and destruction by willful and non-willful means. 1. Definition of Amenity, On-Site Employee (Tier 2 Matrix #3, #6, Attachment E Item 1 and 7) This term is currently undefined in the Definitions Chapter (18.04), but the term is described in other chapters of the Zoning Code. The types of spaces considered employee amenities are cited inconsistently in these other chapters. Parking requirements and floor area calculations are determined with respect to commercial space for properties outside the Commercial Downtown zone district. On-site employee amenity space is often indicated on project plans. Amenity space does not count toward gross floor area and parking requirements. Staff believed providing a definition for on-site employee amenity would be helpful for a broader (future) discussion about what is and is not considered an amenity, what percentage of a building might reasonably be designated as amenity space, and what zones in Palo Alto would be appropriate to allow amenity space to not count toward gross floor area and parking requirements. The current code allows employee cafeterias, when located outside of the CD zone and parking assessment districts, to not count toward gross floor area/floor area ratio and therefore to not require associated parking spaces. Staff’s effort to cite break room as distinct from a small cafeteria was deferred to the Tier 2 effort. Cafeteria space is cited in the code as an on-site employee amenity. The PTC briefly discussed the topic of break rooms related to whether or not they could be the type of on-site employee amenity excluded from gross floor area calculations and parking. Council has noted a concern with the provisions of cafeterias and other on-site employee amenity areas when these are proposed outside of the research park/industrial-office areas of Palo Alto. A related Council concern is the use of a site as a private cafeteria for a Downtown firm, as these cafeterias aren’t open to the general public and they reduce viability of other public eating establishments. This is viewed as a more complex, Tier 2 discussion item. 2. Definition of Footprint (Home Basements) (Tier 2 Matrix #4, Attachment E Item 1) The R-1 Zone regulations for basements (Section 18.12.090) specify that “Basements may not extend beyond the building footprint and basements are not allowed below any portion of a structure that extends into required setbacks, except to the extent that the main residence is permitted to extend into the rear yard setback by other provisions of this code.” The term footprint is defined in the code and means the two-dimensional configuration of a building's perimeter boundaries as measured on a horizontal plane at City of Palo Alto Page 13 ground level. Over time, this has been interpreted to include recessed entries and porches inset or recessed into a corner of the building. More recently, project plans have been submitted to the city with building walls designed in a way to maximize basement area and clearly deviating from the definition provided above. These applications have also generated a significant amount of staff time in discussion with architects regarding the code section and staff interpretations. The topic of basements may warrant a broader community dialogue, however, staff’s intent with this amendment is not to establish policy or initiate that discussion, but simply realign the plain reading of the definition to projects. Adoption of this amendment would establish clear expectations to architects and homeowners and free up staff time debating the code section and past interpretations. 3. Definition of Gross Floor Area - Rooftop Dining (Tier 2 Matrix #5, Attachment E Item 6) The code does not require outdoor café seating to count toward floor area ratio, parking requirements, or gross floor area (GFA). Throughout the city there are businesses with outdoor dining, typically at grade adjacent to a sidewalk. This amendment considered by staff would have no impact to those outdoor dining areas. However, the amendment would modify the code to have rooftop, outdoor dining count toward FAR and, therefore, be subject to parking. Staff considers rooftop dining a significant increase to the use and operation of an eating and drinking establish and recommends code required parking be provided for that use. The ordinance change presented to the PTC recommended rooftop dining area be counted toward gross floor area. This does not accurately reflect staff’s intent and would effectively eliminate any opportunity for rooftop dining to occur. Subsequent to the PTC hearing, staff has revised this language which would amend the parking chapter of the code (PAMC 18.52) to have rooftop area provide parking, but not count toward GFA. Staff recognizes this may have broader policy implications and, while there is one pending application seeking to establish rooftop parking, the immediacy of addressing this issue is not as significant as some other recommendations provided in this report. 4. Contextual Garage Placement (Tier 2 Matrix #11, Attachment E Item 2) The R-1 zone development standards for the placement of new garages based on neighborhood context notes that the locations of existing carports and garages form neighborhood context to determine where new garages may be placed. The code does not specifically state the placement of new carports must follow the same context-based regulation as placement of garages. Staff’s proposal was to clarify the language so placement of new carports would be subject to the same neighborhood context rules in place for garage placement as has been interpreted somewhat inconsistently for several years; however, the PTC noted that there may be unintended consequences that should be studied before implementing such a change. City of Palo Alto Page 14 5. Single Family Individual Review Threshold (Tier 2 Matrix #16, Attachment E Item 2) New second floor decks have been a privacy concern; sometimes a new, large second floor deck has been proposed without associated second floor area. This amendment would have allowed discretionary review of second floor decks to mitigate impacts on neighbors’ privacy. The Individual Review code section applicability language (PAMC 18.18.110, Individual Review) would be clarified to specifically note that second floor roof decks and second floor balconies exceeding 150 square feet in area would also be subject to the Individual Review program. 6. Floor Area Bonuses-Seismic Rehab Bonus Floor Area (Tier 2 Matrix #26, Attachment E Item 3). Staff had proposed code language modifying the CD zone regulations to address floor area bonuses gained via retrofit of seismic category buildings. This item was included to address Council’s concern regarding the provision allowing the granting of a floor area bonus for the replacement of a seismic category building. 7. Non-Complying Facilities Chapter 18.70 (Tier 2 Matrix #6, Attachment E Item 7) Staff had prepared code language in the initial draft ordinance to modify the Non- Complying Facilities section of Chapter 18.70 to implement two changes. One of these changes was removed from the Tier 1 ordinance by the PTC; the change is to include cafeterias and on-site laundry facilities on the list of allowable expansion areas for noncomplying facilities, and to exclude break rooms. The second change, which had been included in the initial Tier 1 matrix as a definition for “Substantial Remodel” had not been included as a Chapter 18.70 change in the revised Tier 1 matrix; this change is discussed in the next report section. 8. Appeal Fee Reduction Chapter 18.77 (Tier 2 Matrix #42, Attachment E Item 8) The change addressing the cost of appeal fees for ARB appeals, IR appeals and HIE appeals was from a Council Policy and Services Committee discussion, as directed by Council. The Council’s Policy and Services Committee (P&S) recently forwarded this item to Council for its discussion. Because amendments to the zoning code require PTC review and recommendation, staff included it with the balance of amendments included with this report. The Policy and Service Committee’s proposal to reduce appeal fees for appeals with more than 25 supporters has been removed from the draft ordinance. Council may wish to discuss this change and direct staff to modify the ordinance in a separate effort, or if a majority supports the Committee’s recommendation, include it in the adoption of this ordinance. 9. Threshold for Multiple Family Units in Mixed Use Projects (Tier 2 Matrix #23; no code language in Attachment E; language was never developed since the PTC pulled 9/30) This item was intended to start a conversation about large penthouse-styled residential City of Palo Alto Page 15 units and explore opportunities to increase the number or residential units provided in mixed use developments by defining mixed use as including multiple family housing. With that distinction, a minimum of three residential units would have been required as part of a project. Staff concurs with the PTC that this is a Tier 2 item that requires a more robust community conversation and this particular contemplated amendment is not consistent with the objectives of this effort. Four Items Staff Introduced as Possible Tier 1 Items on October 28 These items did not appear on the original Tier 1 matrix, but appeared in the original draft ordinance, though the PTC did not discuss them: 1. R-1 Regulation Chapter 18.12 (Tier 2 Matrix #17, Attachment E Item 2) A fourth approval finding for Home Improvement Exceptions (HIEs) was proposed in the original draft ordinance. This provision would evaluate new application requests to other HIEs that were granted for a particular property within the preceding five year period. Staff recalls some instances of granting serial HIE approvals, but not many, and this does not appear to be a significant issue requiring immediate action. However, staff is advancing this for the Council’s consideration. 2. Performance Criteria Chapter 18.23 (Tier 2 Matrix #29, Attachment E Item 4) There is code language in the Performance Criteria chapter regarding rooftop equipment. Staff introduced language in the original draft ordinance to amend this code section to direct the reader to another chapter, the General Standards and Exceptions chapter, which currently allows rooftop equipment screens and other rooftop appurtenances to exceed the height limit for a zone district by 15 feet. This change was viewed as administrative; however, since this code change is related to the Tier 2 item 3 code change described below, it too was removed from the draft ordinance. 3. Exceptions, Height Limit Exceptions Chapter 18.40 (Tier 2 Matrix #23, Attachment E Item 5) This item was to address a growing concern that the code-allowed 15 foot tall rooftop HVAC equipment and screens may be unnecessary for commercial buildings, given equipment technology advances. The Attachment E code language was proposed in the original draft ordinance to restrict the height of rooftop equipment screens to eight feet above the height limit in commercial areas, while still allowing a height of 15 feet for equipment and screens in industrial areas. This change was reviewed by the city’s building official and staff contacted architects who agreed as to its feasibility. 4. Non-Complying Facilities Chapter 18.70 -Single Family Home Replacement (Tier 2 Matrix #38, Attachment E Item 6) This amendment is one of the more significant changes presented to the PTC and would affect how non-complying single family homes are renovated if this provision were enacted. City of Palo Alto Page 16 The existing code includes provisions that allow homes that are non-complying with certain development standards the ability to be enlarged; maintained and repaired; and, replaced. This amendment only addresses replacement of non-complying facilities. A facility is non- complying if it does not meet today’s development standards, such as setbacks, height, floor area, etc. Often a homeowner will seek to retain a non-complying feature, or features of a house, when remodeling a home. The code section that addresses replacement of non-complying features allows these elements to be removed and replaced if the cost of restoring the non- complying feature is less than fifty percent (50%) of the cost to reconstruct that feature in full compliance with code. In the past, staff has not requested data from contractors or homeowners that demonstrates the financial costs of restoring versus reconstructing non-complying features of a home. Instead, staff created an interpretation that was borrowed in part from the Home Improvement Exception section of the code, which in summary states that only twenty-five percent (25%) of a home’s walls may be removed. The intent was that at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the home will have cladding or siding and that one could not ‘see-though’ the building. This interpretation expanded over time to allow fifty percent (50%) of the walls to be removed if the changes were located toward the rear of the property. The underlying objective trying to be achieved is that significant work to a non-complying home that exceeds this threshold would need to comply with current zoning regulations and the non-complying features abated. While an architect can draw plans that meets the planning staff’s interpretation, in practice, it is very difficult for a contractor to satisfy this requirement. A variety of building and technical codes related to how the homes are constructed, energy efficiencies, and sustainability objectives results in more wall area being removed than anticipated. Also, the discovery of termite, water, and dry rot damage creates a need for more unanticipated work. Further complicating this issue is that the interpretation used over the years is not found in the code. And, when challenged, it is difficult for staff to require a home that has exceeded this threshold to be restored in compliance with the code. This creates an ineffective way of regulated non-complying facilities. The purpose of this amendment was to modify the regulations related to single family homes that have non-complying features that are intended to be retained during a renovation. The amendment seeks to provide clarity, establish clear expectations and better inform homeowners, architects, and contractors what the standards and rules are for residential remodels. City of Palo Alto Page 17 The draft language presented to the PTC has been modified. Attachment E includes the full amendment in context to other sections of the ordinance. However, provided below are the salient changes staff contemplated (annotated with strike-out and underline text to indicate the changes). The first paragraph, (d) below, essentially removes the provision of the 50% cost valuation standard discussed above and replaces it with the following sections related to the non-willful and willful destruction of the noncomplying facility. (d) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b) and (c) hereof above, a noncomplying facility housing a conforming use in the R-1 and RE zones, which when built was a complying facility, shall be subject to the following, as applicable: (i) Non-Willful Damage or Destruction: A facility which is damaged or destroyed by non-willful means (i.e., acts of God) shall be permitted to be replaced, on the same site, and in its previous configuration, without necessity to comply with the current site development regulations, provided that any such replacement shall not result in increased floor area, height, length or any other increase in the size of the facility. (ii) Willful Damage or Destruction: The willful demolition or removal of fifty percent (50%) or more of the exterior wall elements, at any time over a five (5) year period shall require the entire noncomplying facility to be brought into compliance with current provisions of this Title. A. Exterior wall elements include, but are not limited to, the subsurface or non-decorative cladding necessary for structural support, columns, studs, cripple walls, or similar vertical load-bearing elements and associated footings, windows, doors, cladding or siding. B. The calculation for determining whether a structure has been demolished pursuant to this Section shall be based on a horizontal measurement of the perimeter exterior wall removed between the structure’s footings and the ceiling of each story. C. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project where the work will result in the removal of over forty percent (40%) of the exterior walls, the applicant shall submit written verification from a registered structural engineer, certifying that the exterior walls shown to remain are structurally sound and will not be required to be removed for the project. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner and contractor shall sign an affidavit to the City that they are aware of the City’s requirements under this section and the penalties associated with an unlawful demolition. D. During construction, if termite or dry rot or similar damage is discovered that would cause the project to exceed the 50% threshold described in (ii) above, the Building Official may grant up to a 5% increase in exterior wall element removal. This approval shall be based upon a written report prepared by a qualified licensed professional documenting the City of Palo Alto Page 18 damage and need for repair. An inspection shall be required prior to removal of the exterior wall elements authorized by this section. There is nothing about this amendment that would preclude a homeowner from routine maintenance and repair related to termites or other damage. However, when this damage is discovered as part of a large remodel/expansion as seen in typical remodels in Palo Alto, excluding termite damage could result in substantially more work being performed and give the appearance that a renovation project is essentially new construction. And, if the intent of the code is to require new construction to comply with current regulations, then existing non-complying features ought to be abated. Staff proposed a 50% threshold because in conversations with the Development Services Department, staff learned that is it very difficult to only modify a portion of an older home and not have that affect other building systems. For instance, creating a new window or door opening along a wall typically requires the entire siding material on the rest of the wall to be removed. Accordingly, when a wall is proposed to be altered, staff would consider the entire wall as being removed. Based on this approach, a lower threshold, such as 25%, would limit how much alteration could be done (ie; one wall). If the Council were interested in pursuing this amendment, a policy discussion could take place as to whether the threshold should be 50% or less. Staff also recognizes it is often difficult to determine the extent of termite and dry rot damage until the wood beams are exposed, which happens during the demolition phase of construction. To account for this, staff proposes a modest removal beyond the 50% threshold. This would require a professional report, field verification and approval by the City’s Building Official. Staff further recognizes that this is a significant change and the Council may find that it warrants its own discussion separate and apart from this update effort. Tier 2 Matrix As noted, the Tier 2 matrix (Attachment C), revised following the October 28, 2015 PTC hearing, includes all of the items the PTC recommended removing from the original Tier 1 matrix. It is a list of code amendments that may be desired in the coming year, to address a planning issue or concern. The changes fall into these categories: Staff initiated changes relating to administering the code, better defining certain policies, or recommending new policies. Changes believed to be more substantive, with policy implications requiring Council direction or increased public awareness. Changes representing wholly independent work efforts, such as the Accessory Dwelling Unit discussion, recently directed by Council. There will be a need over time to better identify which Tier 2 items are part of the department’s work plan and which items are part of the proposed annual code update effort. City of Palo Alto Page 19 Though Council is invited to provide comments on the Tier 2 list and may suggest items be added, staff requests that Council note that the PTC has not yet discussed Tier 2 items; therefore, Council’s discussion of Tier 2 items should be brief at this time. Next year, Council will have opportunities to provide input into next year’s Tier 2 effort. Staff anticipates discussing possible amendment topics with the PTC in early 2016, along with a public outreach schedule for the second annual update. Public Outreach & Notification All PTC hearings were noticed in the local newspaper (Palo Alto Weekly) for the code- prescribed period for code amendments. Staff has reached out to several local architects and a Google group (Palo Alto Architects), who are interested in providing feedback and suggestions for additional code changes for the Tier 2 change effort. Staff also gave a presentation about the code changes to the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors (SILVAR). Policy Implications The proposed changes are intended to improve the administration of the zoning code. Staff anticipates that this and future efforts can be used to ensure implementation of the planning codes better reflect city policy, provide greater transparency and clearer expectations when applying these codes to projects. Resource Impact Other than staff time, no additional fiscal or economic impacts are anticipated. Environmental Review Staff has evaluated the changes with respect to the California Environmental Quality Act, and determined the proposed amendments are exempt from further environmental review per CEQA Guideline sections 15061(b) and 15301, 15302 and 15305 because it simply provides a comprehensive permitting scheme. Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Ordinance (only Tier 1 items) (PDF) Attachment B: Matrix Tier 1 PTC Administrative Changes. (DOCX) Attachment C: Matrix Tier 2 Changes Including PTC revisions from Tier 1 (DOCX) Attachment D: Excerpt PTC Minutes - Oct 28th, Oct. 15th, Sept. 30 and Sept. 9th meetings (PDF) Attachment E: Tier 2 Items Code Language (DOCX) NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 1 11-17-15 MATRIX NUMBERS REFER TO REVISED TIER 1 MATRIX Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 16 (Building Regulations), Chapters 16.20 (Signs), 16.24 (Fences), and 16.57 (In-Lieu Parking Fees for New Non-Residential Development in the Commercial Downtown (CD) Zoning District)), and Title 18 (Zoning), Chapters 18.01 (Adoption, Purposes and Enforcement), 18.04 (Definitions), 18.08 (Designation and Establishment of Districts), 18.10 (Low Density Residential RE, R-2 and RMD Districts), 18.12 (R-1, Single Family Residence District), 18.13 (Multiple Family Residential (RM-15, RM-30, RM-40) Districts), 18.14 (Below Market Rate Housing Program), 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus), 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial (CN,CC and CS) Districts), 18.18 (Downtown Commercial (CD) District), 18.20 (Office, Research and Manufacturing (MOR, ROLM, RP and GM) Districts)), 18.23 Performance Criteria for Multiple Family, Commercial, Manufacturing and Planned Community Districts), 18.31 (CEQA Review - a new chapter), 18.34 (PTOD Combining District Regulations), 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions), 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), 18.70 (Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Facilities), 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), and 18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1 (TIER 1 MATRIX #1, 25, 26). Sections 16.20.010 (Definitions), 16.20.070 (Inspection), 16.20.140 (Projecting signs), 16.20.180 (Classification of signs), 16.20.210 (Abatement of nonconforming signs), 16.20.240 (Unsafe and unlawful signs), and 16.20.270 (Enforcement -Citation authority), and Tables 1, 2, and 3 of Chapter 16.20 (Signs) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) are amended to read as follows: 16.20.010 Definitions (a) The following words and phrases whenever used in this chapter shall be construed as defined in this section: . . . (17) "Wall sign" means any sign posted or painted or suspended from or otherwise fixed to the wall of any building or structure in an essentially flat position, or with the exposed face of the sign in a plane approximately parallel to the plane of such wall. Any sign suspended from or attached to, and placed approximately parallel to the front of a canopy, porch, or similar covering structure shall be deemed to be a wall sign. 16.20.070 Inspection The building official, Director of Planning and Community Environment (PCE Director) or his designee may, at any time, make such inspection as may be necessary or appropriate to ascertain whether any sign will comply or is complying with this chapter and other applicable laws. If required by the building official, an inspection shall be called for the permittee upon the completion of the structural portions of every sign and before the structural connections to the building or structure are concealed or covered. 16.20.140 Projecting signs Every projecting sign shall comply with the requirements of this section. ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 2 11-17-15 (a) Projecting signs in the GM zones and on El Camino Real frontage in the CS and CN zones. (1) Area. No such sign shall exceed five square feet in area. (2) Height. No part of any projecting sign shall exceed the height of the building’s adjacent parapet upon or in front of which it is situated, or in the case of buildings having sloping roofs, above the roof ridge. Any such sign which projects over public property shall have a clearance of ten feet above the ground. (3) Location. No such sign shall project more than one foot over public property. (b) Projecting Signs in Other Zones. (1) Area. No such sign shall exceed three square feet in area. (2) Height. No part of any projecting sign shall exceed a height of twelve feet, nor shall any part of such sign extend above the top level of the wall upon or in front of which it is situated. Any such sign over any public or private sidewalk or walkway shall have a minimum clearance below the sign of seven feet. (3) Location. No such sign shall be placed over or above any public sidewalk or other public place unless the sign is situated under a marquee, porch, walkway covering or similar covering structure. . . . 16.20.180 Classification of signs Every sign erected or proposed to be erected shall be classified by the chief building official PCE Director in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Any sign which does not clearly fall within one of the classifications provided herein shall be placed by the chief building official PCE Director in the classification which the sign, in view of its design, location and purpose, most nearly approximates. Such classification by the building official PCE Director shall be final. 16.20.210 Abatement of nonconforming signs Nonconforming signs shall either be made to conform with the provisions of this chapter or be abated within the applicable period of time hereinabove set forth. In the event they are not, the building official PCE Director shall order the sign abated by the owner of the property and any other person known to be responsible for the maintenance of the sign. It is thereafter unlawful for any such person to maintain or suffer to be maintained on any property owned or controlled by him any such sign. Unless some other mode of abatement is approved by the building official or PCE Director in writing, abatement of nonconforming signs shall be accomplished in the following manner: (a) Signs painted on buildings, walls or fences: by removal of the paint constituting the sign or by permanently painting over it in such a way that the sign shall not hereafter be or become visible; NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 3 11-17-15 (b) Other Signs. By removal of the sign, including its dependent structures and supports; or pursuant to a sign permit duly issued, by modification, alteration or replacement thereof in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. 16.20.240 Unsafe and unlawful signs (a) Public Property. Any sign posted on public property contrary to the provisions of Section 16.20.100 may be removed by the division of inspectional services or the police department. (b) Unsafe or Abandoned Signs. Any sign deemed by the police department, or the chief building official or PCE Director to be (1) unsafe, due to interfering with the public's health, safety, welfare or convenience, or (2) abandoned, including but not limited to election signs posted more than six days after the election to which they relate, may be removed by the division of inspectional services or the police department. (c) Whenever a sign, other than those on public property or those deemed to be unsafe or abandoned, is found to be erected or maintained in violation of any provision of this chapter or of any other ordinance or law, the building official or PCE Director may order that such sign be altered, repaired, reconstructed, demolished or removed as may be appropriate to abate such condition. Any work required to be done shall, unless a different time is specified, be completed within ten days of the date of such order. Failure, neglect or refusal to comply with such order of the building official or PCE Director shall be sufficient basis for the revocation of any permit or approval granted under this chapter and shall constitute a separate offense. In addition to any other remedies provided by law, the building official may remove, or cause to be removed any such sign erected or maintained in violation of the provisions of this chapter. 16.20.270 Enforcement - Citation authority Persons employed in the following designated employee positions are authorized to exercise the authority provided in Penal Code Section 836.5 and are authorized to issue citations for violations of this chapter: PCE Director (or designee), chief building official, assistant building official and code enforcement officer. Chapter 16.20 — Table 1 Allowable Sign Area for Freestanding Signs up to Five Feet High NOTE: THESE ARE MAXIMUM DESIGN DIMENSIONS, AND MAY BE REDUCED IN THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 16.4818.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals) . . . NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 4 11-17-15 Chapter 16.20 — Table 2 Allowable Sign Area for Freestanding Signs Over Five Feet High NOTE: THESE ARE MAXIMUM DESIGN DIMENSIONS, AND MAY BE REDUCED IN THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 16.4818.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals) . . . Chapter 16.20 — Table 2 Allowable Sign Height for Freestanding Signs Over Five Feet High NOTE: THESE ARE MAXIMUM DESIGN DIMENSIONS, AND MAY BE REDUCED IN THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 16.4818.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals) . . . SECTION 2 (TIER 1 MATRIX #1). Section 16.24.010 of Chapter 16.24 (Fences) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the PAMC is amended to read as follows: 16.24.010 Definitions Throughout this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: (a) Height Measurement. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, height of fences or walls between the setback line and lot line shall be measured from natural grade, as determined by the chief building official or Director of Planning and Community Environment (PCE Director) or designee. . . . NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 5 11-17-15 16.24.080 Violations - Penalty - Enforcement (a) No person shall erect, construct or maintain any fence, wall or structure in the nature of a fence which does not meet the requirements of this section. (b) Violation of any provision of this chapter is an infraction, punishable as provided in this code. Each day of violation constitutes a separate offense and may be separately punished. (c) Persons employed in the following designated employee positions are authorized to exercise the authority provided in Penal Code Section 836.5 and are authorized to issue citations for violations of this chapter: chief building official, assistant building official, PCE Director or designee, and code enforcement officer. SECTION 3 (TIER 1 MATRIX #2). Section 16.57.010 (Applicability) of Chapter 16.57 (In- Lieu Parking Fee for New Nonresidential Development in the Commercial Downtown (CD) Zoning District) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the PAMC is amended to read as follows: 16.57.010 Applicability The in-lieu parking fee regulations set forth in this chapter shall apply only to nonresidential development within the University Avenue parking assessment district which meets the eligibility criteria set forth in subsection (d) of Section 18.49.100 18.18.090 of this code. In accordance with subsection (a) of Section 18.49.100 18.18.090 of this code, payment of the fee established by this chapter shall be a condition of the approval of or permit for any new development, any addition or enlargement of existing development, or any use of any floor area that has never been assessed under any Bond Plan G financing pursuant to Title 13 of this code. SECTION 4 (TIER 1 MATRIX #3). Title 18 (Zoning) Table of Contents of the PAMC is amended to add Chapter 18.36 (HD Hospital Districts). SECTION 5 (TIER 1 MATRIX #31). Section 18.01.025 (Zoning Code Interpretation) is added to Chapter 18.01 (Adoption, Purposes, and Enforcement) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC to read as follows: 18.01.025 (Zoning Code Interpretation) Whenever in the opinion of the Planning and Community Environment Director (PCE Director) there is any question regarding the interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan or the planning and land use provisions of Titles 16, 18 or 21 to any specific case or situation, the PCE Director shall have the authority to interpret such planning codes. When in the opinion of the PCE Director a formal written decision is warranted, the Director shall make the written decision available to the public by posting on the City’s website. The interpretation shall become effective fourteen consecutive calendar days from the date of posting unless appealed under this section. The interpretation shall become the standard interpretation for future application of that provision of this Chapter unless changed by the Council on appeal. In accordance with the provisions of Section 18.77.070(f), any person may appeal the PCE Director’s written interpretation prior to its effective date. All final written interpretations made under this section shall be made publicly available on the City’s website. NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 6 11-17-15 SECTION 6 (TIER 1 MATRIX #4, 5, 27-29, 36). Section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows: 18.04.030 Definitions (a) Throughout this title the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed in this section. . . . (53) "Facility" means a structure, building or other physical contrivance or object. . . . (B) "Noncomplying facility" means a facility which is in violation of (i) any of the site development regulations or other regulations established by this title, but was lawfully existing on July 20, 1978, or (ii) any amendments to this title, but was lawfully existing prior to or the application of any district or regulation to the property involved by reason of which adoption or application the facility became noncomplying. Sometimes this Code interchangeably refers to “noncomplying facilities” as “legal noncomplying”, “grandfathered” or “grandparented” facilities. (For the definition for "nonconforming use" see subsection (143)(B)). (TIER 1 MATRIX #5) . . . (65) "Gross floor area" is defined as follows: (A) Non-residential & Multifamily Inclusions: For all zoning districts other than the R-E, R- 1, R-2 and RMD residence districts, "gross floor area" means the total area of all floors of a building measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls, and including all of the following: (i) Halls; (ii) Stairways measured at each floor; (TIER 1 MATRIX #27) (iii) Elevator shafts measured at each floor; (TIER 1 MATRIX #27) . . . (B) Non-residential & Multifamily Exclusions: For all zoning districts other than the R-E, R- 1, R-2 and RMD residence districts, "gross floor area" shall not include the following: . . . (iv) Except in the CD District and in areas designated as special study areas, minor additions of floor area approved by the director of planning and community environment for purposes of resource conservation or code compliance, upon the determination that such minor additions will increase compliance with environmental health, safety or other federal, state or local standards. Such additions may include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Areas designed for resource conservation, such as trash compactors, recycling, and other energy facilities meeting the criteria outlined in Section 18.42.120 (Resource Conservation Energy Facilities); NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 7 11-17-15 b. Areas designed and required for hazardous materials storage facilities, disability related handicapped or seismic upgrades. For the purposes of this section disability related upgrades are limited to the minimum extent necessary and shall be subject to the Director’s approval not to exceed 500 square feet per site. Disability related upgrades shall only apply to remodels of existing buildings and shall not qualify for grandfathered floor area in the event the building is later replaced or otherwise redeveloped. (TIER 1 MATRIX #33) (v) In commercial and industrial districts except in the CD District and in areas designated as special study areas, additions of floor area designed and used solely for on-site employee amenities for employees of the facility, approved by the director of planning and community environment, upon the determination that such additions will facilitate the reduction of employee vehicle use. Such additions may include, but are not limited to, recreational facilities, credit unions, cafeterias , day care centers, automated teller machines, convenience stores, and on-site laundry facilities. dry cleaners. (TIER 1 MATRIX #33) (C) Low Density Residential Inclusions and Conditions: In the RE and R-1 single-family residence districts and in the R-2 and RMD two-family residence districts, "gross floor area" means the total covered area of all of all floors of a main structure and accessory structures greater than one hundred and twenty square feet in area, including covered parking and stairways, measured to the outside of stud walls, including the following: (i) Floor area where the distance between the top of the finished floor and the roof directly above it measures seventeen feet or more shall be counted twice; (ii) Floor area where the distance between the top of the lowest finished floor and the roof directly above it measures twenty-six feet or more shall be counted three times; (iii) Carports and garages shall be included in gross floor area; (iv) The entire floor area (footprint) of a vaulted entry feature that extends above 12 feet measured from grade, whether enclosed or unenclosed, shall be counted twice in the calculation of gross floor area; (v) The footprint of a fireplace shall be included in the gross floor area, but is only counted one time; (vi) All roofed porches, arcades, balconies, porticos, breezeways or similar features when located above the ground floor and more than 50% covered by a roof or more than 50% enclosed shall be included in the calculation. (vii) Recessed porches on the ground floor extending in height above the first floor shall be included once in the calculation. (D) Low Density Residential Exclusions: In the RE and R-1 single-family residence districts and in the R-2 and RMD two-family residence districts, "gross floor area" shall not include the following: . . . (v) Open or partially enclosed (less than 50% enclosed) porches, whether recessed or protruding, located on the first floor, and for R-1 zones porches reaching a height of less than 12 feet measured from grade as set forth in Section 18.12.040(b), shall be excluded from gross NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 8 11-17-15 floor area, whether covered or uncovered. Recessed porches located on the first floor with a depth of less than 10 feet shall be excluded from the calculation if the exterior side(s) of the porch is open. (TIER 1 MATRIX #5) . . . (142) “Usable open space” means outdoor or unenclosed area on the ground, or on a roof, balcony, deck, porch, patio or terrace, designed and accessible for outdoor living, recreation, pedestrian access, or landscaping, but excluding parking facilities, driveways, utility or service areas. Usable open space may be covered if at least 50% open on the sides. Usable open space shall be sited and designed to accommodate different activities, groups, active and passive uses, and should be located convenient to the intended users (e.g., residents, employees, or public). (TIER 1 MATRIX #28) . . . SECTION 7 (TIER 1 MATRIX #32). Section 18.08.080 (Interpretation of Land Use Classifications) is added to Chapter 18.08 (Designation and Establishment of Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) to read as follows: 18.08.080 Interpretation of Land Use Classifications The PCE Director shall have the authority to interpret whether a land use is similar to other permitted or conditionally permitted land uses listed in any Zoning District. Such interpretations may be appealed in accordance with Section 18.77.070(f). SECTION 8 (TIER 1 MATRIX #34 and 6). Sections 18.10.040 (Development Standards) and 18.10.060 (Parking) of Chapter 18.10 (Low Density Residential RE, R-2 and RMD Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC are amended to read as follows: 18.10.040 Development Standards . . . (h) Location of Noise-Producing Equipment All noise-producing equipment, such as air conditioners, pool equipment, generators, commercial kitchen fans, and similar service equipment, shall be located outside of the front, rear and side yard setbacks. Such equipment may, however, be located up to 6 feet into the street side yard setback. All such equipment shall be insulated and housed, except that the Planning Director may permit installation without housing and insulation, provided the equipment is located within the building envelope and where a combination of technical noise specifications, location of equipment, and/or other screening or buffering will assure compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance at the nearest property line. Any replacement of such equipment shall conform to this section where feasible; replacement of equipment for which permits were obtained prior to these restrictions is allowable in the same location provided the replacement equipment complies with the City’s noise ordinance. (TIER 1 MATRIX #34) All service equipment must meet the City Noise Ordinance in Chapter 9.10 of this code. 18.10.060 Parking NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 9 11-17-15 . . . (f) Design of Parking Areas Parking facilities shall comply with all applicable regulations of Chapter 18.83 18.54 (Parking Facility Design Standards). (TIER 1 MATRIX #6) . . . SECTION 9 (TIER 1 MATRIX #7, #36). Sections 18.12.040 (Site Development Standards) (Tables 2 and 3), 18.12.050 (Permitted Encroachments, Projections and Exceptions), 18.12.060 (Parking), 18.12.070 (Second Dwelling Units), 18.12.090 (Basements), 18.12.100 (Regulations for the Single Story Overlay (S) Combining District), 18.12.110 (Single Family Individual Review), 18.12.120 (Home Improvement Exception) of Chapter 18.12 (R-1 Single- Family Residential District) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended to read as follows: 18.12.040 Site Development Standards . . . TABLE 2 R-1 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS R-1 R-1 Subdistricts Subject to Regulations in Chapter: R-1 (7,000) * R-1 (8,000) * R-1 (10,000) * R-1 (20,000) * * Subdistricts based on minimum lot size (sq. ft.) Minimum Site Specifications Site area (sq. ft.) All lots except flag lots (1) Flag lots Site Width (ft) Site Depth (ft) 6,000 7,000 8,000 10,000 20,000 As established by Section 21.20.301 (Subdivision Ordinance) 60 100 Maximum Lot Size Lot area (sq. ft.) 9,999 13,999 15,999 19,999 39,999 18.12.040(d) Minimum Setbacks Front Yard (ft.) Rear Yard (ft.) Interior Side Yard (ft.) Street Side Yard (ft.) Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20. 08 of this code may also apply 18.12.040(e) 18.12.050 Contextual (2) 20 6 8 16 Maximum Height (as measured to the peak of the roof) (ft.) 18.04.030(a)(67) 30 (3) NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 10 11-17-15 Standard Maximum Height for buildings with a roof pitch of 12:12 or greater With (S) Combining 33 (3) 18.12.050 17 feet; limited to one habitable floor (4, 5) 18.12.100 Side Yard Daylight Plane (Excludes street side yards) Initial Height Angle (Degrees) 18.04.030(44) 18.12.050 10 feet at interior side lot line (6) 45 (6) Rear Yard Daylight Plane Initial Height Angle (Degrees) 18.12.050 16 feet at rear setback line (6) 60 (6) Maximum Site Coverage: Single story development With (S) Combining Multiple story development Additional area permitted to be covered by a patio or overhang 18.04.030(a)(86A) Equivalent to maximum allowable floor area ratio (7) Equivalent to maximum allowable floor area ratio (7) 35% (7) 5% Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) First 5,000 sq. ft. of lot size Square footage of lot size in excess of 5,000 sq. ft. Table 3 18.04.030(a)(65C) 18.12.040(b) .45 .30 Maximum House Size (sq. ft.) 6,000 (8) Residential Density One unit, except as provided in Section 18.12.0970 Parking See Residential Parking, Section 18.12.060 Chs. 18.52, 18.54 . . . TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF GROSS FLOOR AREA FOR LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Description Included in GFA Excluded from GFA Accessory structures greater than 120 sq. ft. √ Second floor equivalent: areas with heights >17' √ (counted twice) Third floor equivalent: areas with heights > 26' √ (counted three times) Third floor equivalent, where roof pitch is > 4:12 √ up to 200 sq. ft. of unusable space Garages and carports √ Porte cocheres √ Entry feature < 12' in height, if not substantially enclosed and not recessed √ (counted once) Vaulted entry > 12' in height √ (footprint counted ti) NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 11 11-17-15 Fireplace footprint √(counted once) First floor roofed or unenclosed porches √ First floor recessed porches <10' in depth and open on exterior side √ Second floor roofed or enclosed porches, arcades, balconies, porticos, breeze- ways √ Basements (complying with patio & lightwell requirements described in Section 18.12.070090) √ Areas on floors above the first floor where the height from the floor level to the underside of the rafter or finished roof surface is 5 or greater √ Bay windows (if at least 18" above interior floor, does not project more than 2', and more than 50% is covered by windows) √ Basement area for Category 1 & 2 Historic Homes or contributing structure within a historic district (even if greater than 3') √ Unusable attic space for category 1 & 2 Historic Homes √ (up to 500 sq. ft.) (c) Substandard and Flag Lots The following site development regulations shall apply to all new construction on substandard and flag lots in lieu of comparable provisions in subsection (a). . . . (2) Flag Lots . . . (B) Flag Lot Development Standards: (i) The maximum height shall be 17 feet, as measured to the peak of the roof. (ii) There shall be a limit of one habitable floor. Habitable floors include lofts, mezzanines, and similar areas with interior heights of five feet (5') or more from the roof to the floor, but exclude basements and exclude attics that have no stairway or built-in access. The chief building official shall make the final determination as to whether a floor is habitable. (iii) Front Setback: 10 feet. Flag lots are not subject to contextual front setback requirements. (iv) Flag lots are not subject to contextual front setback requirements. (TIER 1 MATRIX #9) . . . (e) Contextual Front Setbacks The minimum front yard ("setback") shall be the greater of twenty feet (20') or the average setback, if the average front setback is 30 feet or more. "Average setback" means the average distance between the front property line and the first main structural element, including covered porches, on sites on the same side of the block, including existing structures on the subject parcel. This calculation shall exclude flag lots and existing multifamily developments of three units or more. For calculation purposes, if five (5) or more properties on the block are counted, the single greatest and the single least setbacks shall be excluded. The street sideyard setback of corner lots that have the front side of their parcel (the narrowest NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 12 11-17-15 street-facing lot line) facing another street shall be excluded from the calculations. For blocks longer than 600 feet, the average setback shall be based on the no more than ten sites located on the same side of the street and nearest to the subject property, plus the subject site, but and for a distance no greater than 600 feet. Blocks with three (3) or fewer eligible parcels are not subject to contextual setbacks. Structures on the site in no case may be located closer than twenty feet (20') from the front property line. (TIER 1 MATRIX #10) . . . (l) Location of Noise-Producing Equipment All noise-producing equipment, such as air conditioners, pool equipment, generators, commercial kitchen fans, and similar service equipment, shall be located outside of the front, rear and side yard setbacks. Such equipment may, however, be located up to six feet into a street sideyard setback. All such equipment shall be insulated and housed, except that the planning director may permit installation without housing and insulation, provided the equipment is located within the building envelope and where a combination of technical noise specifications, location of equipment, and/or other screening or buffering will assure compliance with the city's Noise Ordinance at the nearest property line. Any replacement of such equipment shall conform to this section where feasible, except the Director may allow replacement of existing equipment in a non-complying location, if such equipment had prior building permit(s), with equipment that meets the City’s Noise Ordinance. All service equipment must meet the city's Noise Ordinance in Chapter 9.10 of the Municipal Code. (TIER 1 MATRIX #35) 18.12.050 Permitted Encroachments, Projections and Exceptions . . . (D) Special Setbacks. In cases where a special setback is prescribed pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of the Municipal Code, and the existing setback is less than the special setback distance, and at least 14 feet for the front setback or at least 10 feet for the street side yard setback, the existing encroachment may be extended for a distance of not more than 100% of the length of the encroaching wall to be extended, provided that the total length of the existing encroaching wall and the additional wall shall together not exceed one-half the maximum existing width of such building. (TIER 1 MATRIX #11) . . . (3) Allowed Projections (A) Cornices, Eaves, Fireplaces, and Similar Architectural Features For cornices, eaves, fireplaces, and similar architectural features, excluding flat or continuous walls or enclosures of usable interior space, the following projections are permitted: (i) A maximum of two feet into a required side yard. Fireplaces in a required side yard may not exceed five feet in width. Fireplaces not exceeding five feet in width may project into a required side yard no more than two feet. NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 13 11-17-15 (ii) A maximum of four feet into a required front yard. (iii) A maximum of four feet into a required rear yard. (B) Window Surfaces (i) Window surfaces, such as bay windows or greenhouse windows, may extend into a required rear yard a distance not to exceed two feet, into a required street side setback a distance not to exceed three feet, or into a required front yard a distance not to exceed three feet. (TIER 1 MATRIX #29) (ii) Window surfaces may not extend into required interior side yards, with the exception that one greenhouse window with a maximum width of six feet, framed into a wall, may project into the interior side yard no more than two feet. The window surface may not extend into any yard above a first story. 18.12.060 Parking Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for all permitted and conditional uses in accord with Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 of this title. The following parking requirements apply in the R-E, R-2 and RMD R-1 districts. These requirements are included for reference purposes only, and in the event of a conflict between this Section 18.1012.060 and any requirement of Chapters 18.52 and 18.54, Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 shall apply, except in the case of parcels created pursuant to Section 18.10.130 18.12.140 (c) (subdivision incentive for historic preservation). (TIER 1 MATRIX #12) . . . 18.12.070 Second Dwelling Units (TIER 1 MATRIX #13) . . . (c) Development Standards for Attached Second Dwelling Units Attached second dwelling units are those attached to the main dwelling. Attached unit size counts toward the calculation of maximum house size. All attached second dwelling units shall be subject to the following development requirements: (1) The minimum site area shall meet the requirements specified in subsection (b) above. (2) Maximum size of living area: 450 square feet. The second dwelling unit and covered parking shall be included in the total floor area for the site, but the covered parking area is not included in the maximum 450 square feet for attached unit. Any basement space used as a second dwelling unit or portion thereof shall be counted as floor area for the purpose of calculating the maximum size of the second unit. (3) Maximum size of covered parking area for the second dwelling unit: 200 square feet. . . . (d) Development Standards for Detached Second Dwelling Units NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 14 11-17-15 Detached second dwelling units are those detached from the main dwelling. All detached second dwelling units shall be subject to the following development requirements: (1) The minimum site area shall meet the requirements specified in subsection (b) above. (2) Minimum separation from the main dwelling: 12 feet. (3) Maximum size of living area: 900 square feet. The second dwelling unit and covered parking shall be included in the total floor area for the site, but the covered parking area is not included within the maximum 900 square feet for detached unit. Any basement space used as a second dwelling unit or portion thereof shall be counted as floor area for the purpose of calculating the maximum size of the second unit. (4) Maximum size of covered parking for the second dwelling unit: 200 square feet. . . . 18.12.100 Regulations for the Single Story Overlay (S) Combining District (TIER 1 MATRIX #36) . . . (c) Application for a Single Story (S) Combining District (1) Application to create or remove a single-story overlay district may be made by an owner of record of property located in the single-story overlay district to be created or removed. (2) Application shall be made to the director on a form prescribed by the director, and shall contain all of the following: (A) A written statement setting forth the reasons for the application and all facts relied upon by the applicant in support thereof. (B) A map of the district to be created or removed that includes the address location of those owners whose properties are subject to the zoning request. Boundaries shall correspond with certain natural or man-made features (including, but not limited to, roadways, waterways, tract boundaries and similar features) to define an identifiable neighborhood or development. For creation of a single-story overlay district, the area shall be of a prevailing single story character, such that a minimum of 80% of existing homes within the boundaries are single story. (C) For creating a single-story overlay district, a list of signatures evidencing support by: (i) 70% of included properties; or (ii) 60% of included properties where all included properties are subject to recorded deed restrictions intended to limit building height to a single story, whether or not such restrictions have been enforced. For the removal of a single-story overlay district, a list of signatures evidencing support by 70% of included properties, whether or not deed restrictions intended to limit the building height to single story apply. "Included properties" means all those properties inside the boundaries of the district proposed to be created or removed. The written statement or statements accompanying the signatures must state that the signer is indicating support NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 15 11-17-15 for a zone map amendment that affects his or her property. One signature is permitted for each included property, and a signature evidencing support of an included property must be by an owner of record of that property. (D) A fee, as prescribed by the municipal fee schedule, no part of which shall be returnable to the applicant. . . . 18.12.120 Home Improvement Exception (TIER 1 MATRIX #37) (a) Purpose A home improvement exception ("HIE") enables a home improvement or minor addition to an existing single-family or two-family home, or accessory structure, or both, to be consistent with the existing architectural style of the house or neighborhood, to accommodate a significant or protected tree, or to protect the integrity of a historic structure in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation. By enabling adaptive reuse of existing buildings, the home improvement exception promotes retention of existing houses within the city. (b) Applicability A home improvement exception may be granted as part of a proposed improvement or addition to an existing single-family or two-family structure, or accessory structure, or both, in the RE, R-1, RMD, or R-2 district, as limited in subsection (c). A home improvement exception may be granted as described in subsections (1) through (14) of subsection (c), but may not exceed the limits set forth in those subsections. In order to qualify for a home improvement exception, the project must retain at least 75% of the existing exterior walls, including exterior siding or cladding. (TIER 1 MATRIX #37) … SECTION 10 (TIER 1 MATRIX #14 and 30). Sections 18.13.010 (Purposes), and 18.13.050 (Village Residential Development) of Chapter 18.13 (Multiple Family Residential RM-15, RM- 30, and RM-40 Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC are amended to read as follows: 18.13.010 Purposes This section specifies regulations for three multiple family residential districts. (a) RM-15 Low Density Multiple-Family Residence District [RM-15] The RM-15 low-density multiple-family residence district is intended to create, preserve and enhance areas for a mixture of single-family and multiple-family housing which is compatible with lower density and residential districts nearby, including single-family residence districts. The RM-15 residence district also serves as a transition to moderate density multiple- family districts or districts with nonresidential uses. Permitted densities in the RM-15 residence district range from eight to fifteen dwelling units per acre, with no required minimum density. (TIER 1 MATRIX #30) (b) RM-30 Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District [RM-30] NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 16 11-17-15 The RM-30 medium density multiple-family residence district is intended to create, preserve and enhance neighborhoods for multiple-family housing with site development standards and visual characteristics intended to mitigate impacts on nearby lower density residential districts. Projects at this density are intended for larger parcels that will enable developments to provide their own parking spaces and to meet their open space needs in the form of garden apartments or cluster developments. Permitted densities in the RM-30 residence district range from sixteen to thirty dwelling units per acre, with no required minimum density. (TIER 1 MATRIX #30) (c) RM-40 High Density Multiple-Family Residence District [RM-40] The RM-40 high density multiple-family residence district is intended to create, preserve and enhance locations for apartment living at the highest density deemed appropriate for Palo Alto. The most suitable locations for this district are in the downtown area, in select sites in the California Avenue area and along major transportation corridors which are close to mass transportation facilities and major employment and service centers. Permitted densities in the RM-40 residence district range from thirty-one to forty dwelling units per acre, with no required minimum density. (TIER 1 MATRIX #30) 18.13.050 Village Residential Development (TIER 1 MATRIX #14) . . . TABLE 3 VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TABLE Village Residential Subject to Regulations in: Minimum Site Specifications Site Area (ft2) 6,000 Site Width (ft) 50 Site Depth (ft) 100 Minimum Setbacks RM-15 development standards apply to perimeter of site Minimum Lot Specifications (1) 1,500 Lot Area (ft2), Attached Units Lot Area (ft2), Detached Units 2,500 Maximum Lot Area (ft2) 4,000 Front lot setback (ft) 5 Rear lot setback (ft) 3 Side lot setback (ft) 0 Distance between detached units (ft) 3 Maximum House Size (ft 2) 2,500(2) Maximum Height (ft ) 30 Daylight Planes RM-15 development standards apply to perimeter of site Maximum Site Cove rage RM-15 development standards apply to entire site NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 17 11-17-15 Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)(3) 0.5:1 applied to entire site Maximum Residential Density (units ) Maximum number of units per acre 12 Minimum Site Open Space (4) 35% of entire site 18.13.040(e) Minimum Usable Open Space (per unit)(3) 300 sq. ft. Minimum common open space (per unit) No requirement 18.13.040(e) Minimum private open space (per unit) 100 sq. ft. Performance Criteria Ch. 18.23 Landscape Requirements 18.1440.130 Parking(5) See provisions of Chapter 18.52 Ch. 18.52 . . . SECTION 11 (TIER 1 MATRIX #19). Section 18.14.030 (Below Market Rate Housing Bonus Requirements) of Chapter 18.14 (Below Market Rate Housing Program) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended to read as follows: (a) Developers of projects with five or more units must comply with the requirements set forth in Program H-36 H3.1.2 of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The BMR Program objective is to obtain actual housing units or buildable parcels within each development rather than off-site units or in-lieu payments. . . . SECTION 12 (TIER 1 MATRIX #38). Section 18.15.020 (Definitions) of Chapter 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is added to read as follows: 18.15.020 Definitions Whenever the following terms are used in this chapter, they shall have the meaning established by this section: . . . (s) “Replace” means either of the following: (1) If any dwelling units described in 18.15.030(h) are occupied on the date that the application is submitted to the City, the proposed housing development shall provide at least the same number of units of equivalent size or type, or both, to be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in the same or lower income category as those households in occupancy. For unoccupied dwelling units described in 18.15.030(h) in a development with occupied units, the proposed housing development shall provide units of equivalent size or type, or both, to be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in the same or lower income category in the same proportion of affordability as the occupied units. All replacement calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. If the NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 18 11-17-15 replacement units will be rental dwelling units, these units shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years. (2) If all dwelling units described in 18.15.030(h) have been vacated or demolished within the five-year period preceding the application, the proposed housing development shall provide at least the same number of units of equivalent size or type, or both, as existed at the highpoint of those units in the five-year period preceding the application to be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in the same or lower income category as those persons and families in occupancy at that time, if known. If the incomes of the persons and families in occupancy at the highpoint is not known, then one-half of the required units shall be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, very low income persons and families and one-half of the required units shall be made available for rent at affordable housing costs to, and occupied by, low-income persons and families. All replacement calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. If the replacement units will be rental dwelling units, these units shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years. (st) “Restricted affordable unit” means a dwelling unit within a development which will be available at an affordable rent or affordable sales price for sale or rent to very low, lower or moderate income households. (tu) “Senior citizen housing development” means a Development consistent with the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code Section 12900 et. seq., including 12955.9 in particular), which has been “designed to meet the physical and social needs of senior citizens,” and which otherwise qualifies as “housing for older persons” as that phrase is used in the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-430) and implementing regulations (24 CFR, part 100, subpart E), and as that phrase is used in California Civil Code Section 51.2 and 51.3. SECTION 13. (TIER 1 MATRIX #38). Sections 18.15.030 (Density Bonuses), 18.15.040 (Development Standards for Affordable Units), and 18.15.100 (Regulatory Agreement) of Chapter 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code are amended to read as follows: 18.15.030 Density Bonuses . . . (h) An applicant (or project) shall be ineligible for a density bonus or any other incentives or concessions under this chapter if the housing development is proposed on any property that includes a parcel or parcels on which rental dwelling units are or, if the dwelling units have been vacated or demolished in the five-year period preceding the application, have been subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income; subject to any other form of rent or price control through the City’s valid exercise of its police power; or occupied by lower or very low income households, unless the proposed housing development replaces those units, and either of the following applies: NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 19 11-17-15 (i) The proposed housing development, inclusive of the units replaced pursuant to this paragraph, contains affordable units at the percentages set forth in Section 18.15.030. (ii) Each unit in the development, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, is affordable to, and occupied by, either a lower or very low income household. (hi) Certain other types of development activities are specifically eligible for a density bonus pursuant to state law: (i) A development may be eligible for a density bonus in return for land donation pursuant to the requirements set forth in Government Code Section 65915(g). (ii) A condominium conversion may be eligible for a density bonus or concession pursuant to the requirements set forth in Government Code Section 65915.5. (ij) As provided in Section 18.15.080(c), development proposed with rezoning to the Planned Community zone district are entitled to densities approved as part of the rezoning and shall not be entitled to a density bonus in addition to the units entitled by the rezone. (jk) Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter, all developments must satisfy all applicable requirements of the city’s Below Market Rate Housing Program, which may impose requirements for restricted affordable units in addition to those required to receive a density bonus or concessions. . . . 18.15.040 Development Standards for Affordable Units . . . (b) Moderate income restricted affordable units shall remain restricted and affordable to the designated income group for a minimum period of 59 years (or a longer period of time if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program). Very low and lower restricted affordable units shall remain restricted and affordable to the designated income group for a period of 30 55 years for both rental and for-sale units (or a longer period of time if required by a construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program). (TIER 1 MATRIX #39) . . . 18.15.050 Development Concessions and Incentives This section includes provisions for providing concessions or incentives pursuant to Government Code Section 65915. (a) By right parking incentives. Upon request by the applicant, a development that is eligible for a density bonus may provide parking as provided in this subsection (a), consistent with Government Code Section 65915(p), inclusive of handicapped and guest parking: (i) Zero to one bedroom unit: one on-site parking space; (ii) Two to three bedroom unit: two on-site parking spaces; (iii) Four or more bedroom unit: two and one-half parking spaces. NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 20 11-17-15 If the total number of spaces required results in a fractional number, it shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For purposes of this subsection, this parking may be provided through tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not through on-street parking. (b) Additional parking incentives for transit oriented projects. (TIER 1 MATRIX #40) (i) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) above, if a development includes the maximum percentage of low- or very low income units provided for in section 18.15.030(b) and is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development, then, upon request of the applicant, the city shall not impose a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, that exceeds 0.5 spaces per bedroom. For purposes of this subdivision, a development shall have unobstructed access to a major transit stop if a resident is able to access the major transit stop without encountering natural or constructed impediments. (ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) above, if a development consists solely of rental units, exclusive of a manager’s unit, with an affordable housing cost to lower income families, as provided in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, then, upon the request of the applicant, the city shall not impose a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, that exceeds the following ratios: (A) If the development is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development, the ratio shall not exceed 0.5 spaces per unit. (B) If the development is a for-rent housing development for individuals who are 62 years of age or older that complies with Sections 51.2 and 51.3 of the Civil Code, the ratio shall not exceed 0.5 spaces per unit. The development shall have either paratransit service or unobstructed access, within one-half mile, to fixed bus route service that operates at least eight times per day. (C) If the development is a special needs housing development, as defined in Section 51312 of the Health and Safety Code, the ratio shall not exceed 0.3 spaces per unit. The development shall have either paratransit service or unobstructed access, within one-half mile, to fixed bus route service that operates at least eight times per day. (iii) Notwithstanding paragraphs (i) and (ii), the city may impose a higher vehicular parking ratio not to exceed the ratio described in paragraph (1) if the city has conducted an area wide or citywide parking study in compliance with Government Code Section 65915(p)(7). (bc) Other incentives and concessions. A development is eligible for other concessions or incentives as follows: NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 21 11-17-15 . . . 18.15.100 Regulatory Agreement . . . (d) The regulatory agreement shall be consistent with the guidelines of the city’s Below Market Rate Program and shall include at a minimum the following: . . . (iv) Term of use restrictions for restricted affordable units of at least 59 years for moderate income units and at least 30 55 years for low and very low units; (TIER 1 MATRIX #39) . . . SECTION 14 (TIER 1 MATRIX #19, 42 and 43). Sections 18.16.050 (Office Use Restrictions) and 18.16.060 (Development Standards) of Chapter 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial (CN, CC and CS) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code are amended to read as follows: 18.16.050 Office Use Restrictions (TIER 1 MATRIX #42) The following restrictions shall apply to office uses: (a) Conversion of Ground Floor Housing and Non-Office Commercial to Office Medical, Professional, and Business offices shall not be located on the ground floor, unless any of the following applysuch offices either: (1) Have been continuously in existence in that space since March 19, 2001, and as of such date, were neither non-conforming nor in the process of being amortized pursuant to Chapter 18.30(I); (2) Occupy a space that was not occupied by housing, neighborhood business service, retail services, personal services, eating and drinking services, or automotive service on March 19, 2001 or thereafter; (3) In the case of CS zoned properties with site frontage on El Camino Real, were not occupied by housing on March 19, 2001; (4) Occupy a space that was vacant on March 19, 2001; (5) Are located in new or remodeled ground floor area built on or after March 19, 2001 if the ground floor area devoted to housing, retail services, eating and drinking services, personal services, and automobile services does not decrease; (6) Are on a site located in an area subject to a specific plan or coordinated area plan, which specifically allows for such ground floor medical, professional, and general business offices; or NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 22 11-17-15 (7) Are located anywhere in Building E or in the rear 50% of Building C or D of the property at the southeast corner of the intersection of Park Boulevard and California Avenue, as shown on sheet A2 of the plans titled “101 California Avenue Townhouse/Commercial/Office, Palo Alto, CA” by Crosby, Thornton, Marshall Associates, Architects, dated June 14, 1982, revised November 23, 1982, and on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment. . . . 18.16.060 Development Standards . . . (b) Mixed Uses . . . (9) Residential densities up to 20 units/acre only on CN zoned Hhousing iInventory sSites identified in the Housing Element.2007-2014 2014 Housing Element (TIER 1 MATRIX #19) (1) Residential and nonresidential mixed use projects shall be subject to site and design review in accord with Chapter 18.30(G), except that mixed use projects with four nine or fewer units shall only require review and approval by the architectural review board. (TIER 1 MATRIX #43) . . . SECTION 15 (TIER 1 MATRIX #16, 17, 42-44). Sections 18.18.060 (Development Standards), 18.18.070 (Floor Area Bonuses, 18.18.080 (Transfer of Development Rights), and 18.18.120 (Grandfathered Uses and Facilities) of Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial (CD) District) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC are amended to read as follows: 18.18.060 Development Standards (a) Exclusively Non-Residential Use . . . Table 2 Exclusively Non-Residential Development Standards CD-C CD-S CD-N Subject to regulations in Section: Minimum Setbacks Front Yard (ft) Rear Yard (ft) Interior Side Yard (ft) Street Side Yard (ft) Minimum street setback for sites sharing a common block face with any abutting residential zone district Minimum yard (ft) for lot lines abutting or opposite residential zone districts Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of this code may apply None required 10’ (1) None required None required None required 20’ (1) -(4) -(4) -(4) 10’(1) 10’(1) 10’(1) NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 23 11-17-15 Maximum Site Coverage None Required 50% Maximum Height (ft ) Standard Within 150 ft. of an abutting residential zone district 50 50 25 – (3) – (3) – (3) Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 (5) 0.4:1 (5) 0.4:1 (5) 18.18.060(e) 18.18.070 Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Hotels 2.0:1 2.0:1 N/A 18.18.060(d) Maximum Size of New Non-Residential Construction or Expansion Projects 25,000 square feet of gross floor area or 15,000 square feet above the existing floor area, whichever is greater, provided the floor area limits set forth elsewhere in this chapter are not exceeded Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts. Initial Height at side or rear lot line Slope – (2) 10 10 – (2) 1:2 1:2 (TIER 1 MATRIX #16) . . . (b) Mixed Use . . . (4) For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned Community (PC) district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet. (1) Residential and nonresidential mixed use projects shall be subject to site and design review in accord with Chapter 18.30(G), except that mixed use projects with four or fewer nine or fewer units shall only require review and approval by the architectural review board. (TIER 1 MATRIX #42) . . . (e) Exempt Floor Area (TIER 1 MATRIX #43) When an existing building is being expanded, square footage which, in the judgement of the chief building official, does not increase the usable floor area, and is either necessary to conform the building to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, regarding disability relatedhandicapped access, or is necessary to implement the historic rehabilitation of the building, shall not be counted as floor area. For the purposes of this section disability related upgrades are limited to the minimum extent necessary and shall be subject to the Director’s approval not to exceed 500 square feet per site. Disability related upgrades shall only apply to remodels of existing buildings and shall not qualify for grandfathered floor area in the event the building is later replaced or otherwise redeveloped. . . . 18.18.080 Transfer of Development Rights NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 24 11-17-15 . . . (h) Transfer Procedure (TIER 1 MATRIX ITEM #17) Transferable development rights may be transferred from a sender site (or sites) to a receiver site only in accordance with all of the following requirements: (1) An application pursuant to Chapter 16.48 Chapter 18.76 of this code for major ARB review of the project proposed for the receiver site must be filed. The application shall include: (A) A statement that the applicant intends to use transferable development rights for the project; (B) Identification of the sender site(s) and the amount of TDRs proposed to be transferred; and (C) Evidence that the applicant owns the transferable development rights or a signed statement from any other owner(s) of the TDRs that the specified amount of floor area is available for the proposed project and will be assigned for its use. (2) The application shall not be deemed complete unless and until the city determines that the TDRs proposed to be used for the project are available for that purpose. (3) In reviewing a project proposed for a receiver site pursuant to this section, the architectural review board shall review the project in accordance with Section 16.48.120 Chapters 18.76 and 18.77 of this code; however, the project may not be required to be modified for the sole purpose of reducing square footage unless necessary in order to satisfy the criteria findings for approval under Chapter 16.4818.76 or any specific requirement of the municipal code. (4) Following ARB approval of the project on the receiver site, and prior to issuance of building permits, the director of planning and community environment or the director’s designee shall issue written confirmation of the transfer, which identifies both the sender and receiver sites and the amount of TDRs which have been transferred. This confirmation shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder prior to the issuance of building permits and shall include the written consent or assignment by the owner(s) of the TDRs where such owner(s) are other than the applicant. 18.18.120 Grandfathered Uses and Facilities (TIER 1 MATRIX #44) (a) Grandfathered Uses (1) The following uses and facilities may remain as grandfathered uses, and shall not require a conditional use permit or be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.70: (A) Any use which was being conducted on August 28, 1986; or (B) A use not being conducted on August 28, 1986, if the use was temporarily discontinued due to a vacancy of 6 months or less before August 28, 1986; or NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 25 11-17-15 (C) Any office use existing on April 16, 1990 on a property zoned CD and GF combining, which also existed as a lawful conforming use prior to August 28, 1986, notwithstanding any intervening conforming use. (2) The grandfathered uses in subsection (1) shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, for continual use and occupancy by the same use, provided such remodeling, improvement, or replacement complies with all of the following: (A) shall not result in increased floor area; (B) shall not relocate below grade floor area to above grade portions of the buildingshift the building footprint; (C) shall not result in an increase of the height, length, building envelope, building footprint or any other increase in the size of the improvement. For purposes of this section “building envelope” shall mean the volume of space that is occupied by an existing building. It is not the maximum, buildable potential of the site; (D) shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section 18.18.070; or (E) in the case of medical, professional, general business or administrative office uses of a size exceeding 5,000 square feet in the CD-S or CD-N district that are deemed grandfathered pursuant to subsection (1), such remodeling, improvement, or replacement shall not result in increased floor area devoted to such office uses. (F) The Director may approve minor changes to the building’s footprint, height, length, and the building envelope through Architectural Review of minor aesthetic architectural improvements and to improve pedestrian-orientation provided there is no increase to the degree of any non-complying feature. (3) If a grandfathered use deemed existing pursuant to subsection (1) ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for 12 consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. (4) A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to subsection (1) which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. (b) Grandfathered Facilities (1) Any noncomplying facility existing on August 28, 1986 and which, when built, was a complying facility, may remain as a grandfathered facility and shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.70. NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 26 11-17-15 (2) The grandfathered facilities in subsection (1) shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, for continual use and occupancy by the same use, provided such remodeling, improvement, or replacement complies with all of the following: (A) shall not result in increased floor area; (B) shall not shift the relocate below grade floor area to above grade portions of the building; (C) shall not result in an increase of the height, length, building envelope, building footprint, or any other increase in the size of the improvement. (D) shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section 18.18.070; (E) The Director may approve minor changes to the building’s footprint, height, length, and the building envelope through Architectural Review of minor aesthetic architectural improvements and to improve pedestrian-orientation provided there is no increase to the degree of any non-complying feature. SECTION 16. Section 18.20.040 (Standards for GM, MOR, ROLM, RP Zones) of Chapter 18.20 (Office, Research and Manufacturing (MOR, ROLM, RP and GM) Districts of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC shall be amended as follows: (TIER 1 MATRIX #18) 18.20.040 Site Development Standards . . . (a) Development Standards for Non-Residential Uses Table 2 shows the site development standards for exclusively non-residential uses in the industrial and manufacturing districts. TABLE 2 INDUSTRIAL/MANUFACTURING NON-RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MOR ROLM ROLM (E) RP RP(5) GM Subject to Regulations in Chapter: Minimum Site Specifications Site Area (sq. ft.) 25,000 1 acre 1 acre 5 acres 1 Site Width (ft.) 150 100 100 250 Site Depth (ft.) 150 150 150 250 Minimum Setbacks Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of this code may apply. Front Yard (ft) 50(3) 20 20 100 (1) Rear Yard (ft) 10(3) 20 20 40 Interior Side Yard (ft) 10 20 20 40 Street Side Yard (ft) 20(3) 20 20 70 NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 27 11-17-15 Minimum Yard (ft) for site lines abutting or opposite residential districts 10(3) 20 20 . 10 18.20.060(e)(1)(D) 18.20.060(e)(1)(E) Maximum Site Coverage 30% 30% 30% 15% Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.5:1 0.4:1(4) 0.3:1(4) 0.4:1 W 0.3:1(4) 0.5:1 Parking See Chs. 18.40, 18.42 18.52, 18.54 Chs. 18.40, 18.42 18.52, 18.54 Landscaping See Section 18.20.050 (Performance Criteria) 18.20.050 Maximum Height (ft) Standard 50 35(4) 35(4) 50 Within 150 ft. of a residential zone<5) 35 35 35 35 Within 40 ft. of a residential zone(5) 35 25 25 35 Daylight Plane for site lines having any part abutting one or more residential districts. Initial Height - (2) 10 Slope -(2) 1:2 . . . SECTION 17. Section 18.23.050 (Visual, Screening and Landscaping) of Chapter 18.23 Performance Criteria for Multiple Family, Commercial, Manufacturing and Planned Community Districts is amended as follows: (TIER 2 MATRIX #25) . . . (B) Requirements (i) Walls facing residential properties shall incorporate architectural design features and landscaping in order to reduce apparent mass and bulk. (ii) Loading docks and exterior storage of materials or equipment shall be screened from view from residential properties by fencing, walls or landscape buffers. (iii) All required interior yards (setbacks) abutting residential properties shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen. (iv) Rooftop equipment or rooftop equipment enclosures shall not extend above a height of 15 feet above the roof and any enclosed rooftop equipment nearest residential property shall be set back at least 20 feet from the building edge closest to the residential property or a minimum of 100 feet from the residential property line, whichever is closer. Roof vents, flues and other protrusions through the roof of any building or structure shall be obscured from public view by a roof screen or proper placement. See Section 18.40.090 (height limit exceptions) for further restrictions. NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 28 11-17-15 SECTION 18. Chapter 18.31 (CEQA Review) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is adopted as a new chapter to read as follows: (TIER 1 MATRIX #45) 18.31.010 Delegation of CEQA Authority The PCE Director or other decision maker as delegated in this Code shall have authority to make California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) decisions relating to planning and land use entitlements, except that any Environmental Impact Report requiring a statement of overriding considerations shall be considered by the City Council. 18.31.020 Incorporation of State CEQA Guidelines Resolution No. 6232 is hereby repealed and the full text of the State CEQA Guidelines adopted as 14 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq., and any subsequent amendments thereto, are hereby incorporated by reference into this Chapter. If there is a conflict between the procedural provisions of the State Guidelines and this Chapter, the more restrictive provision shall apply. 18.31.030 CEQA Appeals Any person may appeal to the City Council from the decision of a non-elected decision- making body of the City to certify an environmental impact report, approve a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration or determine that a project is not subject to Public Resources Code Section 21080 et seq. (California Environmental Quality Act) if that decision is not otherwise subject to further administrative review. Any such appeal must be filed on a form specified by the Director and must be filed within the same time period governing appeals of the underlying entitlement decision or within fourteen consecutive calendar days of the date that the environmental decision is made, if there is no appeal of the entitlement. The appellant shall state the specific reasons for the appeal. The appeal must be accompanied by the required filing fee. SECTION 19 (TIER 1 MATRIX #19). Section 18.34.040 (Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District Regulations) of Chapter 18.34 (Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 18.34.040 Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District Regulations . . . (e) Density, FAR, and Height Bonus Provisions The following provisions are intended to allow for increased density, FAR, height, and other development bonuses upon construction of additional below market rate (BMR) housing units. The bonus allowances shall be allowed subject to the following limitations: (1) Bonuses are only applicable where below market rate (BMR) units are provided in excess of those required by Palo Alto's BMR program as set forth in Section 18.14.030(a) NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 29 11-17-15 andstated in Program H-3.1.26 of the Housing Element adopted on December 2, 2002. Key elements of the BMR Program H-36 include: (A) Five or more units: Minimum 15% of units must be BMR units; (B) Five or more acres being developed: Minimum 20% of units must be BMR units; and (C) BMR units shall meet the affordability and other requirements of Program H- 36 H-3.1.2 and the city's BMR Program policies and procedures. (2) The following BMR bonuses shall be considered and may be approved upon rezoning to the PTOD district: (A) Density Increase: Density may be increased above the maximum base density allowed (40 units per acre), such that at least one additional BMR unit is provided for every three additional market rate units constructed. The resultant density may not exceed fifty units per acre. Density shall be calculated based on the gross area of the site prior to development. (B) FAR Increase: For projects with a residential density greater than thirty units per acre, the allowable residential FAR may be increased. The FAR increase shall be equivalent to 0.05 for each additional 5% (in excess of the city requirements) of the total number of units that are proposed as BMR units, but may not exceed 50% of the residential FAR prior to the bonus, and may not exceed a total FAR of 1.5. (C) Height Increase: For projects with a residential density greater than 30 units per acre, the allowable project height may be increased. The height increase shall be equivalent to one foot above the maximum for each additional 5% (in excess of the city requirements) of the total number of units that are proposed as BMR units, but may not exceed a maximum height (50 feet). (D) Other incentives for development of BMR units, such as reduced setbacks and reduced open space, may be approved where at least 25% of the total units constructed are BMR units and subject to approval by the architectural review board. (3) The provisions of this section are intended to address the density bonus requirements of state law within the PTOD District, and the maximum bonus density, FAR, and height may not be further exceeded. SECTION 20 (TIER 1 MATRIX #20, 21). Sections 18.40.030 (Measurement), 18.40.70 (Projections into Yards) and 18.40.090 Height Exceptions) of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of PAMC are amended to read as follows: 18.40.030 Measurement. Distances between buildings, or between any structure and any property line, setback line, or other line or location prescribed by this title shall be measured to the nearest vertical support or wall of such structure. Where one or more buildings do not have vertical exterior walls, the distances between the buildings shall be prescribed by the building official. In the application of measurements specified by this title in both English and metric measure, metric measure shall be applied for all new construction; provided, that where existing structures, NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 30 11-17-15 uses, areas, heights, dimensions, or site improvements have been based upon English measures, the exact metric equivalent of the English measures prescribed by this title may continue to be used for improvements, extensions, and revisions to such facilities or uses. It is the purpose of this title to facilitate conversion from English to metric measures with minimum impact on property and improvements and changes thereto, and the building official, director, director of planning and community environment and other persons responsible for interpretation and enforcement of this title shall, in case of conflict or difference between English and metric measurements, apply the provisions of this title in the less restrictive manner of this section (TIER 1 MATRIX #20) 18.40.070 Projections into Yards (TIER 1 MATRIX #21) The director may grant a temporary use permit authorizing the use of a site in any district for a temporary use, subject to the following provisions. . . . SECTION 21 (TIER 1 MATRIX #22 and 23). Sections 18.52.060 (Parking Assessment Districts and Areas - General) and 18.52.070 (Parking Regulations for CD Assessment District) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC are amended to read as follows: 18.52.060 Parking Assessment Districts and Areas - General . . . (b) In-lieu fees Except as provided in subsection (c) below, wWithin any parking assessment district established by the city for the purpose of providing off-street parking facilities, all or a portion of the off- street parking requirement for a use may be satisfied by payment of assessments or fees levied by such district on the basis of parking spaces required but not provided. (TIER 1 MATRIX #22) 18.52.070 Parking Regulations for CD Assessment District With respect to on-site and off-site parking space requirements for nonresidential uses within an assessment district wherein properties are assessed under a Bond Plan G financing pursuant to Title 13, the requirements of this Section 18.52.040 shall apply in the CD Assessment district in lieu of comparable requirements in this Chapter 18.52. Requirements for the size and other design criteria for parking spaces shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Chapter 18.54. (TIER 1 MATRIX #23) . . . SECTION 22 (TIER 1 MATRIX #24). Sections 18.70.010 (General Application) and 18.70.080 (Noncomplying Facility Enlargement) of Chapter 18.70 (Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Facilities) of the PAMC are amended to read as follows: 18.70.010 General application. NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 31 11-17-15 Except as provided by this chapter Title or otherwise provided by law, a nonconforming use may be continued, and a structure containing or used by one or more nonconforming uses may be maintained, or a noncomplying facility may be maintained. A nonconforming use is a use which existed legally under the provisions of its zoning classification prior to a rezoning action or annexation which rendered such use not in conformance with the provisions of such new zoning classification. A noncomplying facility is a facility which existed legally under the provisions of its zoning classification prior to a rezoning action or annexation which rendered such facility not in compliance with the provisions of such new zoning classification. 18.70.080 Noncomplying facility - Enlargement. (TIER 1 MATRIX #24) (a) Except as specifically permitted by subsections (b) and (c) hereof or by Section 18.12.050(a), no enlargement, expansion, or other addition or improvement to a noncomplying facility shall be permitted which increases the noncompliance. This section shall not be construed to prohibit enlargement or improvement of a facility, otherwise permitted by this title, which does not affect the particular degree of or manner in which the facility does not comply with one or more provisions of this title. (TIER 1 MATRIX #24) (b) Except in areas designated as special study areas, the director of planning and community environment may permit minor additions of floor area to noncomplying facilities in the commercial CC, CS and CN zones and in the industrial MOR, ROLM, RP and GM districts, subject to applicable site development regulations, for purposes of on-site employee amenities, resource conservation, or code compliance, upon the determination that such minor additions will not, of themselves, generate substantial additional employment. Such additions may include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) Amenity space area designed and used solely for providing on-site services to employees of the facility, such as recreational facilities, credit unions, cafeterias, on-site laundry facilities, and daycare facilities. (2) Area designated for resource conservation, such as trash compactors, recycling and thermal storage facilities; and (3) Area designed and required for hazardous materials storage facilities, handicapped access, and seismic upgrades. . . . SECTION 23. Section 18.76.020 (Architectural Review) of Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) of Title 18 (Zoning) of PAMC is amended to read as follows: 18.76.020 Architectural Review . . . (b) Applicability . . . NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 32 11-17-15 (2) Major Projects. The following are "major projects" for the purposes of the architectural review process set forth in Section 18.77.070, and are subject to review by the architectural review board: . . . (E) Any project using transferred development rights, as described in Chapter 18.87 18.18. . . . (d) Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is found that: (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site; (3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project; (4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character; (5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses; (6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site; (7) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community; (8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures; (9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project's design concept; (10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles; (11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project; (12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function and whether the same are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions; (13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site; NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 33 11-17-15 (14) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance; (15) ITie project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be utilized in determining sustainable site and building design: (A) Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation; (B) Design of landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects; (C) Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access; (D) Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable paving; (E) Use sustainable building materials; (F) Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use; (G) Create healthy indoor environments; and (H) Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. (16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection (a). 1. The design is consistent with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code (including context-based design criteria, as applicable) and any relevant design guides. 2. The project has a unified and coherent design that creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, preserves, respects and integrates natural features and the historic character of the area when appropriate, provides harmonious transitions in scale and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations and enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. 3. The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. 4. The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle access and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 34 11-17-15 5. The landscape design is suitable, integrated and compatible with the building and the surrounding area, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes drought- resistant plant material that can be appropriately maintained. 6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability and green building requirements in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, site planning and sensible design. (TIER 1 MATRIX #46) SECTION 24. Sections 18.77.060 (Standard Staff Review Process), 18.77.070 (Architectural Review Process), and 18.77.075 (Low-Density Residential Review Process) of Chapter 18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals) of Title 18 (Zoning) the Palo Alto Municipal Code are amended to read as follows: 18.77.060 Standard Staff Review Process . . . (f) Decision by the Council The recommendation of the planning and transportation commission on the application shall be placed on the consent calendar of the council within 30 45 days. The council may: (TIER 1 MATRIX #47) (1) Adopt the findings and recommendation of the planning and transportation commission; or (2) Remove the recommendation from the consent calendar, which shall require three votes, and direct that the application be set for a new noticed hearing before the city council, following which the city council shall adopt findings and take action on the application. (TIER 1 MATRIX #47) (A) Discuss the application and adopt findings and take action on the application based upon the evidence presented at the hearing of the planning and transportation commission; or (B) Direct that the application be set for a new hearing before the city council, following which the city council shall adopt findings and take action on the application. . . . 18.77.070 Architectural Review Process . . . (d) Decision by the Director Upon receipt of a recommendation of the architectural review board: (1) Within 3 5 working days, the director shall prepare a written decision to approve the application, approve it with conditions, or deny it. (TIER 1 MATRIX #49) . . . (f) Decision by the City Council NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 35 11-17-15 The appeal of the director's decision shall be placed on the consent calendar of the city council within 30 45 days. The city council may: (TIER 1 MATRIX #48) (1) Adopt the findings and decision of the director; or (2) Remove the appeal from the consent calendar, which shall require three votes, and direct that the appeal be set for a new noticed hearing before the city council, following which the city council shall adopt findings and take action on the application. (TIER 1 MATRIX #48) (A) Discuss the appeal and adopt findings and take action on the appeal based upon the evidence presented at the hearing of the architectural review board; or (B) Direct that the appeal be set for a new hearing before the city council, following which the city council shall adopt findings and take action on the application. . . . 18.77.075 Low-density Residential Review Process . . . (f) Final Director’s Decision . . . (g) Decision by the City Council If a timely appeal is received by the City, the director's decision on the application shall be placed on the consent calendar of the city council within 30 45 days. The city council may: (TIER 1 MATRIX #50) (1) Adopt the findings and recommendation of the director; or (2) Remove the recommendation from the consent calendar, which shall require four three votes, and direct that the application be set for a new noticed hearing before the city council, following which the city council shall adopt findings and take action on the application. set the application for a new hearing before the city council, following which the city council shall adopt findings and take action on the application. (TIER 1 MATRIX #50) . . . SECTION 25. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 26. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. NOT YET APPROVED 151014 jb 0131490 36 11-17-15 SECTION 27. The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline sections 15061(b) and 15301, 15302 and 15305 because it simply provides a comprehensive permitting scheme. SECTION 28. This ordinance shall not apply to any planning or land use applications deemed complete as of the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 29. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning & Community Environment Tier 1 Changes Ordinance 2015 - Administrative # Tier Draft Ord. Page Affected PAMC Section and Items Section Title/Topic Problem Statement Change Description How Change Addresses Issue Change Category 1 1 1-5 16.20.010, .050, .070, .100,.180, .210, .240, .270;16.24.01 0 and .080 Decision Authority: Sign Code and Fence Code Chief Building Official is given decision authority over planning related issues when it should be the Director of PCE Change decision authority from CBO to PCE Director or his or her designee. This reflects practice that the PCE Director is handling signs and fences via planning processes (Architectural Review, Variance, Sign Exceptions) and fact that Code Enforcement Division handling sign and fence violations is also within the PCE department Reflects current organizational structure and practice (separation of Development Services from PCE) Administrative 2 1 5 16.57.010 Applicability, In- Lieu Parking Fee for New Non- residential CD Development Inaccurate Code Reference Fix a chapter section reference; 16.57.010 Applicability: Change Section reference from 18.49.100 to 18.18.090 Resolves the reference error Administrative 3 1 5 Title 18 Index Hospital District (HD) Chapter The HD Zone chapter is not listed on Zoning Title 18 Table of contents Add HD Chapter 18.36 to the index of chapters in Title 18 Fixes the incomplete index of chapters to show HD chapter Administrative 4 1 6 18.04.030 (53b) Definition Noncomplying Facility Awkward sentence causes confusion Amends awkward sentence in noncomplying facility definition for clarity, and also references a new definition for “substantial remodel” related terms (i.e. Grandfathered) Fixes an awkward sentence and introduces a new term for staff use Administrative 5 1 7 18.04.030 (65) C and D Definition GFA (65) Low Density GFA (C) Inclusions and (D) Exclusions Typographical error Need for cross reference Amend code to reference Chapter 18.12 Section 18.12. 040(b) Table 3 Summary of Gross Floor Area that contains specificity about entry features and porches; delete one of the “of all” phrases that are next to each other. References the section needed to understand definition for R-1 zone. Fixes typographical error. Administrative 6 1 8 18.10.060(f) Design of Parking Areas (item f) Incorrect chapter reference Fix a chapter section Reference: .060 (f) references 18.83 (should be 18.54) Corrects typographical error Administrative 7 1 9-10 18.12.040 Site Development Standards Incorrect reference Correct the typographical error to refer to 18.12.090 not 18.12.070. Fixes reference error Administrative 8 1 10 18.12.040 (b) Table 3 Summary of Gross Floor Area in Low Density Residential Districts Incorrect references Correct the incorrect chapter and section references: (1) incorrect chapter reference (low-density districts is Chapter 18.10; this is R-1 chapter/topic); (2) incorrect section reference (basements is not 18.12.070, should be 18.12.090) Fixes reference errors Administrative 9 1 11 18.12.040 (c)(iv) Substandard and Flag Lots Duplicative statement Delete item iv as it is duplicative to item (c)(2) (iii) Fixes a typographical error Administrative 10 1 11-12 18.12.040 (e) Block language for contextual front setbacks (e) Awkward sentence causes confusion Clarify language. Wording is confusing regarding 600 foot limit (overlooked unless “and” is added to clarify), and blocks of three or fewer homes – needs word “eligible” to clarify. Clarifies block length Administrative 11 1 12 18.12.050 A 1 D Permitted Encroachments, Special Setbacks Typographical error Amend (A)(1)(D) to fix: ‘exiting’ should be ‘existing’ (section is Permitted Encroachments, Projections and Exceptions) Fixes a typographical error Administrative 12 1 13 18.12.060 Parking Incorrect reference Delete typographical error phrase (RE R2 RMD); Fix reference 18.12.060 and 18.12.140(c) (NOT 18.10.060 and 18.10.130(c)) Fixes a reference Administrative Attachment B 13 1 13-14 18.12.070 d4 Second dwelling unit garage area Incorrect reference Missing word Amend d4 to reflect code intent that 200 sf for a second dwelling unit garage is not counted toward maximum size second dwelling unit (450 sf attached unit /900 sf detached unit) Provides greater clarity Administrative 14 1 16-17 18.13.050 Table 3 Village Residential Incorrect reference and missing word Amend landscape requirements (refer to 18.40.130 NOT 18.14.130); Add “entire” (to clarify that RM 15 development standards apply to entire site) Fixes typographical error and clarifies Administrative 15 1 22 18.16.060 (b) table 4 footnote 9 CS CN CC Development Standards for Mixed Uses residential density Incorrect reference Amend 18.16.060 b table 4 Footnote 9 to reference new housing element. The Table 4 entry for CN density of 15-20 units density allowable references footnote 9, which cites the 2007-2014 Housing Element (allowing 20 units per acre only on housing inventory sites) Remove older Housing Element section/policy references Administrative 16 1 23 18.18.060 Non-Residential Development Standards – Maximum Size of New or Expansion Projects Typographical error Amend “25,00 and 15,00 sf above existing floor area, whichever is greater, provided the floor area limits set forth elsewhere in this chapter are not exceeded.” The correct numbers are 25,000 and 15,000 sf per Chapter 18.49, predecessor to Chapter 18.18. Fixes a number typographical error Administrative 17 1 24 18.18.080 (h) Transfer Procedure Incorrect reference Amend item (h) reference to 16.48 and 16.48.120: change to 18.76 & 18.76.020 (old ARB chapter was 16.48) Fixes typographical error Administrative 18 1 27 18.20.040 Table 2 Standards for GM, MOR, ROLM, RP Zones Need for cross reference Add references to Table 2 Parking (18.52, 18.54) and architectural review (18.76) codes Clarifies for reader Administrative 19 1 28 and 17 18.34.040 and 18.14.030(a) PTOD density bonus PTOD code item (e)(1)(c) cites outmoded H-36 of 2002 Housing Element, and (e)(3) is not needed with 18.15 changes Delete item (e)(1) regarding H-36 and instead reference new Housing Element policies, and delete (e)(3) addressing density bonus requirements given changes in 18.15 implementing HE Implements or makes consistent with new HE Administrative 20 1 29-30 18.40.030 Metric units Metric measurements are no longer planned for the US but this section still uses them. Delete metric: keep first two sentences about measurement but delete sentence three and after where metric-measurements are used. Eliminates irrelevant reference Administrative 21 1 30 18.40.070 Projections Into Yards Incorrect reference Delete the TUP verbiage in accessory structure section and replace with different preamble Fixes error Administrative 22 1 30 18.52.060 (b) In lieu fees Typographical error Delete typographical error in 18.52.060 (b): “except as provided in (c) below” because there is no c below Fixes typographical error Administrative 23 1 30 18.52.070 Assessment District Parking Regulations (c) In lieu parking provisions Clarification Insert the word “Assessment” to make it clear this item refers to assessment district, rather than CD zone (which is larger than the assessment district boundary). Code refers to CD commercial downtown district; CD zone is not the same as assessment district. Fixes typographical error Administrative 24 1 31 18.70.080 and 18.70.100 Noncomplying Facility enlargement and Noncomplying Facility replacement Typographical error (18.70.080) and does not address on-site laundry facilities. Incorrect reference (18.70.100) Amend 18.70.080 (Enlargement) to fix typographical error in (a) that references a non-existent item (c) and add to (b)1 “on-site laundry facilities” Amend 18.70.100 to cite ROLM and RP zones where code refers in error to LM zones (outdated zones that were replaced by ROLM and RP zones in last code update) Fixes typos and introduces exclusion of break rooms as a form of cafeteria and allowance of laundry facility additions (consistent with item #40) Administrative Tier 1 Changes Ordinance 2015 - Interpretation # Tier Draft Ord. Page Affected PAMC Section and Items Section Title/Topic Problem Statement Change Description How Change Addresses Issue Change Category 25 1 1 16.20.010 Wall sign definition Common sign typology requires sign exception Change wall sign definition to include signs attached to extend above canopies Reduces sign exception requests Interpretation 26 1 1-2 16.20.140 Projecting sign standards Common sign typology requires sign exception Allow blade signs - projecting signs - when there is no canopy/overhang on the building Reduces sign exception requests Interpretation 27 1 6 18.04.030 (65)(A)(vi) Definition Gross Floor Area (GFA) Inclusions Code lacks clarity on how to measure stairs and elevators as it relates to calculating gross floor area Amend code to be consistent with longstanding practices to count stairs and elevators at each floor. This item is in the non-residential/multi-family residential (MFR) Gross Floor Area (GFA) Inclusions. Ensures floors and elevators are counted toward GFA on all floors Interpretation 28 1 8 18.04.030 Definition Usable Open Space (142) The definition of usable open space is important to multi-family residential and mixed use projects; the current definition does not clarify what is meant by the term “outdoor” which creates confusion as to whether such projects meet minimum usable open space requirement. Amend usable open space to clarify it can be either covered and unenclosed (no more than 50% of area with walls) or uncovered (= non-roofed, permanently or temporarily) and partially (no more than 50% walled) or substantially (more than 50% opened) open on the perimeter (outdoor) Provides clarification about usable open space Interpretation 29 1 13 18.12.050 Projections The code is not flexible enough to allow first floor bay windows within a street side yard (though bay windows are allowed to project 3 feet into required front yard) Amend code to allow a 2’ 3 feet street side bay window projection. Allows design flexibility for limited encroachment into street side yard for bay windows Interpretation 30 1 15 18.13.010 MFR– no minimum density in table The code does not clarify density’s recommended range versus permitted range– need to clarify no minimum density Amend to ensure the density note in the table is clear (NOT a minimum) Clarifies intent or policy vs. requirement Interpretation Tier 1 Changes Ordinance 2015 – New Policy # Tier Draft Ord. Page Affected PAMC Section and Items Section Title/Topic Problem Statement Change Description How Change Addresses Issue Change Category 31 1 5 18.01.025 Director Interpretations Formalize process for issuing zoning code interpretations and for aggrieved parties to protest interpretations made. New section ‘PCE Director zoning interpretations’, 18.01.025. Formalizes Director’s authority to make interpretations and provides a process for aggrieved individuals to request reconsideration by Council before the PTC and CC. Also requires interpretations to be made available to the public. Establishes a clear process w/opportunity for public review and increased transparency New Policy 32 1 8 18.08.080 Interpretation of Land Use Classifications There is no process for addressing land uses which are not expressly listed in the zoning code. Add new section to permit Director to determine whether proposed use is similar to designated uses. Clarifies Director discretion/ authority on use determinations and allows appeals thereto New Policy 33 1 7 18.04.030 Definitions GFA Exclusions (65)(B) GFA exclusions definition has no maximum restriction on the amount of accessible area, nor does it prevent this excluded area from being recaptured in new construction on a property Amend code to clarify it is only the incremental area that is excluded, if needed to adjust an existing hallway or restroom to meet ADA code. Also imposes a one-time cap of 500 sf and restricts re-use of this exempt area in rebuilds on the site. Replaces term ‘dry cleaners’ with ‘on-site laundry facilities’ as being exempt from floor area. Currently the ADA and seismic upgrade area within Definitions only applies to zones other than the CD zone. Defines excluded area more specifically, limits amount of excluded floor area, and prevents re-use of such area in rebuilds New Policy 34 1 8 18.10.040 Noise equipment in RE, R2, RMD zones Customers question City’s logic on too- restrictive code; does not allow replacement of existing, previously permitted noise equipment with ‘quieter equipment’, and allowing noise equipment as close as 8’ from rear property line (current code allows placement at 6’ from interior side property line). City’s regulations may discourage trade professionals from obtaining required permits. Amend .040(h) in Development Standards to allow noise equipment 8’ from rear property line and replacement of equipment in prior permitted location with quieter equipment Addresses modern technology solution New Policy 35 1 12 18.12.040 (l) Noise equipment in R-1 zones As in 18.10, this is a too-restrictive code provision – equipment should be allowed in rear yard when at least 8 feet from rear property line, and allowed to be replaced with quiet equipment in place. Amend code similar to 18.10.040 (h) change Allows noise equipment to be replaced with quieter equipment (in same place) and allows equipment to be placed up to 8 feet from rear property line. New Policy 36 1 15 18.12.100 Remove SSO fee The code requires a fee for rezoning to SSO, contrary to Council direction to waive SSO fees. Delete fee requirement, consistent with Council direction, since cost is barrier to SSO applicants Codifies Council direction and practice to not charge SSO fee New Policy 37 1 15 18.12.120 Home Improvement Exception- eligibility of 75% walls retained The code does not clarify how to measure the walls to be retained. Longstanding interpretation is: walls retained in place as exterior walls (not subsumed into addition, and not altered to the point of being ‘see-through’). Amend to ensure retention of 75%+ of existing exterior walls “as exterior walls in place” and “not see-through” Clarifies measurement per longstanding interpretation of HIE eligibility New Policy 38 1 17 18.15.020 Definitions within Residential Density Bonus Chapter The code does not contain a definition for “replace”, which is needed. Insert definition of “replace” into 18.15.030(h) to conform with state law Implements Housing Element New policy 39 1 18-19 18.15.040 and 18.15.100 1.‘Development Standards for Affordable Units’ and 2.‘Regulatory Agreement’ Old state law required 30 year deed restricts to qualify for density bonus, but new state law requires 55 years. Increase the term of affordability from 30 to 55 years (item (b)) Implements Housing Element New policy 40 1 19-21 18.15.050 Development Concessions and Incentives New state law requires that the city not impose a vehicular parking ratio for affordable housing projects near transit Amend to add a new item (b) Additional parking incentives for transit oriented projects, and re-letters existing item (b) to become item (c) Implements Housing Element New Policy 41 1 21 18.16.050 Office Use Restrictions The wording of Office Use Restrictions, created in 2001, is confusing and inconsistent with intent of ordinance Amend 18.16.050 wording to better address issue of ground floor conversions to office. Clarifies intent of original 2001 ordinance New policy per Council Direction 42 1 22-23 18.16.060 (b) and 18.18.060(b) Site and Design Review unit threshold The 4-unit threshold for Site and Design Review of mixed units results in applicants choosing 3 or fewer housing units to avoid this additional discretionary review. This provision seems to discourage more housing units due to a regulatory process that adds little qualitative benefit and results in larger units. Discretionary ARB review would still be required. Moreover, the Housing Element includes a policy recommending this threshold change to nine units. Amend the S&D Review threshold to nine units as suggested in the Housing Element. This is not a footnote to Table; It is item 1 (next page) Raises the Site & Design review threshold to encourage the production or more housing units. New policy 43 1 23 18.18.060 (e) Exempt Floor Area CD zones The code exempts floor area for ADA and historic rehabilitation upgrades to existing buildings. However, there is no limit to the floor area exemption and it is unclear about its application to new construction. Amend code to add “existing” and clarify it is only the incremental area that is excluded, if needed to adjust an existing hallway or restroom to meet ADA code. Also imposes a one-time cap of 500 sf and restricts re-use of this exempt area in rebuilds on the site. Defines excluded area more specifically, limits amount of excluded floor area, and prevents re-use of such area in rebuilds New policy 44 1 25-26 18.18.120 Building envelope of Grandfathered Facility (memorialize no basement upward and ‘carve out’ for above grade shift) Code item (b)(2)(B) disallows shifting the building footprint, interpreted as no shifting from below grade to above grade. Code has not been amended to make this clear and it is not clear as to relocation of mass within above-grade building to implement improvements (articulation, pedestrian friendly/context responsive changes) to meet Comp Plan Amend (2)(b) to clarify shifting of building floor area from below grade to above grade is not allowable but relocation of above grade floor area that changes building footprint that does not result in an increase in the degree of noncompliance is allowed. Aligns with older filed interpretations allowing relocation of floor area within the above grade volume New Policy 45 1 28 New Chapter 18.31 CEQA Review CEQA Provisions Title 18 does not give sufficient guidance on Council’s role in reviewing EIRs and does not provide CEQA appeal process. Need to refresh City’s old CEQA Guidelines. Add new chapter with 3 sections: .010 Delegation of CEQA Authority; .020 Incorporation of State CEQA Guidelines;.030 CEQA Appeals. Only EIRs with OCs go to Council on non-Council-review applications. Director may refer ND/MND to Council. New Chapter to go with State rules. Modifies CEQA processing in Palo Alto New policy 46 1 32-34 18.76.020 New Architectural Review findings for approval Code item (d) has too many (16) AR approval findings. Adjusts findings to improve qualitative analysis, focus project reviews on key criteria, provide clarity on project evaluations, reduce reading and writing fatigue, strengthen legal standing in court if challenged, and reduce paper generated for packet. Improves process and outcomes New policy 47 1 34 18.77.060 CUPs, Variances, NPE timeline to hearing and limit consent options Code required “within 30 days” to get to Council is infeasible given deadlines for report preparation and review. Code is confusing with respect to what happens when an item is pulled off consent (too many options) Amend code from 30 days to “within 45 days” similar to the 45 days code standard for CUPs getting to a PTC hearing following hearing request. 18.77.060 (f) Decision by Council to modify consent removal for Variances, CUPs, NPEs and deletes A and B options (thereby requiring a public hearing if pulled off consent) Gives 45 days between appeal and placement on Council agenda following hearing requests and hearings Eliminates confusion: if pulled, then hearing scheduled. New Policy per Council P&S 48 1 34-35 18.77.070 Architectural Review Consent options, Days to consent placement Code has too many options after pulled from consent. Code requirement of 30 days to consent calendar is unworkable given report preparation and review time. Precedent: 45 days is the timeline for getting hearing requests to the PTC. Amend item (f) Decision by City Council (per P&S) to: Increase number of days to consent calendar placement (from 30 to 45) and Delete A and B options (requiring a public Council hearing if pulled off consent) Allows clarity for AR appeals so appellants know if the item is pulled off consent, a hearing WILL be scheduled (instead of might be scheduled), and allows 45 days between appeal and placement on Council agenda. New policy per Council P&S 49 1 34 18.77.070 Days to AR Decision after ARB recommends Code requirement of three days (three working days) is too few days after a Thursday ARB hearing to ensure thorough review and issuance of decision letters. Amend item (d)(1) to increase three (working) days to five (working) days – allowing deadline for decision to typically be the Thursday or Friday (depending on 980 Friday schedule/holidays) following ARB recommendations during a Thursday hearing (instead of Tuesdays) Allows reasonable timeframe for preparing and reviewing decision letters following ARB recommendation during a public hearing on a project. New policy 50 1 35 18.77.075 IR/HIE days to consent placement, Number of votes Number of votes to pull off (4) is inconsistent with other application types. Code requirement of 30 days to consent calendar is unworkable given report preparation and review time. Precedent: 45 days is the timeline for getting hearing requests to the PTC. Amend item (g) to reduce number of Councilmember votes to pull off consent to three votes (reduction from four votes), and increase number of days to consent calendar placement (from 30 to 45) Requires only 3 Councilmember votes to pull off consent instead of 4, and allows staff more time to prepare and publish appeal CMRs. New policy per Council P&S Description of Categories: Administrative: Fix inaccurate code references, outmoded provisions, typographical errors and similar, non-substantive changes. Interpretation: Modify code to (1) provide better clarification of the requirement, (2) reflect current practice, or (3) align with current city policy. New Policy: Wholly new language introduced to establish a new procedure, process or regulation, or a substantial modification to existing policy. Matrix Tier 2 Changes: In Numerical Code Order Regardless of Change Classification Contains PTC recommended transfers from Tier 1 # Affected PAMC Section and Items Section Title/Topic Description Reason for Tier 2 Listing 1 Title 8: 8.10.020 .050, .100,.140 a. Tree canopy b. Tree Removal Authority a. Evaluate tree canopy removal policies. Requires interdepartmental conversations. b. Code should reflect department reorganization (Urban Forestry, Planning and Community Environment) including appeals of tree removals Requires Council guidance, thorough review 2 Title 16 Issuance of Demolition Permits Evaluate and codify demolition permit sequencing policy for single family residences. Policy: Demolition permits issued in conjunction with SFR building permits unless a salvage/ deconstruction plan is submitted. Requires Council guidance 3 Was Tier 1 #32 18.04.030 Attachment E Item 1 Definition Amenity (on-site for employees) (new 10) There is no definition for on-site employee amenity, which is considered exempt floor area and not required to be parked, when outside the CD zone district. Exemptions were given for break rooms outside CD. Amenity area defined to fix issues (GFA/parking re break room). Applicants request break rooms as amenities for non-retail commercial buildings outside the CD zone district. Amenity use serving as a primary on-site use is not exempt GFA, needs to be parked. Reorder numbers in section to insert as #10. Possible policy discussion 10/14 PTC removed from Tier 1 List 4 Was Tier 1 #33 18.04.030 Attachment E Item 1 Definition Footprint (57.5) Basements are permitted under the footprint of a building in the single family zone. The definition of footprint is unclear and overtime has been extended to include the footprint of ground level porches. Increasingly, new single family homes are being constructed with larger basements that appear inconsistent with the intent of the code and require more administrative time reviewing projects on a case by case basis. There is a need to establish a clear policy regarding the permitted placement of basements. Clarify the definition of footprint to exclude all porches and reinforce existing code language that suggests the building footprint extends to the exterior wall of interior spaces. Establish a clear policy on where basements are permitted on a single family lot. Possible policy discussion 10/14 PTC removed from Tier 1 List 5 Was Tier 1 #43 Now 18.52.040 Tables 1, 2, 3 (Was 18.04.030) Attachment E Item 6 Off-Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Facility Requirements Definition Gross Floor Area (GFA) Inclusions (65)(A) Rooftop Dining Commercial/MFR GFA inclusions code does not address how to calculate floor area for rooftop dining area. Rooftop dining area, including uncovered area, does not currently count as floor area but should be parked (in-lieu parking fees suffice if within Downtown parking assessment district). Amend (c) Tables 1, 2 and 3 to add an item (c ) Rooftop dining and drinking services under Eating and Drinking Facilities to clarify public service area on the rooftop must be parked at the same ratio as indoor public service area. Amend A(vi) to note that rooftop dining area for a commercial use is to be considered gross floor area (whether roofed or unroofed) for determination of required parking spaces/assessment. This item is in the non-residential/multi-family residential (MFR) Gross Floor Area (GFA) Inclusions. Possible policy discussion 9/30 PTC removed from Tier 1 List 6 Was Tier1 #29, #32, #42 18.04.030 Attachment E Item 1 ( does not include break room) and 18.70. 080 Attachment E Item 7 Break Room Topic (cited within new ‘on-site employee amenity ‘definition, and modifying item (b) of ‘Noncomplying Facility Enlargement’ rules Break rooms are not called out as Employee Amenities, whereas Cafeterias are specifically noted in the code in several locations; discussion is needed to ensure there is no unintended consequence, given modern office space usage. Consider amending definition and noncomplying facilities sections to address break rooms. Possible policy discussion 9/30 and 10/14 PTC put “break room” discussion formerly contained within #29, #32 and #42 into Tier 2 7 18.04.030 Definitions: a. New: Mezzanine b. Other definitions a. Mezzanine definition does not exist. Evaluate the significance of this as relates to grandfathered/non-complying. b. Other definitions could benefit include Attic (12), Building (22), B&B (15.5), grade (64), lodging unit (83), medical office (95), personal service (114), porch (113.1), professional office (116), research and development (123) Possible policy discussion 8 Chapter 18.10 Low Density Residential Standards R-2 and RMD zone regulations currently have a provision limiting maximum lot size to less than double minimum lot size. Relates to Accessory Dwelling Unit discussion from Council Colleagues memo of October 19, 2015. Requires Council guidance 9 Chapters 18.10 and 18.12 a. Low Density Table 1; b and c. Parking, d. other Relates to Accessory Dwelling Unit discussion from Council Colleagues memo of October 19, 2015.Requires separate work effort 10 18.12.040 SFR Development Standards a. Site coverage calculation for a ‘court’; b. Required front yard; c. Flood height a. Evaluate site coverage wording related to “court” b. Front yard as relates to area within front setback. c. Flood zone homes – height and daylight plane “bonuses” Possible policy discussion ATTACHMENT C 11 Was Tier 1 #36 18.12.040 (f) Attachment E Item 2 Contextual Garage Placement (f) treatment of carports Code language is not working and needs amendment to (1) reflect intent of equal treatment of garages and carports in both determining context and meeting standard for placement and (2) fix 600 foot length of block wording to determine pattern. Make carports equal to garages - add ‘carport’ 5x in paragraph and clarify number of homes on blocks longer than 600 feet are “no more than” 10 properties “and” for a distance not greater than 600 feet. Makes garages and carports equal in terms of contextual setback and clarifies how to determine context on blocks longer than 600 feet 9/30 PTC removed from Tier 1 12 18.12.050 Permitted Encroachments, Projections and Exceptions a. Patio cover b. Daylight Plane Exception c. Horizontal encroachments d. Storage structures a. Evaluate attached versus detached canopies b. Evaluate daylight plane exceptions to improve IR guidelines compliance c. Extensions – evaluate for existing versus new home, main dwelling, one item applies to existing homes, two items can apply to new homes d. Evaluate detached versus attached to home. Possible policy discussion 13 18.12.060 Parking a. space clearance dimensions, b. vertical lifts, c. location of uncovered parking spaces a. Evaluate interior garage space verbiage b. Explore language for use of vertical-tandem, mechanical parking lifts c. Explore allowing portion of second, uncovered parking space within the required front yard to encourage less paving and subordinate, one car garages with tandem space in front to better meet IR guideline for subordinate garage. Requires more thorough review, Possible policy discussion 14 18.12.090 Basements (SFR) item (a) Excavated features not in front of building Explore excavated feature placement given interpretations of “front” (front of the house is front yard, per zoning code) and for corner lots (street side yard) Possible policy discussion 15 Was Tier 1 #37 18.12.090; now only Footprint definition .04.030 Attachment E Item 1 Basements under footprint The code permits basements under the footprint of a house. Footprint is defined as the two-dimensional configuration of a building's perimeter boundaries as measured on a horizontal plane at ground level. Over time this provision has been expanded to allow basements under porches and covered entries. More recently, some house designs maximize basement area with adverse aesthetic impacts to home design. Clarify the definition of footprint to mean the exterior walls of interior spaces. Eliminates confusion that occurs regarding allowance of basement under porches 9/30 PTC removed from Tier 1 16 Was Tier 1 #48 18.12.110 (b) Attachment E Item 2 Single Family Individual Review threshold area (second floor deck area) The code does not state whether second floor deck area is subject to the 150 square foot threshold triggering discretionary for additions to the second story of a home. In the past, it has not been included, which has resulted in privacy impacts to neighbors. Require any new construction on the second floor, including exterior decks to be counted toward the 150 square foot threshold. Ensures process (IR) to address privacy issues created by large second floor decks over 150 sf 9/30 PTC removed from Tier 1 17 18.12.120 Home Improvement Exceptions (d) findings Staff recommends adding a fourth finding to make it clear an HIE can only be approved if no prior Home Improvement Exception was granted for an alteration to the building and no prior addition to the building was constructed within the previous five year period. Possible policy discussion 18 18.15.050 (c)(iv) Development Concessions and Incentives Explore retail as possible incentive for inclusion on menu of concessions. Needs outreach and further study. Requires Council guidance 19 18.16.050 and 18.18.060 (f) Office Use Restrictions Development Standards Evaluate requirement for pedestrian oriented window treatments for ground floor office Requires Council guidance 20 18.16.060 (a) Development Standards; FAR for hotels Explore modifying the 2.0:1 Floor Area Ratio within the CC2 and CS zones. Requires Council guidance 21 18.16.100 Grandfathered Uses in CN and CS Evaluate assessment district replacement of office, related to urgency ordinance restrictions and any follow-up ordinance and assessment district changes Requires Council guidance 22 18.16, 18.18 and SOFA 2 CAP Tables of permitted land uses Explore existing regulations and consider requirement Conditional Use Permits for private schools within ground floor restricted areas and in areas where toxics are known to be located. Requires Council guidance 23 Was Tier 1 #54 18.18.060 Attachment E Item 3 Minimum number of housing units in new mixed use projects downtown From Tier 1: There has been a pattern of new large penthouse units (with potential risk of use as office space) in mixed use areas, especially downtown. Amend Table 3 to add Minimum number of housing units (3) for NEW mixed use projects. Realigns code and practice; results in a minimum of three units for new mixed use construction and permits fewer units for existing buildings that are less able to provide code required parking. Possible policy discussion - 9/30 PTC removed from Tier 24 18.18.060 Development Standards (CD zones) Open space Evaluate code regarding the total and parts for mixed use projects. Amend Table 3 (mixed use) landscape open space versus usable open space in the CD zone district. (Not the same change as Tier 1 Matrix #35 definition). Possible policy discussion 25 18.18.070 (a)(5) Floor Area Bonuses Explore possible modification to bonuses for oversized buildings Requires Council guidance 26 Was Tier 1 #40 18.18.070(a)(2) and (b)(5) Attachment E Item 3 Floor Area Bonuses Seismic bonus Issue: when seismic category building is torn down, bonus area added to the replacement building or sometimes transferred to a receiver site. Seismic rehabilitation is intended to result in the retention of the existing structure. Council recently reiterated the intent of this provision to exclude complete demolition qualifying as rehabilitation and not eligible for TDR. Amend 18.18.070(a)(2) and (b)(5) to clarify seismic bonus floor area can only be granted if the seismic category building remains in place on site following rehabilitation (and is not a replacement building). Refer to nonconforming/noncomplying provisions in 18.18.120 and 18.70.100. Clarifies intent of bonus for rehabilitation of seismic category buildings (not replacement) Possible policy discussion 9/30 PTC removed from Tier 1 27 18.18.080 item (f) Transfer of Development Rights Floor Area Ratio and TDR Evaluate wording of code: Items 1 and 2 are different than item 4 that limits FAR to 3.0:1; and consider amending item (e) eligible receiver sites (use OR not AND in 3B), item (f) 1 to insert an ‘(a)’ and a ‘(b)’ to separate, and item (f) 2 to clarify ‘whichever is greater’ doesn’t include added floor area more than 10k sf Complex administrative change, possible policy discussion 28 18.18 Basement conversion to office Currently addressed by interim ordinance, needs further study Requires Council guidance 29 18.23.050 B iv Attachment E Item 4 Performance Criteria, rooftop equipment Adds reference to 18.40.090, height limit exceptions code – discussion needed on the limits see matrix #33. Possible policy discussion 30 New Section 18.38.180 PC Penalties Evaluate PC penalties Requires Council guidance 31 18.40.030 General Standards /Exceptions -Grade measurement for flood zone homes Consider how grade measurement is a factor (i.e. raising grade) to get better outcomes for flood zone homes Possible policy discussion 32 Was Tier 1 #25 18.40.060 (c) and 18.40.070(e) General Standards and Exceptions: Swimming pools and spas setback from property lines Explore better wording to clarify setbacks of pools, spas, hot tubs, currently different depending on districts and property lines Possible policy discussion 33 was New 57 18.40.090 Attachment E Item 5 Height Exceptions Rooftop equipment screens need not extend to 15 foot maximum limit except certain occupancies (GM, RP, ROLM, MOR). In CD, CS, CN, CC zones 8 feet is sufficient. Modify height exception language to clarify rooftop equipment screens within the CD, CC-2, CS and CN zones may only reach 8 feet above the height limit. Needs study. CBO says keep 15 feet in industrial zones. Adds a phrase and a sentence: In the CD, CS, CN, and CC districts, except for elevators and elevator equipment, exceptions above shall not exceed the height limit by more than eight feet. Possible policy discussion 34 16.49.040 Designation of historic structures/sites Delisting process Explore establishing a clear process to remove properties from the City’s historic resources inventory, aka ‘delisting’. Possible policy discussion 35 18.52.040 a.Table 3 b. (c ) Table 1 Off-Street Parking, Loading, and Bicycle Facility Requirements; Loading spaces and Office parking Explore loading space requirements to ensure relevant and study ratio for office parking in districts Possible policy discussion; Requires Council guidance 36 18.52.050 Table 4 Parking Adjustments Evaluate policies for use of mechanical parking lifts and size of amenity space proportional to building Possible policy discussion 37 18.54.020 Vehicle Parking Facilities SFR and Two Family Garage Clearance Explore modification to language for garage interior clearance dimensions Relatively simple change but requires more thorough review 38 18.70.100 Attachment E Item 7 Noncomplying Facility – Replacement, item (d) regarding R-1 and RE Evaluate language regarding what is considered replacement – “non-willful” versus “willful” Requires Council guidance 39 18.76.020 Architectural Review Demo by neglect Explore policies around deteriorating structures regarding safety and loss of potentially historic/historic buildings Possible policy discussion 40 18.76.050 DEE Applicability and Findings Evaluate Design Enhancement Exception Findings/Applicability Requires Council guidance 41 18.77.060, 18.77.070 and 18.77.075 a. Standard Staff Review Process CUPs, Variances, NPEs, b. Architectural Review, c. Low Density Explore ‘publication’, site posting, public notice requirements including use of City website, eliminate ineffective code language and ensure efficiency and visibility by wider audience. Relates to separate work effort outside annual code update 42 Was Tier 1 #60 and 62 18.77.070 and 18.77.075 Attachment E Item 8 Reduce Appeal Fee Topic a. Architectural Review appeal fee b. IR/HIE Appeal Fee Code does not address fee reduction for well supported appeals. a. Amend item (e) to allow fee reduction for well- supported appeals per P&S direction to reduce fee to 50% when 25 signatures in support of an appeal. b. Amend item (g) to allow fee reduction for well supported appeals per recent P&S direction to reduce by 50% when 25 signatures support an appeal; Reduces fees for well-supported appeals 9/30 PTC put this into Tier 2 – P&S initiative, Requires Council direction City of Palo Alto Page 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Draft Verbatim Minutes 2 October 28, 2015 3 4 Excerpt 5 6 Public Hearing7 Zoning Code Update: Review and Recommendation of an Ordinance to Amend Land Use Related8 portions of Titles 16 and 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The purposes of the code amendments and9 additions are to: (1) improve the use and readability of the code, (2) clarify certain code provisions, and10 (3) align regulations to reflect current practice and Council policy direction. The affected chapters of11 Title 16 include but are not limited to Chapters 16.20 (Signs), 16.24 (Fences), and 16.57 (Fees). The12 affected chapters of Title 18 include but are not limited to 18.01 (Adoption etc.), 18.04 (Definitions),13 18.08 (Designation etc.), 18.10 (Low Density Residential RE, R2, RMD zones), 18.12 (Single Family14 Residential R-1 zones), 18.13 (Multiple Family Residential, RM15, RM30, RM40 zones), 18.14 (Below15 Market Rate Housing Program), 18.15 (Density Bonus), 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community, and Service16 Commercial CN, CS, CC zones), 18.18 (Downtown Commercial CD zones), 18.20 (Office, Research and17 Manufacturing, MOR, ROLM, RP and GM zones), 18.30C (Ground Floor, GF), 18.31 (CEQA – new18 chapter), 18.34 (Pedestrian Transit Oriented District, PTOD), 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions),19 18.52 (Parking Required), 18.54 (Parking Design), 18.70 (Nonconforming uses and Noncomplying20 facilities), 18.76 (Permits), 18.77 (Process), and 18.78 (Appeals). Environmental Review: Amendments21 are considered exempt from further environmental review per California Environmental Quality Act22 Section 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations).23 24 Chair Tanaka: So Zoning Code Update. Does staff want to this is like I think part three, right? Hopefully25 three of three; can staff help to kind of summarize where we’re at right now and where we need to go?26 27 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes, I’d be happy to. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. So28 tonight we have before you the draft ordinance which contains all of the Tier 1 matrix items that we’ve29 been covering over the last two meetings on September 30th and October 14th. It also contains several30 items that we had identified as Tier 1 items, but the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)31 identified as more suitable for Tier 2. We retained that ordinance language for reasons we’ll discuss32 tonight. I have to say at places you do have a one sheet 11 by 17 format with red words on the left side.33 This is the summary of the 10 items pulled by the PTC and recommended for Tier 2. What this lets you34 know is that nine of the items are still shown in the ordinance, one of them was not put into the35 ordinance and remains in the Tier 2 group. And it also notes which page of the ordinance, so you can36 follow along and look for those. Yes, so when we get to the ordinance itself, which we’ll want to go37 through, there are notes in each of those items that PTC recommended as ‘Tier 2 suitable’, we do have38 notes in the draft ordinance about that, that this is a Planning Commission recommended Tier 2 item.39 40 So as far as the Tier 2 matrix you do have that as well. I wanted to note that we have one item on the41 Tier 2 matrix, which is two pages long actually, double sided one page, we have a yellow highlighted item42 that is new and we think that that might be something suitable for the Tier 1 ordinance. We did not43 include that in the ordinance, but I do have some wording in my PowerPoint if we can get to that at44 some point.45 46 The focus though of course tonight is to delve into the ordinance and we would like to use that as a47 guide to get through it. And we want to get to items such as the new way that we’re doing the48 substantial remodel language. Formerly we had thought of it as a definition and now we think of it as,49 we’ve specifically placed it into the noncomplying facilities section and it’s specific to single family50 residential construction. So we wanted to flag that. I wonder if Jon you wanted to add to that?51 52 ATTACHMENT D City of Palo Alto Page 2 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: No, no, I think that’s great. So I guess after the public opening and 1 closing the public hearing we would like to probably just walk through the ordinance at that point. 2 3 Chair Tanaka: Yeah, so let’s open the public hearing. Does Vice-Chair have any cards? 4 5 Vice-Chair Fine: We have one speaker, Mr. Herb Borock. 6 7 Herb Borock: Good evening, Chair Tanaka and Commissioners. My comments are related to packet 8 pages and section numbers. The first is packet Page 24. It’s Section 18.15.030. I haven’t kept up with 9 the state law so a lot of this other section as I recall is essentially just repeating State Density Bonus Law, 10 but if this is new Palo Alto language I have a couple of comments. First, in the past Comprehensive 11 Plans replacing rental units demolished would have been [unintelligible] replacing them with rental units 12 in a certain percentage, three out of four or two out of three topics. Secondly, the first item under H that 13 is H1 essentially says that you’re eligible for a density bonus if you’re eligible for a density bonus. That is 14 if you create the percentages that make you eligible so it’s sort of sounds like a tautology to me. 15 16 My second comment is at page, packet Page 31 which is 18.310, new chapter 18.31 on California 17 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) authority. Approval of projects requires also approval of the 18 environmental assessment or whatever level it’s at so that whoever has that approving authority already 19 is subsumed to have the approval authority under CEQA. And I believe it’s been the practice also that 20 the Director or it may even be the language in 18.77 could be delegated; however, it’s more than just 21 Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) that go to the Council. The Council is the decision maker on zoning 22 changes and Comprehensive Plan changes and I’m not sure of the necessity of language here. And in 23 terms of the appeal period it should track the same as 18.77 for the project itself. 24 25 Packet Page 32 relates to the removal of language from Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development 26 (PTOD) district which was created before our current State Density Bonus language in the City code and 27 it said this is the policy decision that these concessions and density bonuses and PTOD satisfy the State 28 Density Bonus Law. If you take that out you have to move it into 18.15 to say that this covers that 29 otherwise someone will say you have to add the two together, that you get PTOD plus the State Density 30 Bonus Code. On packet Page 37, may I continue or not? 31 32 Chair Tanaka: How much more do you have? 33 34 Mr. Borock: Well I’ve got to find the page first. Well that’s the Architectural Review Board (ARB) changes 35 which I haven’t had time to review. I know the ARB looked at them. This was first brought to them. 36 And finally on packet Page 40 dealing with appeals it… there’s currently an appeal fee which was 37 originally just an appeal fee for planning and then there was added an appeal fee for the attorney’s 38 office, which is more than planning fee. And then there was added having votes of the Council to bring it 39 off the Consent Calendar so that an appeal could be heard where originally you paid an appeal fee and 40 you automatically got an appeal. So it seems to me in here you should delete the appeal fee if the 41 Council doesn’t take it off the Consent Calendar and just approves it. The only reason you should have 42 to pay an appeal fee is if you get an appeal hearing. Thank you. 43 44 Chair Tanaka: Ok, thank you. So let’s bring it back to staff and close the public hearing. So maybe what 45 we should do is that staff walks through each section we should pause and just give the Commission a 46 chance to comment on them and clarify if there’s any… this is our third review so we’ve been through 47 most of the items and so hopefully this will go quickly. But I think for each section we should pause, give 48 the chance, give the Commission a chance to kind of weigh in on it and then move on. Ok, so staff, do 49 you want to start the first section? 50 51 Ms. French: Yeah. So beginning with our first section, we have the items for Chapter 16.20, which is the 52 Signs chapter of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). So here we are introducing the Director of 53 Planning and Community Environment as the authority for most sign decisions because we do have the 54 architectural review process and we do have code enforcement within our department. When this was 55 written there was a combined Planning and Building in one department. That has changed and so we’re 56 City of Palo Alto Page 3 trying to address that. We have some further thoughts on that that we can describe for Council when we 1 get to them. 2 3 One item here at the start, the first item here is for wall signs. We don’t have to get into detail because 4 you didn’t pull this one and that’s the assumption that we’ll make for the ordinance in general as we go 5 through this. So we’re on Page 2 now. Does anyone have any questions on Page 1 or 2? 6 7 Chair Tanaka: Actually Commissioner Alcheck had a question about process. Go ahead. 8 9 Commissioner Alcheck: Are you going through page by page of the ordinance? 10 11 Mr. Lait: So I guess we would look to the Commission to help guide us with this. Maybe another way to 12 approach it is if you have items we can speak to those items. 13 14 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, so this ordinance before us and presumably this is the ordinance that you 15 intend to bring to Council include the changes that relate to Tier 2 items as well? 16 17 Mr. Lait: It includes some of the items that the Commission moved to Tier 2, recommended be moved to 18 Tier 2 with the notation that it was the PTC’s recommendation that it be moved to Tier 2. That is a 19 notation in the ordinance. 20 21 Commissioner Alcheck: So how many of the Tier 2 items do you think are in this? 22 23 Mr. Lait: I think there was (interrupted) 24 25 Ms. French: There are nine of the ones that you pulled off that are in the ordinance, and that’s why we 26 have the cheat sheet for you tonight, a one pager with the red on the left. 27 28 Mr. Lait: And so let me explain (interrupted) 29 30 Commissioner Alcheck: So is that (interrupted) 31 32 Mr. Lait: Let me explain why we’ve done that. 33 34 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah. 35 36 Mr. Lait: So the reason we’ve included, we have compiled a list of these amendments and this is the time 37 that we’re actually seeing the code language how it’s going to be reflected and we wanted to make sure 38 that the Council had the same opportunity to consider and reject items that we on the matrix as the PTC 39 does. So what we’ve done is we’re making some notations. We want to give the Council the language 40 for them to also say yeah, we agree that this is a Tier 2 item and let’s jettison it. But we want, since 41 we’re going through the exercise of coming up with the language, we wanted to incorporate it with the 42 notation so that the Council could also make an informed decision just as the PTC has. 43 44 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I think this is a little problematic only because here’s how it looks. It looks 45 like there’s a possible policy discussion related to Example A and there’s a possible policy discussion 46 related to Example B. What’s not and has not taken place is that policy discussion. And what won’t in 47 my opinion probably be reflected to Council is the various controversial interpretations and ideas related 48 to some of those changes that essentially you’ve made. And frankly I don’t know, I don’t really 49 appreciate the process this way because what I think’s going to happen is they’re going to get it and this 50 is very convoluted and staff’s recommendation will continue to be that these issues should be changed 51 now. And I just, and I think that’s fine. I know staff has their own opinion on this, but I don’t sort of 52 love this process because essentially what the takeaway will be: well, you know your PTC which, you 53 know how you feel about them, felt that some of these things involved policy discussions. But staff feels 54 like these really all need to get changed and here’s how we would change it. And I would be really 55 surprised if they flagged even a small percentage of the issues that we suggested we could have spent 56 City of Palo Alto Page 4 over an hour talking about. And unfortunately it’s true they represent possible policy discussions, but we 1 didn’t have those possible policy discussions. We just identified like wow, there’s a lot involved there. 2 And so not only did we not have that policy discussion and demonstrate some of the controversial issues 3 related to maybe these changes, but to suggest that maybe in that evening the plethora of perspectives 4 that we may have come up with during a policy discussion it’s I just don’t, it doesn’t, this isn’t really a 5 good process from my perspective. 6 7 This is, we brought it to the Planning Commission they thought 30 items here shouldn’t be changed 8 without significant discussion. Here are our changes anyways, we’re going to make a little note that 9 these are the ones they think should possibly represent discussion material. We’re not going to 10 demonstrate what that discussion is, we’re not even going to have a placeholder to suggest what 11 components of that were controversial and the truth is, how could we? We didn’t actually spend too 12 much time on those, so I can’t give you the five bullet point reasons why X is not necessarily the change 13 we want to make. And so I don’t even, I don’t… 14 15 If at the end of this meeting I made a Motion that said I approve that we recommend that staff or that 16 Council approve this ordinance without any of the Tier 2 changes would the ordinance they see be the 17 one that includes no Tier 2 changes or would they still see those? And then it just, it’s… look, I know 18 that Tier 2 represents like kind of a large assortment of issues, but all of those things represented things 19 that required extra discussion and this, that discussion didn’t happen and I feel like maybe some of them 20 are minor from the perspective of staff, but I think staff should sort of make that case and we should 21 have that discussion before we go through this process. Otherwise it’s just like what difference does it 22 make what I tell you? What difference does it make if I say I don’t, it’s going to go to Council, staff will 23 make their recommendation, and we haven’t had a chance to say why we think these issues are 24 controversial and tonight’s not the forum to do it. 25 26 Mr. Lait: So if I, Chair can I interject? So I think actually tonight is a forum for that conversation and I 27 think another reason why we felt it important to include the language for some of the Tier 2 items is 28 because we felt that when you saw the policy language written in context you might agree that yeah, 29 that is a minor change. You may not, your position may not change on that and you can articulate yeah 30 this, whatever… The first Tier 2 recommendation that we come to I think would be very helpful for the 31 Commission to say no, I want to reiterate that this is a Tier 2 item and for these reasons here and we can 32 reflect that in the staff report. 33 34 And I’m still and we’re open to what that ordinance looks like going on to Council, but what I think is 35 important because you’re right, staff does have an opinion that some of the items that were moved to 36 Tier 2 are Tier 1 items because we’re dealing with these on a daily basis. And we have this, putting 37 whatever the policy decision is aside, we need to have clarity in how we’re implementing the ordinance 38 on a daily basis on the counter where projects are being constructed. So like basements is an important 39 one for us because there’s a need for clarity on that. We’re adding two words to the existing language. 40 So we’ve included that. That was a Tier 2 recommendation from the Commission. We present it to you 41 so you can see that and you can either say yep, we reaffirm that this is a Tier 2 or no, I understand staff 42 now what where we’re going with that and that change is minor. 43 44 Chair Tanaka: So I think Commissioner Alcheck brought up a good point and a good question. So I 45 would actually, I think before we proceed, actually I think as a Commission we should get a feel as to 46 where people stand on this. Otherwise we are talking about a lot of stuff for nothing. So I see a couple 47 of lights. I don’t know if it’s about this topic, but I think we should all speak up in terms of what our 48 thoughts are about this. Commissioner Rosenblum. 49 50 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, so some comments on the memo, staff memo in front of us. I’d 51 recommend making it much clearer what the process was and even reading the memo now I’m having 52 difficulty understanding the process. So for example, you don’t define Tier 1 or Tier 2 and how 53 designations were made between Tier 1 and Tier 2. So the standard that I was using between the two is 54 if it was truly a matter of simple clarification, typographical errors, omissions, etcetera, then we would 55 correct. If it was an actual matter of policy meaning if people could be potentially harmed, 56 City of Palo Alto Page 5 inconvenienced, the value of their house would go down, etcetera, then we felt that required further 1 discussion. So the whole point of this exercise was not to make judgments about whether these were 2 wise policies or not wise policies, but whether or not they were policies versus clarifications. So I think 3 that if you read through the memo it’s actually I don’t think my wife who is a cleaver lawyer could 4 determine based on this which one is Tier 1 and which one’s Tier 2 and what the definitions are and how 5 they were decided and that should be up front and center because most people will not have had any 6 context going in. So that’s first. 7 8 And so both the definitions and then the way if people disagree with me on how those determinations 9 were made please feel free to speak up. I think it’s important to say that the Commission reviewed items 10 that were put into two categories: those that were simple clarifications, corrections of typographical 11 errors, historical inaccuracies, etcetera versus items that were actually policy. And that I think should 12 help address Commissioner Alcheck’s concerns. At least it addresses my read of your concerns which is 13 that I’m then quite happy for the entire matrix to go in front of Council. If they have disagreements and 14 they say this actually doesn’t look like policy somehow the Commission thinks its policy I have no 15 objection to having a second read, but as long as they’re cognizant of the filter that was applied which is: 16 is policy or is not policy. Or not, not I’m sorry, it’s not policy issue. Is clarification or typo, et cetera, 17 versus new policy being created, regardless of how minor that policy is. 18 19 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Well just to clarify in that point, I mean there certainly are 20 several Tier 1 issues that were new policies. Items 42 through the end of the chart, the end of the 21 matrix, 62 were flagged as new policies. So perhaps when we rolled this out we should have been clear, 22 clearer that there were three different buckets that we were putting things into. One was certainly the 23 typographical errors and clean up changes, but we were also focusing in on the interpretation issues 24 which can be policy related and we were also focusing in on a third bucket of new policies. 25 26 Commissioner Rosenblum: So my read and again, I don’t, I do try to pay attention to these things, is that 27 that sounds different. So this whole thing had been presented as an omnibus measure to do a one-time 28 cleanup of obvious no brainer things and so the filter that I had tried to take to it are for things that 29 violated that. So I someone probably needs to have a discussion because we’re creating new things? No 30 matter how much of a no brainer we might think they are we’re not a policy making body. And also this 31 whole exercise I don’t think was about new policies. It was a fix-it exercise around things that are clearly 32 just broken that everyone would agree on. So I don’t know, this seems late in this game for me to not 33 understand that. Is this something, is this an understanding that is shared by everyone? 34 35 Chair Tanaka: Well, actually I want to get people’s the Commission’s opinion on this. so there’s staff’s 36 position which is ok, we’re going to present pretty much the ordinance as is, whether you guys think it’s 37 Tier 1 or Tier 2, not necessarily declares distinction between the two. I think Commissioner Alcheck said 38 wait a second, that’s kind of a weird process thing. I think I heard from Commissioner Rosenblum that 39 yeah, actually it is not very clear and we should at least clarify it at the least so that it’s clear to Council 40 and so they could see kind of what work we actually did, because there’s a lot of work we didn’t do. And 41 I see a couple of lights from other Commissioners. So I think what I’d like to do is for the Commissioners 42 that disagree with Commissioner Alcheck to actually hit their lights and say something about it. 43 Otherwise I’ll assume that Commissioners here agree with Commissioner Alcheck. So I so far I hear it 44 seems like Commissioner Rosenblum in general agrees with Commissioner Alcheck and has a suggestion 45 of how to help fix it. I see a light here from Vice-Chair, so I’ll let Vice-Chair go first and then 46 Commissioner Alcheck to follow up. 47 48 Vice-Chair Fine: So I have some comments, but I’m mainly in agreement. So I’d rather go through this 49 process first what you’re talking about, get any disagreements and then… 50 51 Mr. Lait: Chair, if it might help the conversation we can forward the PTC’s ordinance on to the Council 52 without the notations about PTC Tier 2 if that makes, if that’s what the Commission is interested. We 53 wanted to present the language so that we can have a conversation about what the changes were in 54 some part to see if you still agree that they’re Tier 2’s, but if the end product that you’re interested in 55 and to be true to the process is you want the ordinance that goes to the Council to reflect what the, what 56 City of Palo Alto Page 6 you believe to be the Tier 1 changes we will transmit that ordinance, the PTC recommended ordinance 1 with just what the PTC believes to be the Tier 1 items without the other notations embedded in the 2 ordinance. But what I also would like to do is include for the Council just the same way that you had the 3 same opportunity to decide Tier 1/Tier 2 in the staff report is just say here’s some Tier 2 items that if the 4 Council thinks are worthy of Tier 1 here’s some language for you. If you think they’re Tier 2 because 5 ultimately they’re the policy makers on that, but they should have that opportunity to make that decision 6 too. So if the end product is, if that sounds more like an end product that you’re interested in that we 7 can achieve because what’s more important to us is to move the ball forward and I don’t want, I don’t 8 want there to be an issue or tension about what the product looked like. I just because I want it to 9 reflect what the, we can have it reflect what the PTC is desirous of having. So if that helps when we go 10 through this and you see Tier 2 we can pull that out. We’ll just that’s direction you can give us and we’ll 11 pull that out as it goes on to the PTC, excuse me, the City Council. 12 13 Chair Tanaka: So I guess I kind of want to finish this thread that Commissioner Alcheck started and I 14 hear what staff is saying and I think staff has the right and will, right, whether we recommend or don’t 15 want to recommend to Council their recommendation. I totally get that, but I think the point of tonight’s 16 topic, at least what the agenda topic says is for us to make a recommendation. And I think if we make a 17 recommendation that recommendation should be clear, right? It shouldn’t be muddled with what is Tier 18 1/Tier 2? If a lawyer couldn’t figure out what that is how is the general public going to figure it out, 19 right? How is the Council going to figure it out? So that’s the point I’m trying to assess from the 20 Commission. Maybe, maybe so far Vice-Chair, Commissioner Alcheck, Commissioner Rosenblum are off 21 base, but I’d like to hear from other Commissioners to see whether we have, whether Commissioner 22 Alcheck’s point is a valid point or not. And so I don’t see any other lights other than Commissioner 23 Alcheck’s. I’ll let Commissioner Alcheck speak. 24 25 Commissioner Alcheck: So yeah, let me, allow me just to clarify. This happened a couple of months ago 26 we were reviewing an ordinance; we had a very different ordinance. In that case I guess it didn’t upset 27 me that much because I, my impression was you had direct guidance from Council what they wanted to 28 see and so you and I don’t want to make it, don’t interpret this the wrong way. I absolutely love staff. I 29 have a tremendous amount of respect for you guys, but you didn’t really include our revision to the 30 ordinance. You gave them the ordinance they wanted to see and you wrote a paragraph about what we 31 thought should be different and I’m pretty sure they didn’t spend too much time on it. 32 33 This is different. I don’t think you have guidance from City Council on some of these issues. Frankly I 34 don’t really see the Planning staff determining whether fences should be white or grey, whether 35 basements should be enormous or small, whether they should extend past certain… you brought up a 36 great example. That’s the best example. Monday night City Council meeting you had someone from the 37 public stand up and shout out addresses of projects currently in play, the size of the project, the size of 38 the basement and in some way there was like this demonization of a home that was 3,500 square feet 39 (sf) large. And I thought to myself ok, dewatering might be a particularly controversial topic right now, 40 but I’m still unclear whether or not in that basement example whether we don’t like a porch that wraps 41 around or we don’t like a basement that might be a little larger than the building’s wall footprint. And the 42 problem is, is that like Commissioner Rosenblum mentioned what we did was distinguish between what 43 was a typo or a clerical confusing situation and what was wow, what do we prefer? Which scenario do 44 we prefer? Contextual garage placement is a great example. What do we prefer? And because we 45 didn’t actually go into the discussion because we didn’t say ok, well let’s talk about preferences because 46 we didn’t host a discussion with the public what essentially is happening is a preference is being 47 embedded into the language. And I agree to some extent maybe that is maybe one could say ok, well 48 this is probably how they meant it to be, but what I’m trying to say is it’s going to come off to the City 49 Council as in my opinion based on this, the current presentation that these are simple corrections. And I 50 just think that in this particular instance unlike the ordinance we reviewed a month and a half ago that 51 didn’t necessarily represent our work I don’t like it. 52 53 I don’t like that we basically went through a process and identified red flags. We identified third rails and 54 I don’t even know if we completely understood them as a group of seven like what were the ramifications 55 of these things. Some of them were very, quite specific. And yeah, one option is to present the 56 City of Palo Alto Page 7 ordinance without the changes and present the ordinance with the changes and whatever, but I guess 1 the point I’m trying to make is couldn’t this also have been just like the most simple safe version of this? 2 Ok, here are the things that the Commission felt like didn’t represent controversial changes and we really 3 like to get this done and in two months’ time we’re going to try to come back and flesh out some more of 4 these things and whatnot. I mean I think you guys probably don’t want to spend any more time on this 5 than you already have, but what’s the realistic timeframe for the next update of our residential zoning 6 code? 7 8 Ms. Silver: Well we do hope to make this an annual process. But just so we’re all on the same page, we 9 may not be, let me just clarify. For most of the Tier 2 issues have been completely deferred, ok? So 10 that, that is the handout that you have at places the new matrix of Tier 2 changes 1 through 30. Those 11 do not appear in the ordinance at all. We will be bringing forward the Tier 2 matrix to the Council, but 12 we will not be bringing forward any ordinance changes on those Tier 2 changes. 13 14 The second matrix before you, which is called “10 Items PTC Removed from Tier 1 and Reclassified as 15 Tier 2” those are the 10 that we’ve been talking about. We have proposed some specific language for 16 those. We have clearly marked them in the ordinance as tier, made a notation that the PTC 17 recommended that these be deferred to Tier 2. If you don’t like that format we’re at a stage where we 18 can easily reformat that. We can take those out of the ordinance and put those in the staff report. 19 20 I will say that some of the items that appear on the second matrix that I referred to do include some 21 direction from the Council to update portions of the ordinance. So we do believe that some of these 22 matters should be moved forward to the Council. We feel as a staff that we have direction from the 23 Council to do that. There are other items which you are correct there is some policy level discussion that 24 would be helpful to have; however, we still are in a position of having to interpret these ordinances on a 25 day to day basis and so perhaps another way to go about this is to have a sort of a definition that is true 26 to the current code and then agendize that for a later further policy discussion, but we have to have 27 some clarity on a day to day basis. 28 29 So that’s really staff’s perspective. We are, we really don’t want this to be a controversial issue. We 30 appreciate all of the work you have done on this and we don’t want to get tripped up on these procedural 31 issues. So anyway that we can reformat this that would make you feel comfortable is fine with us. 32 33 Commissioner Alcheck: In my mind I thought this would just go on like the Consent Calendar. They 34 would be like thanks for working on this and cleaning it up. You clearly worked with staff and I didn’t, it 35 didn’t occur to me that they would now have a full discussion at the dais about basements and in my 36 mind or definitions of amenities. And in my mind maybe the community could provide some input on 37 that and this is not really the format because the community is going to get stuck talking about mundane 38 little corrections and so that’s all I’m going to say. I’m not going to belabor the point. If the Commission 39 would like to proceed then I think we should, but I think I’ve made my point. 40 41 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I would like there’s a few more lights and also make a few statements, but let me 42 first go to Vice-Chair. 43 44 Vice-Chair Fine: So I also appreciate how if this has been tough for us that it’s been tougher for staff to 45 put this all together, but I do kind of concur with my colleagues here this is changed a little bit. At first 46 we had a list of all the different changes then they were kind of bucketed into these new three buckets 47 like typos and clean up, interpretation, new policies. I was under the same impression as Commissioner 48 Rosenblum that we were supposed to kind of flag the ones that might be third rails, not necessarily policy 49 issues, but things which might be controversial to the community or to Council. And I think that’s a 50 service we’ve done here and that’s these 10 items. I think overall this Commission probably agrees with 51 the 90 percent of the Tier 1 changes and I think the small suggestions we made on them it seems like 52 staff concurs with for the most point and I hope those are incorporated in the ordinance. 53 54 I think where we can be most helpful tonight there’s maybe three things we can do. One, we can kind of 55 help staff and staff can help us understand what’s going to be presented to Council. Is it going to be 56 City of Palo Alto Page 8 that very first list with all the items that you guys want to update and then show what’s your Tier 1, 1 what’s Tier 2 in which we flagged. That’s the first part. The second part is this last column here, remove 2 more policy discussion needed. Well why did we, why did we say that? If we could give staff some 3 guidance on well, we flagged definition amenities as a Tier 2 item because hey that could really affect 4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations for buildings across town. That’s really important for Council to 5 understand. The third part so I know I’ve had some quick discussion with Assistant Director Lait about 6 the basement issue for example and I’d really appreciate if staff could push back on a few of these and 7 say hey, this is really Tier 1 for this reason. The more we can winnow this list down I think the more 8 attention will be paid to it by Council. 9 10 So just to recap I think it would be important for us to understand what’s going to Council. Two, it would 11 be really helpful for us to fill in the blanks on this right column, more policy discussion needed. Why do 12 we think that? And then three, it would be helpful if we could discuss is this list of 10 really the 10 that 13 we think are in Tier 2. 14 15 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Rosenblum. 16 17 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, I just had a question for staff about tonight’s, what you’re hoping for 18 tonight which is was this one last check to say now we’ve made some changes to these are you still, 19 these were items that we felt could be pushed back over the line and go one by one and try to get them 20 back over the line. Is that, is? 21 22 Mr. Lait: So you have not seen code language yet. So tonight we are presenting with the ordinance, the 23 draft ordinance actual code language. So you may even have some Tier 1 items that now after you see 24 the language you might say well wait a minute, I’m not even sure that’s Tier 1. So this is a public 25 hearing to review a draft ordinance. 26 27 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. 28 29 Mr. Lait: And so there’s still some movement that could take place. This was not an effort to convince 30 you that all the ones that you put as Tier 2 should, or ought to be on Tier 1. That’s not the intent. 31 32 Commissioner Rosenblum: I see. My recommendation to fellow Commissioners then would be to finish 33 this job as staff had envisioned with the one area that I do feel strongly if this memo that you sent to us 34 also goes to Council, that the definitions of Tier 1 and Tier 2, the process by which things were put into 35 each bucket should be made more clear. 36 37 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so thanks for my fellow Commissioners comments. Let me give you some thoughts, 38 my thoughts on this. So largely I agree with all my fellow Commissioners. Now the question is how to 39 resolve it because we’re a recommending body, we don’t set policy and neither does staff, and we 40 flagged some items that were more policy decisions than typo fixes and for us to be effective we need to 41 make sure that’s clear. And I think Commissioner Alcheck had a very good point which is not only did we 42 flag them, but we didn’t bother to have a discussion, right? And the way it’s kind of represented in the 43 report it is as if we actually had a discussion, which we didn’t, right? We didn’t even come close to 44 having discussion. We just said look, potential this is beyond the scope of a typo change and so, so 45 there’s a couple of routes we could take. 46 47 One route is we can try to tonight try to, try to kind of follow the current process which is basically I think 48 staff’s recommendation which is we go through kind of like a second pass of this, trying to see well is this 49 really Tier 1, is this really Tier 2? Can staff convince us that things that we thought were Tier 2 are really 50 Tier 1? We could go through the exercise and then hope that what comes back to us, what goes to 51 Council is what we expect or we can say because now we do have the language and that’s a very good 52 point. Or another approach is we can have still a healthy discussion, but actually ask staff to come back 53 and so we could actually see the, see what would be reflected to Council. So those are kind of like the 54 two things that I’m thinking about and I think we’re thinking this toward the end. Commissioner Alcheck. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, so look this is like could not be more, you could not better time this, right? 1 So we have a community member who’s got a very, who’s got a perspective on basements. Is tonight 2 the night that we want to spend time discussing the pros and cons of making this change to basements? 3 And my argument is no because the community doesn’t know that we’re having a discussion on policy 4 changes to basements. This individual clearly has been paying attention, but if they had listened to our 5 last couple of meetings they probably would have thought that those changes aren’t really going to be 6 dealt with at this time. Those changes are going to be discussed at a later date. 7 8 I couldn’t agree more with this handout, but I don’t see the value of going through… Maybe if staff would 9 like to suggest which one of these nine items they think we got totally wrong then we could talk about it, 10 but assuming that they don’t want to do that for each item then let’s… They have one individual who 11 wants to talk about just basements. There’s probably an individual in this community that wants to talk 12 about each one of these issues, not to mention the fact that maybe some of us have opinions about 13 basements and didn’t really come prepared to think logically about the policy implications involved in 14 making these interpretations. And so my preference would be to adopt the recommendation that 15 Jonathan sort of suggested which is unless staff wants to make a case about one of these, which I’m 16 happy to hear obviously let’s continue to treat them as Tier 2 and let’s continue to recommend that 17 Council not make these changes and let’s I don’t even know that I need to review the ordinance in a lot 18 greater depth than I already have in anticipation of this meeting with respect to all the Tier 1 changes 19 because none of those presented controversy and I would love for those changes to have, to happen. 20 21 So I want to know what you guys think, but I don’t really want to have a debate right now about 22 basements because I would like to have spent a little bit more time thinking about the change and how 23 many properties are going to be affected, how many properties currently in the pipeline are going to be 24 affected? Right now it sounds like one individual has six properties in the pipeline that may be affected. 25 So you get my point. I don’t think it’s a good use of time and I also don’t think it’s fair to us because 26 we’re not prepared and the community is not prepared. 27 28 Chair Tanaka: Vice-Chair. 29 30 Vice-Chair Fine: So I’m somewhat inclined to agree, but I’m wondering if there’s a middle ground we 31 could reach? I think for all the Tier 1 things this Commission is in agreement they are probably ready to 32 go before Council whether it’s on Consent or one of their Action Items, whatever. And I was always 33 under the impression actually this would be like two separate ordinances going before Council. So now it 34 seems like it’s merged and I think that’s making it very, very murky. So I’m not going to make a Motion 35 or anything, but maybe we can think about something along those lines where the Tier 1 issues can 36 move forward that assuages some of staff’s concerns and hopefully makes your day to day life better. 37 The Tier 2 ones I completely agree. I think there’s a lot more diving into that’s needed. We have to look 38 at these things pretty with a keen eye, but again I do want to encourage staff if there are any you 39 believe need to be pulled from this list and you have a good argument around that I’m happy to listen to 40 that and maybe we consider the Tier 2 ones at a later date. 41 42 Chair Tanaka: Ok, guys so we’re at a crossroads here. We could do several different things. We can 43 give our recommendation which I think I’m not to me it’s still not clear what staff will be submitting to 44 Council. That’s one thing. Two, we can, we can try to have a healthy discussion about did we get it right 45 the last two meetings or not in terms of what’s Tier 1/Tier 2? And then, and then make a 46 recommendation that this is what gets sent to Council or three, we can of course follow the 47 recommendation exactly, right? As staff laid out. 48 49 Now my feeling here is that I think that I for one would like to actually see what goes to Council because 50 I don’t know at this point. Because I was with Vice-Chair and with most of the other Commissioners that 51 just spoke that I’m actually really surprised to see this. I thought that we would have kind of like a this is 52 the sanitized list, the ones that are typo changes, no major bugaboos in here, no major policy changes, 53 right? Because we weren’t trying to set policy, we were trying to figure out what are procedural fixes 54 and what we got here is kind of very murky, right? And somewhat, some parts of it could be very, very 55 controversial and we’ve already been chastised in the press for like going beyond some scope. And to 56 City of Palo Alto Page 10 me to go forward with what’s presented is dangerous because we have not had a full vetting on these 1 items and so I’m myself I’m leaning towards like actually seeing what will go to Council because if we’re 2 recommending this to go forward and our recommendation is kind of lost in the mix, not clear it’s kind of 3 like, it’s kind of dangerous. So although I have had, we’ve had three meetings on this. I hate to have a 4 fourth meeting. I that’s kind of where I’m leaning, but I could be persuaded and if there’s a maybe more 5 clever way of figuring how to fix this I’m all ears. Vice-Chair. 6 7 Vice-Chair Fine: So I don’t, I just want to reiterate maybe we can pass something in terms of 8 recommending just the Tier 1 items in here. And I don’t know if that means staff has to rewrite all this 9 or pull all the Tier 2 stuff out. And then if any of these can be, if we can be convinced these are Tier 1 10 I’m happy to throw those back in as something we pass to Council, but the Tier 2 stuff I think is for a 11 later date. 12 13 Chair Tanaka: So I agree with you, agree with you on that, but I thought that was a quick vision for our 14 last meeting. And so I because we I mean I think, I think that was kind of a consensus from last 15 meeting that that was what’s going to happen, but it didn’t. and so at this point I don’t even know what 16 will go to Council, right? It’s really unclear and so that’s one of the reasons why I’m thinking that it’s 17 probably better for us to see this what would really go and then make a recommendation versus make a 18 recommendation and not really know what’s going to be said because… actually Commissioner 19 Rosenblum had a light on first. 20 21 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, I had a proposal for staff. I don’t know if this works for you or not, but 22 obviously the items that we put into Tier 1 has no controversy right now and so that should be passed 23 through hopefully Commission or the City Council will recognize that these have all been vetted and just 24 pass through. Tier 2 items many of them are not that big of a deal, but I just I do believe that there are 25 people in the community that care about it. They should have an opportunity to comment on them. And 26 so I would suggest that we have again an omnibus session PTC and we can jam though it, but I think 27 that all those things we have agreed deserve a public hearing and aren’t the sort of items that we just 28 pass through in bulk. 29 30 And so my recommendation would be to split this into two parts. Part one just goes through and if 31 Council obviously they have the right to remove things from Consent, but I don’t think they will. I think 32 those things are fairly they are of the… no? Ok. But anyway I think that it will go through with minimal 33 controversy from Council. These other items though I also agree they’re small items. They really 34 shouldn’t be, none of them really rise to the level of Council debate and so I think that many of them can 35 be put into a single PTC session, have public hearing, and just get them through. I think this process 36 where we’re kind of like halfway between those two things is poor. And that’s what I think gives us a lot 37 of the heartache is that the reason why we put these items off is to say they need some public input. 38 Like people care about these things even if they don’t rise to the level of other zoning issues. And so but 39 because you’re including them in the packet then Council will have to discuss and so it will bring that 40 process back to a policy discussion I think. 41 42 So anyway this is the first time we’ve run this process. First time you’ve run the process. My input is at 43 this stage I think it is possible to still kind of course correct and that would be my recommendation. I 44 think that that would be a satisfactory outcome for us and for Council. 45 46 Chair Tanaka: Vice-Chair. 47 48 Vice-Chair Fine: So just a quick question to clarify for myself. This ordinance as it is has all of the Tier 1 49 and Tier 2 changes including some small changes that we had suggested to the Tier 1 items? 50 51 Ms. French: No. Can I answer that? This ordinance in here has all of the Tier 1 changes and the Tier 1 52 changes we first identified as Tier 1 that the PTC identified as should go into Tier 2, those except for one 53 or actually more like two are in the ordinance as well, flagged to show that the Planning Commission 54 thinks they’re Tier 2. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Vice-Chair Fine: Ok. 1 2 Ms. French: What I, what I want to say is that Tier, this Tier 2 matrix are other changes we haven’t even 3 gotten to or discussed with you. We wanted to provide it to you to show what the initial list of Tier 2 4 items are that don’t include this list of what the PTC said should go onto the Tier 2 list. 5 6 Vice-Chair Fine: Ok, so in that case that’s helpful it’s not everything. It’s just the Tier 1 items and the 7 Tier 1 items we flagged as Tier 2. 8 9 Ms. French: Correct. 10 11 Vice-Chair Fine: I think the better course of action here for us as a Commission is to ask that these be 12 removed for the time being so that we can give Council a good reason why we think they’re Tier 2. I’m 13 not that comfortable passing them to Council as Tier 1, but PTC thinks they’re Tier 2. We haven’t really 14 given any reason to that and that’s not very helpful. 15 16 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so the only issue I have is that it’s really unclear what’s going to be passed to Council. 17 I don’t know. I don’t even know what are I mean so is what gets passed to Council going to be the 18 packet plus a small paragraph saying PTC said this or? So that’s what I’m, that’s what I’m unclear about 19 so I which is why for me I’m hesitating to even move forward at this point because it’s not clear that 20 that’s what going to happen. And so anyways Commissioner Alcheck, why don’t you go ahead? 21 22 Commissioner Alcheck: Look, we have a resident who wants to talk about basements. If I knew tonight 23 that I could potentially provide a greater amount of information to Council by preparing a dissertation on 24 contextual garage placement or on porch location or on basements or on defining amenities, the 10 items 25 or 9 items that were originally Tier 1 that we determined as a Commission that should not be considered 26 small unimportant changes I would have done that. And I would have asked individuals who are in the 27 community who I know would be affected by these changes to come and talk. With all the respect in the 28 world I think you’re changing policy here. It may be what you believe was the original intent, but the 29 way it’s currently written allows certain projects to precede in a way different than how they would be 30 able to proceed after these changes and that is going to affect people who are building homes. And 31 unless Council said to you we want you to correct this garage placement problem or this porch problem I 32 don’t see why our Planning staff is making a decision on how a project that could have happened before 33 should not be able to happen anymore. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Why would you put yourself 34 in that position to make any to fix any loopholes or to fix it or to change a certain way that something 35 could happen? It just doesn’t make sense why you’d want because somebody in the community is going 36 to show up and say, homeowners are going to come back and say why would they have made that 37 change? And the problem is, is that we don’t want to make that change yet without having a discussion 38 with more residents. 39 40 And so I think Tanaka or excuse me, Chair Tanaka is concerned because last time we went through this 41 process that is what happened. The ordinance went forward as written. And I don’t want it to seem like 42 this is some sort of punitive or I want us to work together here. So the question is can we in fact make a 43 change to this ordinance now so that it is presented in a different way or should we wait until the next 44 meeting for an ordinance that removes the nine items that we considered not Tier 1, not relatively minor 45 changes, review that ordinance and pass a Motion relatively quickly. I’m pretty sure we could do that in 46 under 20 minutes, but… 47 48 Chair Tanaka: Ok. So I’ve heard a lot from most of the Commission except for two. So I want to call on 49 them. So Commissioner Gardias what’s your opinion? 50 51 Commissioner Gardias: Well my preference would be to move, to move forward with the items that are 52 on the agenda even if there is a, if there will be our concern that some of them, those items in this 53 packet are requiring community or higher level discussion we can remove them very quickly. My 54 preference would be just to go through them in the sequence, if we just stumble on something that 55 requires more discussion let’s remove it, move forward. Thank you. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael. Ok, no opinion. Ok. So anyone want to make a Motion? 2 3 Commissioner Alcheck: Well I want to know, I had a question to staff so I want to know the answer. Can 4 we, can at this meeting we remove that language so that the ordinance that goes in front of them is just 5 an ordinance that includes the items that we deemed to be Tier 1? 6 7 Mr. Lait: Yes, and I’d like to respond to other comments when the time is appropriate. 8 9 Chair Tanaka: It’s appropriate now. Why don’t you go ahead? 10 11 Mr. Lait: So again I apologize if there was confusion in the way that we played this out. Our intention as 12 I’ve stated was to, you haven’t seen the language. I mean this is a public hearing. This is the time to 13 have the conversation about the very issues that are being presented. So we didn’t feel like we were 14 going too far afield from what could be expected in a public hearing considering an ordinance. We 15 provide the language so that you can see it in context to the rest of the zoning chapters and sections and 16 that perhaps if you saw those that there might be some different perspectives. Again we don’t think that 17 the changes are hugely significant, but I will acknowledge that there are some new policies that are 18 being contemplated and I don’t believe we’ve hidden the ball on that. I think our staff reports have been 19 clear that we are making changes to clarity and things of this nature, but we also did note that we are 20 making new policy changes and that was also reflected in the draft matrix. 21 22 As far as public outreach the reason there’s an individual in the audience here is because we have done 23 outreach. We’ve met with architects; we’ve sent email blast to the local architects group. I personally 24 have had meetings with the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors and had conversations about these 25 different elements. So we have done outreach. We have gone out to talk to people and I think the fact 26 that with the exception of the one individual who does have concerns about basements there’s a reason 27 why people aren’t here because it we haven’t struck a chord of things as being too controversial. 28 29 With respect to I mean I believe the solution is relatively straightforward. We simply need to pull out the 30 Tier 2 items that you’re not interested in. That’s easy. You don’t need to come back for that. We can 31 pull that out that’s a direction that you can give us. And I and so you asked for items that we thought 32 would be worth having a conversation about on Tier 2 there’s at least four items on the Tier 2 list that I 33 think are noteworthy and if you want to have a conversation about that we can have a conversation 34 about that. If you don’t we don’t have to. That’s fine. We can just move along the Tier 1 items. So 35 happy to proceed however you want. 36 37 Commissioner Alcheck: Can I follow up really quickly? I’m just going to use one example. I don’t 38 understand how the contextual garage placement change could be interpreted by anybody as being 39 minor. It’s huge. It’s a dramatic difference in the way that we possibly have been interpreting the last 40 14 years, but it changes the way anybody can build their parking. It’s huge. And I and unless you’re 41 embedded in the process and appreciate what this means the fact that you can theoretically now move 42 your parking to the front of your I mean it’s enormous. It’s an enormous change in the way we develop 43 our homes. Now I don’t, I have never throughout this process suggested that one is better than the 44 other, but before we go and change it, let’s figure out what is our preference. Why, why would we 45 continue to suggest the implementation of that placement as restricting also carports, which alleviates a 46 tremendous…? It’s a tremendous change and I don’t, I think it’s disingenuous to suggest that the reason 47 why no one’s here tonight to talk about it is because we didn’t strike a chord. Nobody comes to these 48 meetings. Period. So it’s that’s a failure on a different scale and it’s unfortunate and it’s not something 49 I’m particularly proud of, but it’s not because this doesn’t affect the way people build homes. It does. I 50 can tell you that this dramatically affects the way someone builds a home and I don’t have enough 51 information about the other eight items to know how dramatic those are, which is sort of the point last 52 time. 53 54 So I don’t want you to think that I don’t want this process to move forward, but I also don’t like this 55 suggestion that they’re not so significant because that is the kind of suggestion the City Council will hear 56 City of Palo Alto Page 13 and they’ll go ok, good. Because we also love Amy French and we also love our Assistant Director and 1 we also love our Planning staff and they also make recommendations and if they say it’s not significant 2 then it probably isn’t. I think if you’re not really embedded in this process it’s hard to appreciate how 3 significant some of these changes are and the individual that came tonight I don’t even know how he 4 heard about it. I’d love to know how he heard about it. [Filipe] called him and so he showed up. So 5 obviously he didn’t agree, but I’m telling you that I could probably bring you 25 people who don’t really 6 appreciate this contextual garage placement issue and they would all suggest to you that maybe this is 7 not a good change because they’d like to use the tool as it is. 8 9 Mr. Lait: So I think we have a small handful of examples of the carport issue and a large body of projects 10 that are in conformance with the way that we’ve interpreted, but we don’t have to have the discussion. 11 It’s not one of the items that we are, that I have on my list of the four that I would (interrupted) 12 13 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m only suggesting that it’s that’s part of it is that we don’t know. 14 15 Mr. Lait: I think there’s a solution to go forward. It’s up to the Commission how you want to proceed. 16 17 Chair Tanaka: Vice-Chair. 18 19 Vice-Chair Fine: So to my fellow Commissioners I think we have two ways forward here. One, we can 20 ask staff to subtract these 10 issues and push everything else forward to Council. Or two, we can discuss 21 these 10 issues and see which; well actually there’s three ways. Two, we can discuss these issues, see 22 which ones we want to put on per staff’s recommendation for some reason or other and push those 23 forward. Sorry, I’m losing my train of thought. Or three, we can essentially say these ones and the 24 other Tier 2 we talk about at a later date. I 25 26 ’m somewhat inclined to agree with Commissioner Gardias that I would like to put some of it forward, but 27 I don’t think actually we are in the right frame of mind at the moment to talk about these 10 issues and 28 which may or may not go on to the on to the omnibus going forward. So personally I’m inclined to 29 subtract these 10 for the time being and pass everything else to Council. If you all want we can have a 30 discussion tonight about these 10 issues and the 4 that staff believe might be Tier 1, I’m just not sure 31 we’re in the correct state of mind to do that at the moment. 32 33 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Rosenblum. 34 35 MOTION 36 37 Commissioner Rosenblum: I’d prefer to hear from staff on the four items and their suggestion for path 38 forward. I would though like to keep this like I said I we’ve already spent several sessions on this one in 39 great detail through many of these items. I do think the process was a bit broken this time and again it’s 40 the first time so I’m hoping that you take the feedback and that spirit of trying to make this a well-oiled 41 process because I do think this, these quick fix its if they are quick is good. And so at any rate I would 42 have suggested going forward to sort of split this process into the “no brainers” that go forward and then 43 have like a ‘one-time things’ that need to get discussed get discussed. I hadn’t realized that this was it is 44 a public hearing. I didn’t realize you had been promoting it and trying to turn this into the discussion 45 period. That was not what I thought today’s discussion was about, but anyway I would vote if as 46 Commissioners if we’re try vote do we discuss the four things or not, I would like to hear the four things 47 that staff has prepared and just make a ruling on those. 48 49 Then I’ll make a Motion that we that we hear from staff on the items that they prepared instead of 50 ending debate now on this item. 51 52 [Unintelligible – people talking off mikes. I don’t know if the Motion was seconded or not] 53 54 Robin Ellner, Administrative Associate III: Excuse me, Commissioners; please make sure you hit your 55 mikes. Thank you. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 14 1 Vice-Chair Fine: So I think there are four items on the 10 item list that staff clearly believes are Tier 1 2 and is in disagreement with us pulling them. So I think for the time being the other six we’ll punt for 3 later. I’m also willing to hear staff on these four as Commissioner Rosenblum has said, but… 4 5 Chair Tanaka: I just saw the manager [unintelligible] I don’t know who is manager. No? Ok. Ok, so are 6 there strong objections from people who don’t want to hear the four items? Otherwise we could hear it. 7 Ok, so staff why don’t you go ahead and talk about the four items? 8 9 Mr. Lait: Ok, so we’re looking at the 10 items matrix. I’m going to start from the bottom, go toward the 10 top. The bottom item is the reduced appeal fee as it relates to those various items. This is a direction 11 that the City Council gave to the Policy and Services Committee to discuss and forward a 12 recommendation on to the City Council. This item reflects the Policy and Services recommendation and 13 we’re using this vehicle of the ordinance to transmit that Policy and Services recommendation to the City 14 Council so they can talk about whether the appeal fee that was recommended by that committee is 15 appropriate. That’s why we believe it should move forward as a Tier 1 discussion. 16 17 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so staff put forth Item 10 saying that it’s Policy and Services initiative and thus it 18 should be our recommendation as well. So for Commissioners that disagree with that, hit your lights. 19 Commissioner Rosenblum. 20 21 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, so again I think it’s not the purpose of this whole exercise and I think 22 it’s a separate thing. If you guys want to bring this back at a separate time then I would recommend 23 that. I want to just be consistent about this purpose. You have a bulk process to take items that are 24 quote/unquote yeah that I keep calling no brainers and maybe this process was designed as something 25 else, but as long as we’re going through like 60 items at once then I think we should remain true to that 26 spirit. This you’re saying the logic is that you were given instruction by a Council committee to make 27 such changes, now you’re coming back to it through us and I’m just saying that’s a fundamentally 28 different thing. It’s just not part of that exercise. 29 30 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck. 31 32 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, so I completely agree. Actually I don’t even know why we have to review 33 it. If they, if the Policy and Services Committee wants to make a change to the way fees are collected or 34 the way they vote on items why can’t that go from the Policy and Services Committee straight to the City 35 Council and not be a part of what we’re calling the Annual Edits to the Code Update (interrupted) 36 37 Mr. Lait: Because it’s in the zoning code and the PTC makes recommendations on zoning code changes. 38 That’s why it’s before (interrupted) 39 40 Commissioner Alcheck: But you get what I’m saying. 41 42 Mr. Lait: Well it has to come through the Commission to get a recommendation to Council (interrupted) 43 44 Chair Tanaka: Actually (interrupted) 45 46 Commissioner Alcheck: But not in the context of changing the title of Chief Planning Official to Chief, I 47 mean it’s two (interrupted) 48 49 Chair Tanaka: Hold on, hold on. Commissioner Alcheck (interrupted) 50 51 Mr. Lait: Sure. 52 53 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so Commissioner Alcheck hold on a second. Let me just ask a basic question of staff 54 which is why do you think they have this rule that a subcommittee of Council makes a direction and then 55 City of Palo Alto Page 15 it goes, it has to go through Planning Commission, why, who, like what was the rationale for that, that 1 process? 2 3 Mr. Lait: Are you asking where is it set forth that the Commission makes recommendation (interrupted) 4 5 Chair Tanaka: No. I guess why. Why? 6 7 Mr. Lait: Why? 8 9 Chair Tanaka: Why is there that, why is that, why is there that process? 10 11 Mr. Lait: I’m not understanding the question. 12 13 Chair Tanaka: So you’re saying that the Policy and Services Committee gave direction to have an intent, 14 right? 15 16 Mr. Lait: What I’m saying is that the City Council gave a direction to the Policy and Services Committee to 17 evaluate changes to the appeal fees which they did. They made a recommendation. It’s a change to the 18 zoning code. 19 20 Chair Tanaka: Ok. 21 22 Mr. Lait: It has to go through this Commission. 23 24 Chair Tanaka: Ok, I’m asking why does it have to go through this Commission? That’s (interrupted) 25 26 Mr. Lait: [Unintelligible]. 27 28 Ms. French: [Unintelligible – off mike]. 29 30 Chair Tanaka: Huh? 31 32 Mr. Lait: Local and state law requires (interrupted) 33 34 Chair Tanaka: Why does the state law require that? Why, why do they do that? 35 36 Ms. Silver: That’s the fundamental purpose of the PTC is that you are charged with reviewing zoning code 37 ordinances and making recommendations to the City Council. And I think with larger cities this process is 38 set up that City Council have so many things on their agendas that they can’t dive deep into certain 39 zoning code issues and so this is a typically been a forum to discuss those issues and to have a public 40 hearing on zoning code changes. 41 42 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so (interrupted) 43 44 Ms. Silver: Every city does this. 45 46 Chair Tanaka: Ok, that makes sense and it’s, that’s rational, right? Because City Council is doing a million 47 things and we’re going to be a more focused Commission on just this item so we should actually have a 48 so the expectation isn’t [unintelligible] rubber stamp, but to actually be a considered recommendation 49 based on data, right? Ok, ok. Great. Vice-Chair. 50 51 Vice-Chair Fine: So while I’m intended to agree with Commissioner Rosenblum it’s a little odd this one is 52 on because it was directed by Policy and Services I appreciate your explanation there. it seems like 53 Council had some idea and it seems that you guys are trying to essentially merge a Title 18 change into 54 this I’m not going to call it the omnibus, the Planning Update. I’m not totally comfortable with that, but 55 City of Palo Alto Page 16 in this case whatever. It’s not the biggest deal. Does anyone on the Commission want to put forth why 1 this was pulled? I wasn’t at the September 30th meeting. 2 3 MOTION 4 5 Commissioner Alcheck: Look, writing’s on the wall. I think they want this and so I’m I don’t want to stop 6 them from getting something that they believe in, right? I really don’t. And I don’t want to make your 7 job any harder. They’ve asked you to do something, you brought it to us, it’s so simple, it’s so 8 straightforward, we’re supposed to review all these changes, why didn’t we? My point is, is that I don’t 9 think anybody on this in this room thinks oh, we really need to have discussion about whether or not the 10 title of a position that doesn’t even exist anymore should be changed. That’s obvious and we have to go 11 through that exercise, right? And for example, where we changed the equipment that you could replace 12 equipment with quieter equipment even though it was technically in the setback, that change that we 13 discussed a couple of weeks ago, it’s just that in theory we made a line in the sand when we got into this 14 process. And the line was we’re trying to make the errors that are staff identified as oh, we keep 15 encountering these issues and they’re really simple and we have to explain ourselves 150 times and it’s 16 useless and it’s time consuming and those are the things we want to review with you. And then 17 somehow there was a creep and like issues well, wouldn’t it be convenient if we dealt with this other 18 thing? So I don’t want to stand in the way of this issue. If Council wants this even though it 19 fundamentally conflicts with my notion of what we were supposed to be doing here, I’m not I don’t want 20 to stop it. 21 22 So I’m comfortable changing this from Tier 2 to Tier 1 without having a discussion in depth with the 23 community about whether or not 25 signatures in support of appeal should have a reduced fee because 24 it’s what City Council wants. Even though that conflicts with the notion that we sort of set out with in 25 terms of separating these easy changes, like no brainers from things that are actual fundamental 26 changes to policy, but again this is not I just I don’t want to stand in the way of a process and seem like 27 we’re a difficult body that can’t get through simple tasks. I don’t want that to be the impression. I also 28 don’t like the idea that this item which [so] Director is so obvious, so clear. They wanted it, you put it in. 29 It’s not, whatever. It’s so different than some of these other changes. And it to me is dangerous to any 30 suggestion that these are all similar with each other is dangerous because they’re not. One will affect a 31 builder dramatically. This one probably won’t. So I’m fine. We want to go one by one I’m willing to 32 accept this as a Tier 1 change and add it to the list even though it doesn’t reflect what is considered a no 33 brainer change beaus it’s Policy and Services directed and it’ll probably be perceived as a roadblock if we 34 don’t do it. 35 36 And I’m happy to move, I’m happy to move to that if that’s what I need to do right now. So I will make 37 a Motion that this be included in what we previously reviewed as Tier 1 change for the reasons stated. 38 39 Chair Tanaka: I have a Motion on the floor, anyone want to second it? 40 41 SECOND 42 43 Vice-Chair Fine: Second. 44 45 Chair Tanaka: Second by Vice-Chair. Ok. So (interrupted) 46 47 Commissioner Alcheck: I don’t need to speak to my Motion. 48 49 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Vice-Chair? Ok. So, ok so it’s kind of a it’s a Motion, it’s kind of weird though 50 because it’s a Motion are you making a Motion to approve the whole recommendation as staff 51 recommended or just saying we’ll put this in? 52 53 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m saying that the amended language, they’ve included the (interrupted) 54 55 Ms. French: The change number is [unintelligible – off mike]. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 17 1 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m saying Council asked for this. It’s my impression that Council asked for this to 2 be included in this omnibus change and because I don’t believe that there’s (interrupted) 3 4 Chair Tanaka: So here’s an idea, right? Maybe because we have to actually not just approve one thing at 5 a time, we actually have to make a Motion to approve like this whole thing (interrupted) 6 7 Commissioner Alcheck: Well, I’m just saying this item be moved from list two to one. 8 9 Chair Tanaka: Ok, well. 10 11 Commissioner Alcheck: I got a second. 12 13 Chair Tanaka: You got a second, yes. 14 15 Commissioner Alcheck: So we should vote on it. 16 17 Chair Tanaka: But I think it’s not clear as to what the Motion is in the entirety. That’s the point I’m 18 (interrupted) 19 20 Commissioner Gardias: It’s not clear to me why do we need to have Motion on this? I mean with the 21 whole respect (interrupted) 22 23 Commissioner Alcheck: Well you’ve got four items that you want to go over tonight. 24 25 Mr. Lait: You know I think you just need to look for consensus. If there’s consensus, great, we move on 26 to the next one. 27 28 Commissioner Alcheck: [Fine]. 29 30 Mr. Lait: Or not even consensus, you just need majority. 31 32 Commissioner Alcheck: [Unintelligible] You have my support. You have my support, I think you need to 33 hear from the rest of the Commissioners, but you have my support to include that in Tier 1. 34 35 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so ok so (interrupted) 36 37 Mr. Lait: I’m sorry, I just I heard some I just want to clarify because I don’t want it to be… so Council did 38 not direct that this be incorporated in the omnibus. We are using this opportunity to we’re creating we 39 want to move things though, we want to get work done. This is a vehicle that’s already going to the 40 Council so it’s a rider to this other effort. So we’re and the Council has not seen the language and the 41 Council may reject the Policy and Services Commission recommendation. That’s a possibility. So the 42 language that’s in this ordinance may get massaged when it goes to Council. That’s a possibility. So I 43 just want it to be clear. 44 45 Commissioner Alcheck: Just to refresh the memory we did have a discussion about this last time and 46 there were certain people on the Commission that suggested why would we reduce this fee if more 47 people are involved? So I just I kind of you have to appreciate that I kind of feel like why did we have a 48 meeting and discuss this if none of that language or an option that represented the language that we 49 already sort of discussed be represented here tonight? You could have had two versions of this, but the 50 truth is that there’s a Policy and Services Committee recommendation for exactly this language, right? 51 That’s why we’re seeing this language and not the language that maybe some of us would have 52 preferred. And so why would we want to stand in the way of the Policy and Services Committee’s 53 preference that they already wanted? So that’s why I’m saying let’s not, let’s not make a mountain out 54 some of these things (interrupted) 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Chair Tanaka: Ok, Commissioner Alcheck here’s what I think we need to do. I think let’s hear all four 1 first and then let’s make a Motion. So I’m going to ask if Vice-Chair and Commissioner Alcheck you can 2 withdraw (interrupted) 3 4 Commissioner Alcheck: Withdraw my (interrupted) 5 6 Chair Tanaka: We kind of know where people stand and then let’s finish the four and then we can make 7 a Motion based off of that. I see lights from Vice-Chair and from Commissioner Rosenblum. Ok. So 8 let’s, let’s move on to the what’s the second item? 9 10 Mr. Lait: So the next item is the one just above it, Number 9. And this is in the course of a conversation 11 about a private development project before the City Council there appears to be a majority support for a 12 possible amendment to the ability to receive a seismic floor area bonus I believe up to 2,500 sf or 25 13 percent, whichever was lower when a building that is on the City’s Seismic Inventory is rehabilitated to 14 conform to the appropriate seismic standards one is able to achieve that bonus. What has happened is 15 there’s been some cases where projects have been, those buildings have been demolished not 16 rehabilitated in the understanding of perhaps the intent of the code, but actually just demolished and 17 then receiving the bonus. So again this is a comment that we believe reflects the Council policy. I 18 acknowledge we could be wrong about that, but I believe it is consistent with the Council’s at least the 19 comments that we heard on an item and we’re using this opportunity to float that policy to the Council. 20 21 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so this is almost like déjà vu. We actually talked about this last time, but ok so that’s 22 staff’s… 23 24 Commissioner Alcheck: But now we have the language. 25 26 Chair Tanaka: Yeah, now we have the language. So that is different. Does anyone want to comment on 27 this? Ok, let’s put it this way. Anyone that because last time we agreed to take this out. We said that 28 this is Tier 2. So anyone that now agrees that it’s Tier 1 why don’t you hit your lights and speak. Vice-29 Chair. 30 31 Vice-Chair Fine: So I wasn’t here last time this was pulled out, but it seems that the intent of the seismic 32 bonus is for rebuilding. It seems that’s Council’s intent. You shouldn’t get that bonus if you’re knocking 33 your entire structure down. So I’m in favor of putting this back on Tier 1. 34 35 Chair Tanaka: Ok, I see no other lights. Let’s go on to the next item. 36 37 Mr. Lait: The next item is item Number 7, four from the bottom. This has to do with single family 38 individual review threshold for second story additions. This is one that Commissioner Michael identified 39 as one that probably didn’t even need to be amended and I tend to agree with him that the existing 40 language probably stands on its own and would capture an expansion of a second floor balcony that’s 41 greater than 150 sf to be subject to the Individual Review (IR) process. However, to provide clarity of 42 that existing language we’ve added the words that are found on Page 15 of the ordinance to specify that 43 a new second story or the expansion of an existing second story including balconies or similar outdoor 44 areas above the first floor by more than 150 feet would be subject to the IR process. So we, this we 45 believe is a clarification. 46 47 Chair Tanaka: Ok, same procedure. So last time we agreed that this was Tier 2. Little bit like déjà vu, 48 but staff is insisting that it’s really Tier 1. Anyone that wants to change their mind and agree with staff 49 hit your lights and say something. Ok, no one hits their lights. Let’s go on to the next item. What’s the 50 fourth item? 51 52 Mr. Lait: Ok, so and again I think that sort of reflects why we did the approach that we did is so that you 53 can see the language in context. Not knowing where it’s going to go, but that reiterates why we’re 54 attempting to do this this way and I apologize again for the format that we’ve taken. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Now this next item has to do with basements and the intent here is not to establish or make policy about 1 basements. If the City if we’re interested in expanding basements, fine, that’s a policy statement; if we 2 want to constrain basements that’s a policy statement. We’re not looking though this effort to make a 3 policy perspective on that. What we do need to do is clarify what is the definition of footprint mean 4 because we’re seeing a number of applications coming forward that are expanding this definition and we 5 want to make sure that we’re being consistent so that we’re providing a clearer set of expectations to 6 homeowners, architects, and developers and we’re not having a conversation taking up four or five hours 7 of staff time to argue with architects about what the definition of footprint means. 8 9 The there’s a section of the code that says basements are allowed under the footprint of the building. I 10 believe it’s the first floor of the building. And then we have a definition of our code that is describes what 11 a footprint is and on Page 5 of your ordinance toward the bottom is the definition of footprint. What we 12 wanted to do was add what we believe is clarifying terms that get to the intent of the definition. The two 13 words that we’re adding are exterior walls. So the footprint definition would read “Means the two 14 dimensional configuration of a building’s perimeter boundaries, exterior walls as measured on a horizontal 15 plane at ground level.” 16 17 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so same thing. Last time we talked about this actually in quite depth. Nothing’s really 18 changed, but if you changed your mind and wanted to express it hit your lights and say something why 19 you want, why you think it’s Tier 2. I’m sorry, Tier 1 instead of Tier 2. Ok, no one’s changed their mind. 20 21 So ok, so here’s the tally. So the last two, no one’s changed their mind. For number 9 Vice-Chair first 22 time for him to express it, he thinks it’s actually Tier 1. No one else did. And then Item 10 I think Vice-23 Chair thought it is, could be Tier 1. It seemed like nobody else did. I think Commissioner Alcheck 24 doesn’t think so either, but he could be persuaded. So. 25 26 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m willing to include it in Tier 1. 27 28 Chair Tanaka: Ok, willing (interrupted) 29 30 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m willing to include items that the Public and Services Committee suggested 31 they wanted simply so that we are not a roadblock to things they want as opposed to things that have 32 been generated by the Planning staff and maybe we should be reviewing that from a policy perspective 33 because there wasn’t a Policy and Services Committee meeting where this was discussed. That’s, that’s 34 how I’m actually making the designation. Are there other items that Policy and Services Committee 35 brought forward that we did not include? Those should probably be highlighted right now because I 36 would probably support inclusion of those other than this single one, but you get my point? Because 37 there was a meeting where someone discussed this at length as opposed to no one really has discussed 38 the other issues. That’s how I’m making that distinction. 39 40 Chair Tanaka: Vice-Chair. 41 42 MOTION 43 44 Vice-Chair Fine: So I’m going to make a Motion. I move that we recommend that Council adopt the 45 attached ordinance excepting items numbers 1 through 9. Alright, so excepting items 1, not items so 46 remove items 1 through 9 from the ordinance, Which means, ok. 47 48 Commissioner Alcheck: Can you clarify whether [unintelligible] that would be a recommendation included 49 [unintelligible]. 50 51 Vice-Chair Fine: So I (interrupted) 52 53 Commissioner Alcheck: [Unintelligible]. 54 55 Chair Tanaka: So I think try to be very clear as to what specifically you want staff to do. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 20 1 Vice-Chair Fine: So the Motion is for staff to pass this ordinance on to Council, but please subtract items 2 number 1 through 9. 3 4 SECOND 5 6 Commissioner Alcheck: Second. 7 8 Chair Tanaka: We have a Motion on the floor from Vice-Chair seconded by Commissioner Alcheck. Do 9 you want to speak to your Motion? Ok. Does anyone want to deliberate this? Commissioner Rosenblum. 10 11 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, I’m also not comfortable with Item 10. So I don’t agree so 12 Commissioner Alcheck I get your logic that this just seems obstinate, but I don’t think that is the process. 13 I don’t think the process is that things that Council wants should go forward with no deliberation on our 14 side. And the reason this was pulled if I remember correctly is Commissioner Downing had said well, this 15 is making a decision to make it easier to appeal and that’s, that is significant. That may not be in the 16 public interest and the levels may not be correct. We may want to see what the cost is. If we’re actually 17 deliberating this we’d want to see how often things do get appealed, by whom, how many petitions do 18 they normally get? So I think it’s actually an important item. So I don’t think the process is well if they 19 want it then we should pass it so we don’t appear obstinate. And that’s it. So I don’t know what the 20 process is here. I would suggest an a (interrupted) 21 22 Chair Tanaka: You can make a Friendly Amendment. 23 24 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 25 26 Commissioner Rosenblum: Friendly Amendment that we include the 10th as well in the original 27 amendment. 28 29 Chair Tanaka: Does the maker of the Motion accept? 30 31 Vice-Chair Fine: I would accept that. So then we’re just passing Council the ordinance, but removing all 32 of the Tier 2, the Tier, the items that the PTC has flagged. 33 34 Chair Tanaka: What does the seconder of the Motion say? 35 36 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 ACCEPTED 37 38 Commissioner Alcheck: I absolutely agree with your logic. You see that I’m grappling with this idea that I 39 don’t want anybody to walk away from this meeting thinking that we’re trying to be obstinate. But I 40 think your logic is correct that we should have a discussion about that item, we should know more 41 statistical information about that item, and so I will accept that Friendly Amendment. 42 43 VOTE 44 45 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so does anyone else want to deliberate this item on the floor with the Friendly 46 Amendment? Ok, so I think we’re ready to vote. All in favor raise your hand. Ok, it’s unanimous. So 47 this item is closed. 48 49 MOTION PASSED (6-0-1, Commissioner Downing absent) 50 51 Commission Action: Motion by Vice-chair Fine, second by Commissioner Alcheck to approve Ordinance 52 removing items 1 – 9 from ordinance. Friendly Motion by Commissioner Rosenblum to exclude item 10 in 53 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Ordinance as well. Both original Motioners approved the Friendly Motion. Passed unanimously with 1 Commissioner Downing absent. (6-0-1) 2 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Draft Verbatim Minutes 2 October 14, 2015 3 4 Excerpt 5 6 Public Hearing7 First Annual Planning Codes Update: Discussion and Possible Recommendation of an Ordinance to8 amend land use-related portions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The purposes of the code amendments9 are to: (1) improve the use and readability of the code, (2) clarify certain code provisions, and (3) align10 regulations to reflect current practice and Council policy direction. For more information, contact Amy11 French at Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Continued from September 30, 201512 13 Chair Tanaka: We’re going to call the meeting back to order. Can the Commissioners please take your14 seats and can people please move their conversations to the hall? So we’re now on the third item, which15 is the First Annual Planning Codes Update. Does staff want to give kind of a, you gave a presentation16 last time, but do you want to give kind of a quick review as to where we’re at and where we need to go?17 18 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes, Amy French, we met with you last on September 30th after19 which we did pay a visit to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to finalize those ARB findings. So those20 are ready now for our draft ordinance. We unfortunately do not have a draft ordinance to put at places21 tonight. We are still working on that. There’s a few more refinements before we release that so our22 apologies for that.23 24 We have the matrix that we worked on last time. The items were pulled. We have five items from Page25 4 that we wanted to get through tonight. I have some fun slides if anyone wants to see those, but on26 the wall sign, I’m projecting sign Items 30 and 31. I do have some visuals for the footprint definition,27 Item 33. We have that amenity definition, which we touched a bit related to breakrooms last time and28 then we have Item 34, which is gross floor area inclusions. So again these are the categories and last29 time of course we some of those moved from interpretation and new policies, some of those moved off of30 the Tier 1 list onto the Tier 2 list. So that concludes our brief presentation. As I said I have slides for31 each of the items that you pulled for discussion if you’d like, ask me questions I’ll show you some things.32 33 Chair Tanaka: Ok, thank you. So first of all are there any of you… any members of the public that want34 to speak to the Commission? If so (interrupted)35 36 Ms. French: Cleared the room.37 38 Chair Tanaka: Bring your card to the front. I see no one in the audience and no cards, right? Ok, so let’s39 close the public hearing.40 41 Ok, so where we last left this was on Page 4. Does, I think everyone has their, has the big sheets of42 paper in front of them and we were going through and talking about issues. So on Page 4 these were43 interpretation issues and we had indicated Item 31, 32, 33, and 34. So Commissioner Gardias flagged44 31, Commissioner Downing flagged 32, Commissioner Gardias flagged 33 and 34. So Commissioner45 Gardias do you want to kick it off and talk about some of the concerns you had for Item 31?46 47 Commissioner Gardias: I was seeking merely clarification on this item. If you could just please explain48 the meaning of this.49 50 Ms. French: So I had that we also pulled 31. That that had been or 30, Number 30, which is my first one51 on the screen here, but I’ll pass that over (interrupted)52 City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 Chair Tanaka: Oh, sorry. Actually, Commissioner Alcheck actually had 30, but he crossed it out at the 2 end of the meeting. So I don’t know if, I don’t know if Commissioner, Commissioner Alcheck 3 (interrupted) 4 5 Ms. French: I didn’t get the memo. Ok. 6 7 Chair Tanaka: I don’t know if Commissioner Alcheck (interrupted) 8 9 Ms. French: I didn’t work too hard on the slides. I’ll show you my slide. There we go. That’s the slide. 10 Ok. That one’s ok. We’re good, above canopy signs. 11 12 Ok, so Item 31 is the projecting sign standard. So the current code language only allows projecting signs 13 when they are placed underneath an overhang or canopy. And so I’ll show you a photo for instance here 14 there’s a small sign hanging down from a canopy that was manufactured so that they could hang a sign 15 out under it. Here are items that had to go through the sign exception process because there is no 16 canopy over the blade signs. So that was an exception process, went to the ARB, we call those blade 17 signs. So the item that this represents is to allow for blade signs, which is somewhat an industry 18 standard when there is no canopy to put it under. In the case of, I’m just going to show that slide again, 19 the vans, that’s it, ok, there’s like a little canvas canopy and you don’t hang something from under the 20 canvas canopy. 21 22 Commissioner Gardias: So those signs will be allowed pretty much? 23 24 Ms. French: Yes, we would still have an architectural review process, but it would not require this 25 exception findings that says it’s extraordinary circumstance. 26 27 Commissioner Gardias: Ok. So this would affect other discussion around grocery outlet on Alma, right? 28 Because it’s not under canopy, there was a large discussion back then. 29 30 Ms. French: That was also larger than allowed. So that was two exceptions, yes. 31 32 Commissioner Gardias: Ok. Good, thank you. That’s what I was looking for, thanks. 33 34 Chair Tanaka: Ok, Commissioner Gardias you’re not putting forward any position on this? 35 36 Commissioner Gardias: No. 37 38 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Does anyone want to talk about 31? Otherwise we’ll move on to 32. Ok, Item 32 is 39 Commissioner Downing. You’re the one who put this one forward. 40 41 Commissioner Downing: Sure, I was wondering if staff could talk a little bit about the problem here that 42 this is trying to fix? 43 44 Ms. French: Ok, so the first thing is there is no definition for onsite employee amenities. Onsite 45 employee amenities are considered those types of amenities that are included in an office building 46 generally. You know out in the Research Park is a good example where this happens and somebody will 47 put a cafeteria, there might be a childcare center, there might be onsite laundry facilities, and these are 48 things that allow for folks to not have to get in their car and leave the office to go and drop their cleaning 49 off. We don’t have a definition in our code. It’s a chance to put a definition in there to talk about it as, 50 it’s an ancillary use, it’s not a primary use so you can’t just put a childcare facility on a property and say 51 it’s an amenity and so we don’t have to park it and it’s not floor area. it has to be ancillary to the primary 52 use. 53 54 Commissioner Downing: Yo go. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: So just to quickly this is one that we talked about at the previous 1 meeting and we said that we need to come back to you with a definition of what amenity space is. You 2 don’t have that yet so you really don’t have anything to respond to. So we see this as coming back to 3 you with a definition to better react. 4 5 Chair Tanaka: Vice-Chair. 6 7 Vice-Chair Fine: So can you describe a little bit more about the purpose of these amenity spaces? Did 8 you just say they’re excluded from Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and parking requirements, things like that? 9 10 Ms. French: Correct, when it’s determined that they have the function of reducing trips then it’s not floor 11 area and it doesn’t need to be parked. 12 13 Vice-Chair Fine: Alright, so this might be my own personal prejudice a little bit, but given the nature of 14 industries here, tech companies, startups, things like that, I can only speak from my own experience 15 going to a number of startups and tech companies and my own offices up in San Francisco, these 16 amenity spaces can take up a lot of the floor area of certain companies. In my own company I just have 17 to guess it’s probably a good 30 percent of our space in terms of snack things and little kitchenettes and 18 stuff like that. So I’m interested to hear what others have to say, but given some of the concerns about 19 office space, the trips they generate, how these spaces are used and employ, people talk about sardines 20 in a tech company we should be careful with this one. 21 22 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias. 23 24 Commissioner Gardias: I this is about 33, right? So I think we already covered it. 25 26 Chair Tanaka: No, no, no. Sorry. It’s 32. We’re on Item 32. 27 28 Commissioner Gardias: No, I was ok with 32, so… 29 30 Chair Tanaka: Oh, ok. Then hold that thought. Let me get to Commissioner Rosenblum. 31 32 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, I would prefer moving this item to Tier 2. It’s basically I agree that the 33 nature of the businesses here have a fair amount of shared employee space. I think it’s a good thing. 34 It’s kind of the modern way of working and I think basically changing this is significant. So if the 35 definition of what are things that fly through in our omnibus set of changes are clarifications and trivial 36 this is nontrivial. My personal preference would be that if you did do this it would force the densification 37 of offices. If you’re going to have to park it anyway you may as well jam in more people and so to me it 38 would have a negative effect on work environments. 39 40 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael. 41 42 Commissioner Michael: I agree this is a Tier 2 item. In expressing that agreement I would say that the 43 interrelationship between amenity space, which I think should be liberally construed rather than 44 restrictively measured, is perhaps connected to having an updated sense of what’s the square foot 45 utilization per employee relative to parking. So I think that those two things considered together would 46 give you the best result when you have the Tier 2 discussion. 47 48 Chair Tanaka: I see no other lights on this, but I also agree that this to me seems like a Tier 2 item that 49 we should probably it’s worth more detailed discussion. So let’s move on to, on this item it looks like the 50 majority of the Commission thinks that this is Tier 2. 51 52 Ok, so on Item 33, Commissioner Gardias you’re the one who flagged it. Do you want to talk about it? 53 54 Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, I think we talked about this at some point of time. So I’m fine with this as 55 an interpretation unless there is some comments from my colleagues. Thank you. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Tanaka: Vice-Chair do you want to say something? Oh, ok. Ok. Staff since you prepared 1 something do you want to just talk about it? 2 3 Ms. French: Sure. So again this modifies an existing definition to clarify for a single family home that 4 basements would, that a footprint is what’s interior and defined by walls. And under that that is where 5 the basements can go. So and that’s based on an increasing trend that we’ve seen. I just have a little 6 image here that shows an example of a porch. Here’s the grade and you have a porch with a covering 7 that is a balcony and then you have a recreation room underneath in the ground and currently we call 8 this complete the square. There’s basement underneath that open porch there. Here’s another example, 9 they might put a wine room or even a bedroom under a porch that’s covered. So we see kind of these 10 porches that start to wrap around and there is no dimension that says how much porch is considered part 11 of a footprint so we get into these discussions with applicants. You have a small room on this end and 12 then you have a porch and you’re putting the basement under the porch so what happens is the porches 13 start to get bigger so that there can be basements underneath. So this is why we’re kind of going back 14 to a stricter reading of that to say it’s interior floor area. 15 16 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck. 17 18 Commissioner Alcheck: Look, this I mean I guess my argument that this is Tier 2 is that we’re trying to 19 affect a behavior that we don’t like as opposed to modifying something because it’s not clear and my 20 response to that reasoning is how do we determine we don’t like it? And I think the way we determine 21 we don’t like a certain behavior is by having a discussion that’s a little bit more in depth. Frankly if we 22 had that discussion I would say I don’t see why we care where a subgrade space is if we can’t see it. I 23 think if we have a problem with the way patios or porches are designed then we should potentially have 24 a discussion about porch size or limitations because it sounds to me like you could still create these 25 awkward porches if you wanted to under our code, which sounds like the problem that she’s, that’s being 26 raised tonight. So it’s like the issue is we don’t like these porches that are sort of awkward and wrap 27 around and our, but our change here won’t necessarily eliminate that. It just eliminates the assumed 28 incentive for that awkward porch. So again I would argue I’m not necessarily in favor I think if we want 29 to have a discussion about changing a behavior then we need to have a discussion about if it’s a behavior 30 that we don’t like and we haven’t had that discussion so my argument would be that would be why it’s 31 Tier 2. 32 33 And then I think the second component of that is if we’re going to try to limit a behavior that we don’t 34 like we should limit that specific behavior, not an incentive or one of various incentives that cause it. 35 Because I don’t think what we would do here would actually eliminate the problem that was identified. 36 So sort of two reasons why I think this would be a Tier 2 item. 37 38 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael. 39 40 Commissioner Michael: So I’m agreeing with Commissioner Alcheck. This should be a Tier 2 issue. And 41 since I probably won’t be around for that, that discussion, let me just state my rationale for the 42 agreement and that is I’m sensitive to the notion that the interest that the City has in structures that are 43 below ground is probably something that we need to have a better understanding of. I wonder if from a 44 structural engineering or other technical reason there’s a superior quality of the house if the basement 45 wall and the exterior wall are actually lined up versus if the exterior wall is over the middle of a basement 46 room and it may respond differently in a seismic event or what have you. But the third thing that occurs 47 to me in terms of maybe unintended consequences from what otherwise what seem to be sensible is that 48 when people construct homes or submit plans for approval maybe they have in mind some functionality 49 or some total floor area that they’d like to achieve and if you have the code interpretation that requires 50 them to complete the square then you may disincentivize more generous side setbacks because they’re 51 going to try to maximize their square footage and they’ll just move the wall of the first floor out as close 52 as possible to the fence so they can maximize their basement which may not be aesthetically beneficial to 53 the neighborhood or what have you. So Tier 2 is my recommendation. 54 55 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Rosenblum. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, I accept Alcheck’s analysis of this. this is we should be regulating the 2 thing that we don’t like, which is if odd porches are the thing we don’t like instead of the incentive to 3 make odd size porches I do agree that this is something that seems to be a change of something we 4 don’t like versus a clarification of something that just was previously unclear. 5 6 Chair Tanaka: Vice-Chair. 7 8 Vice-Chair Fine: I’m also in support of this. It seems like there’s some policy purpose at play here and we 9 should regulate that; so also in favor of Tier 2. 10 11 Chair Tanaka: So I also agree that this is in my mind clearly a type two and also I agree with other 12 Commissioner’s comment about why we care about what’s below grade. So anyways enough on 33, so 13 what the majority of the Commission agrees that Item 33 is type two. 14 15 Let’s go to Item 34, which I believe is our last item. It’s, it was flagged by Commissioner Gardias. So 16 Commissioner Gardias do you want to take a… 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: Well actually I’m fine with this because like seven years ago I did the project here 19 in Palo Alto and we actually argued just to increase the floor area because of the same reasons so I’m 20 familiar with this so I just marked it for, I was just wondering what was going to be your 21 recommendation, but I assume that you’re going to, we’re going to learn it at once you’re going to 22 provide the specific language, right? So I’m fine with this. I know there’s a hole, is a hole throughout all 23 the municipalities around so we should fix it, the others should fix it or we should also allow it and then 24 allow some smart architects just to argue for increased area. 25 26 Chair Tanaka: Staff do you want to talk about the slide if you have it? 27 28 Ms. French: I don’t know if others were interested in this item or was that? 29 30 Chair Tanaka: Why don’t you go ahead? 31 32 Ms. French: Ok. Currently we interpret this inclusion to mean because it just the code just states stairs 33 and elevators. Our interpretation is that we count them at each floor because floor area is about mass, 34 etcetera so we count it at each floor because it doesn’t say how to do it. So we get a floor plan that has 35 four floors and we count stair each floor. 36 37 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael. 38 39 Commissioner Michael: Maybe you could clarify for me, let’s say I’ve got a room that is on the entry and 40 the entry is 10 feet wide and 20 feet long and they’re at some point in the entry there, there’s a stairway 41 that begins and it goes up to the second floor and maybe if there’s a basement, there’s another stairway 42 that goes from the entry area down to the basement. If you’re counting the stairs or is there double 43 counting because you also have the area between the walls or are you single counting because you’re 44 excluding the what would be on the floor, but there’s a stair above the floor. Could you explain it to me? 45 46 Ms. French: And this might be one of those ones that a diagram would be helpful to describe the nuances 47 and different situations, but generally by counting it at each floor if there’s headroom at the floor above 48 and it’s a full floor then that let’s say we’re going from the first floor you count the whole stair, you get to 49 the second floor and there’s a full height above it that is volume that also counts as floor area. So you 50 count it twice. You count on the first floor; you count it on the second floor. 51 52 Commissioner Michael: But there’s no double counting in the sense that the area beneath the stair tread 53 is excluded from what you’re counting? 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Ms. French: Yes. We only just see if, we just squint and see the floor at each floor in the floorplan 1 number one, floorplan number two that area counts. We don’t look around it. It’s just (interrupted) 2 3 Commissioner Michael: Ok. 4 5 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Rosenblum. 6 7 Commissioner Rosenblum: This appears to be Tier 1, clarification. So I think this is one where I follow 8 the staff recommendation. 9 10 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias. 11 12 Commissioner Gardias: I totally agree this is Tier 1. Just a clarification how to where does the floor 13 belong to? Does it belong to the lower floor or to the upper floor discussions. Yeah, thank you. 14 15 Chair Tanaka: I do have a question because I think that a diagram would be helpful. So I’m going to 16 draw in the air here and you tell me if I’m understanding it right. So let’s say that you probably see some 17 staircases that kind of go around like this, right? And maybe the center is open. So does that center, if 18 we have a staircase that’s going around like this, going up, going up to the second floor and going down 19 to the basement, right, is that center of the staircase counted or is just the treads of the stairs? 20 21 Ms. French: We’re not getting into that fine of grain. We have a floorplan. I’m going to do the paper 22 version. We have the second floor, we have the first floor, there’s stairs going from the first floor to the 23 second floor. The entire area of where the stair is located as the crow flies looking down on it counts. At 24 the next level it also counts as long as you have the headroom above it that constitutes a full floor. It’s 25 you’re counting the volume as represented on a plane that’s horizontal to the ground. 26 27 Chair Tanaka: Ok, but (interrupted) 28 29 Ms. French: At each floor. 30 31 Chair Tanaka: But if you have like a staircase like a curved staircase or (interrupted) 32 33 Ms. French: Yeah, you’re not counting; you’re not going around a stair. 34 35 Chair Tanaka: A… is it just where the treads are? Or are we talking about? 36 37 Ms. French: Picture the stair isn’t there. It’s that it’s on the floor of that floor. It’s the horizontal plane 38 where the stair is plopped into. We’re not actually counting the stairs. 39 40 Mr. Lait: So the volume space is counted and that’s not a change. That’s the way it is today. 41 42 Ms. French: That’s how it is now. 43 44 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Commissioner Alcheck. 45 46 Commissioner Alcheck: Look I will say this, the only effect of codifying this would be that I mean it’s not 47 really an effect, but the only element here that could be different would be that in essence by measuring 48 the stairs as they are you’re essentially discouraging if someone is trying to maximize square footage any 49 staircase larger than the minimum, right? So let’s say the minimum requirement that the code would 50 allow would be like a five foot wide staircase. I don’t know what it is in a commercial building, but let’s 51 just say it’s five feet wide. No one would build like a 10 foot wide staircase because there’s no, if for 52 example we only counted the volume cross section of five feet and that extra five feet wasn’t counted 53 against their square footage then in theory am I making sense to anybody? We’re essentially the only 54 scenario of this where you could potentially not want this definition is if you wanted, if we didn’t, if we 55 wanted to give individuals the opportunity to encourage them to have grander commercial staircases. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 7 But I think other than that in the practice and the actual codification of what’s up there is the same as it 1 is right now. 2 3 So I’ll throw that out there, maybe that’s a discussion we could have next time we look at this. If people 4 build larger stairwells and more airy staircases in commercial complexes whether we want to encourage 5 that, but otherwise I think this should be Tier 1 simply because it doesn’t actually change our current 6 process. And I think that’s really the rubric here, are we creating a new designation that results in some 7 changed behavior or are we giving our code the clarity that we are that we rely on on a daily basis and in 8 an effort making our lives easier because people don’t have to ask that question about our practice. 9 10 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias. 11 12 Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, this is clearly Tier 1. It’s just pretty much technical aspect how to calculate 13 that area toward the floor area that’s as simple as that. You can count it many ways and they are pretty 14 much speaking, looking for some clear guidelines because if you’re a client or you’re a designer you can 15 just argue many ways and just pretty much they don’t want to have it so that’s simple. Thank you. 16 17 Chair Tanaka: Ok, to be honest I’m a little bit unclear about it myself, but I think my fellow 18 Commissioners seem to be really clear and crisp about it so the majority of the Commission thinks that 19 this is Tier 1. So I think that’s it for this. 20 21 Is there any other comments or questions that my fellow Commissioners have on this? Because I think 22 the next step from what I understand from staff is they’re going to take this and kind of write up in the 23 zoning code and then next meeting is when we’re actually, actually vote on it. Is that correct? Or vote 24 for recommendation? 25 26 Mr. Lait: Yeah, you’ll have an opportunity to vote on an ordinance. 27 28 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Great. Ok, so I’d like to close this item. 29 30 Commission Action: Commissioners provided comments 31 City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 2 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes September 30, 2015 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 Public Hearing:7 First Annual Planning Codes Update: Discussion and Possible Recommendation of an Ordinance to8 amend land use-related portions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The purposes of the code amendments9 are to: (1) improve the use and readability of the code, (2) clarify certain code provisions, and (3) align10 regulations to reflect current practice and Council policy direction. For more information, contact Amy11 French at Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org12 13 Chair Tanaka: Let’s go to Item 2, the First Annual Planning Code Update. Does staff have a presentation14 for that?15 16 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes, we do. Give us a moment. Ok, ready to begin.17 18 We visited with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) on September 9th to discuss the19 proposal to initiate changes to the zoning and building codes for land use regulations and the range of20 changes were discussed as a classification system at that meeting. We talked about coming back with21 the Tier 1 matrix, which we did come back with in the staff report. It’s online and we have that to22 discuss tonight. The Tier 2 items are underway. Tier 2 again are items that we envision coming back23 with next year. We hope that you’ve had a chance to look at that matrix. We may or may not proceed24 to the Policy and Services Committee on the 20th of this next month. We do intend to come back with an25 actual ordinance on the 28th to the PTC.26 27 Again there are some distinct projects that are not contained in this matrix and this effort. I put them up28 on the screen. These are the parking exemptions Downtown as Jon mentioned, prescreening29 requirements, this is a preliminary review process, hazardous materials facilities, retail preservation30 initiatives, office cap, and housing impact fees. Those are not part of this effort.31 32 Again the change categories we whittled down from four to three. You see them on the screen. And33 then we have our matrix, which the public has copies of as well. Wanted to say that we are hoping to34 get into a bit of an outreach effort following tonight’s discussion and we are hoping to hear from you as35 to items that you want us to discuss. I’ll let Jon who was at the pre-Commission meeting discuss36 anything further. Ok. I’ll let you take it then. Greg.37 38 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so here’s how I thought we could try to parse this. I thought that what we could do is39 go through each, oh, sorry. The Acting Vice-Chair is reminding me that we have some public comment.40 So let’s hear the public comment first before we move on. So can you go through and I think each41 person has let’s see, three minutes each. Oh, sorry. I’m corrected. Five minutes.42 43 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Ok. The first speaker is Doria Summa followed by Jeff Levinsky.44 45 Doria Summa: Doria Summa, College Terrace; good evening Planning Commission and Chair. And I46 wanted to start out by thanking staff very much for doing this. I think it’s a great start to what I’m47 hoping will be a really excellent process. And Jeff Levinsky who’s also here and I took the time to go48 through the whole thing and send you a letter. Of course we couldn’t write a detailed account of49 anything, everything, because there just literally wasn’t time because you really have to look into each50 item. And some we were familiar with and some not as much. So I just want to thank you for that and I51 want to encourage you to do this in a timely fashion and keep on your schedule, but I think the schedule52 could be opened up a little more to give the public a little more time to work with it as staff moves53 forward with the process. And I hope you had a chance to read our comments. Thank you very much.54 City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Sorry. 2 3 Jeff Levinsky: Should I start? 4 5 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: If you’re ready. 6 7 Mr. Levinsky: Ok, thanks. My name is Jeff Levinsky. Good evening Commissioners and staff. I too 8 would like to thank the staff for all the hard work to assemble and explain the many proposed changes to 9 the code. Overall I think these changes should very much improve both the development process and 10 the livability of our community. I do feel that the requirements should be scaled to the size of the 11 projects. That’s already the case in countless places in our City code, but the matrix introduces a few 12 exceptions to that. For example is Item 44 and 55 suggest a one-time 500 square foot (sf) cap on the 13 space that could be exempted from Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and parking to comply with regulations such 14 as Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 500 square feet is a huge exemption for say a 3,000 sf office 15 building while it might be much too little for a 30,000 sf building. So tying the cap to the size of the 16 building seems like a better way to do it. 17 18 The same issue occurs on Item 54, which requires a minimum of three housing units in certain mixed-use 19 projects. These housing units, three might be just the right number for a 5,000 sf site, but it’s likely 20 impractical for a much smaller one while it’s way too few on a large site. So again, please just tie the 21 minimum to the size of the overall project. 22 23 The same principle also applies to something not yet in the matrix, namely a penalty when Planned 24 Community (PC) promise a grocery store such as a public benefit, but then no operating store 25 materializes. Right now Edgewood Plaza’s grocery store, which was one of the key promised benefits of 26 that PC has been closed for over six months. My neighbors and I were told the City will be charging a 27 $500 daily penalty, which is just $0.75 a sf per month approximately. The City says this will double at 28 some point; however, the much smaller grocery at College Terrace Center, which is also a promised 29 public benefit agreed to pay about $7.50 per sf per month when no store is operating. The Council 30 approved that last December. In other words the penalty for not providing a smaller store is 5 to 10 31 times larger than for the larger store. That’s not fair. It’s like charging low income taxpayers 10 times 32 the rate of high income taxpayers. So my neighbors and I recommend that you add an item to the 33 matrix establishing the same $7.50 per sf per month penalty for all three grocery stores that are 34 promised by PCs. 35 36 Let me point out that neighborhood shopping shortens or even eliminates car trips. It saves residents 37 time. There are strong environmental and social reasons to encourage neighborhood groceries, but they 38 only help if they’re open. The $7.50 per sf per month penalty from when they’re not open is good policy 39 already supported by the Council, so please ask staff to add that to the matrix. Thank you. 40 41 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: The next speaker is Herb Borock. And that’s, I think our last speaker. 42 43 Herb Borock: Chair Tanaka and Commissioners, I was around when there were yearly updates of the 44 zoning code. That for the zoning code, for the Comprehensive Plan, for a stop sign network, there were 45 regular updates and the people from the community who recommended changes were identified. It was 46 not just some anonymous customer suggesting something. And so this really isn’t the first update, first 47 annual update because they may have stopped about 15 years ago with changes in Councils and City 48 Managers, but they were a regular occurrence. 49 50 The past major changes to the zoning code were two in 2004 there were major changes to procedures 51 for architecture, for design review and for use permits and variances. The author was supposedly the 52 administrator, Jon Abendschein, whose career is really in the Utilities Department and the only other 53 person in the Planning Department to sign off on it was Steve Emslie who is a lobbyist for developers 54 now. Wynne Furth who is a candidate for City Attorney was the one who did the actual language 55 because the Attorney’s Office has to prepare the language and the week after the Council adopted those 56 City of Palo Alto Page 3 changes Gary Baum was appointed City Attorney instead of Wynne Furth. And Wynne Furth’s now on 1 the Architectural Review Board (ARB). In 2000, around 2006 there were major changes, rewrites of the 2 zoning code that John Lusardi planned and organized, but then he left for Scottsdale and Curtis Williams 3 followed that up. 4 5 I had a brief actually three discussions, one by email with Senior Assistant City Attorney Cara Silver about 6 one of the items that I had mentioned during the deliberations on the State Density Bonus Law and the 7 City’s adoption of that new chapter in the code, which I believe is 18.15 and that is that the Pedestrian 8 Transit Overlay District (PTOD) contains language that says the density bonuses in that district are the 9 ones that satisfy the State Density Bonus Law and you can’t do any more. And I don’t have a copy of the 10 printed code in front of me so I can’t go from the matrix to the printed code, but if we’re talking about 11 the same item of just deleting it essentially then you could do both the PTOD density bonuses plus the 12 State Density Bonuses. And I think the appropriate thing to do would do what you had done in that one 13 for the PC zone, which is to say if you’re going to be using PTOD you can’t use the State Density Bonus 14 Law because there are already bonuses in there. So this would be really a policy change rather than a 15 simple technical change. 16 17 In all the previous major revisions there were printed copies of the changes redlined versions of printed 18 redline versions of the changes so you had both the clean code as it would be with any changes and also 19 in context you could actually see what changes were being proposed and there was adequate time for 20 the Commission and the public and Council Members to review them. That we don’t have now with just 21 the matrix. I briefly noticed in your previous meeting on this that Commissioner Michael I believe it was 22 indicated concern about having printed versions of what it is you’re going to be reviewing. Based on the 23 past performance such as the code changes with the maiden procedures in 2004 in some cases in 24 substance in 2006 it requires people to spend a lot of time reviewing them to see what’s actually 25 happening. When those changes were made we had a Council that had only been reelected once and 26 served five years to get lifetime medical benefits and it seems that was more important than paying 27 attention to what those code changes are, but they don’t have that incentive anymore. And perhaps with 28 changes in the Council and hope in the Commission that we will adequately review these and not just 29 take it on faith that something is just a technical change and that is adopting a policy or an interpretation 30 that somebody made, but rather take the time to deliberate and actually review the code and see what it 31 really means when we’re looking at these. Thank you very much. 32 33 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Thank you. 34 35 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so let’s bring it back to the Commission and during the pre-Commission Vice-Chair 36 recommended a strategy for us to use to kind of go through this. So I’m going to divide this meeting up 37 into two parts. So one part would be for us to, actually maybe let’s do three parts. Maybe one we 38 should just have kind of like general questions that the Commission has for staff. I think we should start 39 off with that, but I think the second part should be for us to we’ll go through page by page and for on 40 each page we will take kind of like votes in terms of which ones we need to deliberate more on or other 41 issues. And then the strategy the Vice-Chair or the Acting Vice-Chair recommended is that we start with 42 the pages that have the least number of let’s say contentious parts and then work our way up to the 43 more contentious ones. And the rationale behind that is so that staff can actually get started on at least 44 some of this while we kind of wade through the deeper topics. So that’s the proposed methodology we 45 use tonight. 46 47 And so let’s, let’s open it up to questions. So does anyone have questions? If so hit your lights and we’ll, 48 I’ll call on you. Commissioner Gardias. 49 50 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I want to in regards to the speaker I want to ask 51 staff the question this matrix when it was compiled was there any effort made to reach out to the public 52 and incorporate public comments into this matrix besides the staff experience? 53 54 Ms. French: To the extent that the staff, the current Planning staff have heard from the public and have 55 experience working with the code with the public we’ve received comments that way. We also did 56 City of Palo Alto Page 4 receive some input from others that I wasn’t speaking with directly, but Jonathan had conversations with. 1 They’re not identified in our matrix (interrupted) 2 3 Commissioner Gardias: There was no specific effort so (interrupted) 4 5 Ms. French: There has not been an outreach effort to meet with developer groups or architects, frequent 6 applicants. We have not done that. 7 8 Commissioner Gardias: So the reason that I’m asking about is because it would be worthwhile to 9 somehow solicit the comments. They learn upon the issues and some mistakes and I think that they 10 could provide also some valuable input to the specific matrix specifically about some minor modifications. 11 I just can bring as an experience, as an example an item that when we talk about Park Avenue 2555 I 12 think this is the number there was some a comment the developer, Mr. Tarlton, brought up about this 13 specific zone. And I thought I didn’t make a note of this, but I thought it would be, would be beneficial 14 just to incorporate this comment or at least just take it, incorporate it in this matrix if it’s really pertinent. 15 I thought that this would be pertinent and then this is just an example, but there could be other cases 16 like this. So I would recommend just as you work on the second tier, because there will be a second tier 17 if you could just please reach out to maybe recent cases or some other public that you are in contact 18 with they will share their experiences with us and will provide benefit to this matrix. Thank you. 19 20 Ms. French: Thank you. 21 22 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I see no other lights for questions so let’s move on to the second phase which is 23 really to go through this page by page and to indicate which ones you think that there might be some 24 deliberation needed. So let’s start with the first page, Tier 1. So there are page numbers which is great. 25 So the very first cover sheet, are there any on this sheet that anyone wants to discuss more/deliberate? 26 27 Commissioner Michael: So as I read Items 1 through 10 most of them are administrative with the 28 possible exception of Item 4, which is looks to be a new, newly formalized process for issuing zoning 29 code interpretations. I would think that would be one that would possibly benefit from discussion. 30 31 Chair Tanaka: Ok, great. Any others on this page? Commissioner Gardias. 32 33 Commissioner Gardias: So just the formal question before I ask specific are we going to go page by page 34 or we’re not going to go item by item? 35 36 Chair Tanaka: No. I think that’ll take us a long time. Just tell me what item you want to mark. I’ve 37 marked Number 4. I actually thought that Item Number 1 might be something that we should talk 38 about. So just tell me which ones you want to mark and we’ll mark it. 39 40 Commissioner Gardias: Ok. So I’d like to just I have some questions about Number 5, Number 6, and 41 Number 8. 42 43 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Ok, any others on this page before we move on? Ok, let’s move on to Page 2, any, 44 any on this page? Commissioner Gardias, do you have another? 45 46 Commissioner Gardias: Number 11. It’s the same as the prior one Number 6 or similar. 47 48 Chair Tanaka: Ok, Page 3? 49 50 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Number 29. 51 52 Chair Tanaka: Any others on Page 3? Commissioner Gardias. 53 54 Commissioner Gardias: Number 23, 25, and 28. 25 and 29. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Chair Tanaka: 28? Was 28 included or no? 1 2 Commissioner Gardias: No. 3 4 Chair Tanaka: Ok, just 29. 5 6 Commissioner Gardias: Just again 23, 25, and 29. 7 8 Chair Tanaka: Ok, any others on Page 3? Ok, Page 4. So this is the interpretation. So this one is where 9 there is a lot more substantial changes. Does anyone have issues on Page 4? 10 11 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: 32. 12 13 Chair Tanaka: 32, ok. Any others? 14 15 Commissioner Gardias: 31 and 33. 16 17 Chair Tanaka: 30. 18 19 Commissioner Gardias: And 34. 20 21 Chair Tanaka: Ok, any others on Page 4? Yep, I got 33. So 30, 31, 32, 33, 34; everything except for 35. 22 Yeah. Any others on Page 4? Ok, let’s go to Page 5. Which one? Ok, 36. 23 24 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: 39 and 40. 25 26 Chair Tanaka: Ok, any others? 27 28 Commissioner Gardias: 37, 36 we already have. 37. 29 30 Chair Tanaka: Any others guys on Page 5? So far we have everything except for 38. Ok, let’s go on to 31 Page 6. 32 33 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: 42. 34 35 Chair Tanaka: Ok. 36 37 Commissioner Gardias: So if I may? 38 39 Chair Tanaka: Sure. 40 41 Commissioner Gardias: So if I may? I have not reviewed Items 42 and up which doesn’t mean that I 42 would not like to look at them as we speak. So I don’t know if you could adjust somehow the cadence I 43 don’t know if everybody just prepare just to provide opinion at this moment. 44 45 Chair Tanaka: Ok, well let me ask you this, for other Commissioner Members are there do you guys need, 46 should we go item by item? Would that be helpful at this point or should we just go by page by page? 47 48 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Well, I think it would still be helpful to know which page has the least number 49 of issues and start with that. Just because I would like to have the staff walk away with as much as 50 possible. So the pages that have the least number of things that were contentious let’s start there and 51 work our way up. 52 53 Chair Tanaka: Ok. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Because we’re not going to get though everything tonight. It’s clear we can’t 1 go through 60 items. 2 3 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so maybe let’s continue to go page by page. Maybe we’ll go a little bit slower here, 4 but ok, Page 6 any other, any other potential issues? Oh, just to let Commissioner Rosenblum who just 5 arrived just so we’re on Item 2 and what we’re basically doing is we’re going through the First Annual 6 Planning Code Matrix, this sheet. And what we’re going through is we’re going through page by page to 7 see which pages have issues that we want to deliberate. So we’re now on Page 6 and basically we’re 8 just going through to figure out which ones have items that we need to deliberate. And then Vice-Chair 9 made the recommendation that we start with pages that have the least number of issues and go through 10 those and work our way up to the ones that have all the issues. And with anticipation that we’re 11 probably not going to finish tonight, but we’ll get as far as we can. And this will let staff make some 12 headway while we, between our meetings. 13 14 Ok, so Page 6. I thought 41 is something that we should talk about. So right now we have 41 and 42. 15 Does anyone have issues with either 43 or 44? Ok. I thought 43 might be something that we also want 16 to talk about. 17 18 Ok, let’s go on to Page 7. So Commissioner Rosenblum if you have any potential issues on Page 7 just 19 shout it out and we’ll mark it down. 46. I think 48. Does anyone else have anything on Page 7? Ok, 20 let’s go to Page 8. 21 22 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Item 60. 23 24 Chair Tanaka: 60. Anyone else have anything on Page 8? 54. Ok. 54. Any others on Page 8? Ok, let’s 25 go to Page 9. 26 27 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: I think I’d like to hear a little bit more about Number 62. 28 29 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Ok, so there’s five items on Page 1. There’s one on Page 2. There are three on Page 30 3, five on Page 4, four on Page 5, three on Page 6, two on Page 7, two on Page 8, and one on Page 9. 31 So pretty much every page is covered. So the one that has the least is Page 2 and Page 9. So maybe 32 let’s start with Page 9 so we can get this one done pretty quick. I think the person that asked about it is 33 the Acting Vice-Chair. So why don’t you kick it off? 34 35 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Ok, so with respect to Item 60, oh I’m sorry, Page 9. Ok. I think I’d like to 36 hear a little bit more from the staff about their thoughts with regard to fee reduction for appeals and kind 37 of what’s pushing them towards this because I see this kind of in a couple different sections. So it would 38 be nice to get some background on that. 39 40 Ms. French: This came from the Policy and Services Committee of the City Council. They discussed it last 41 month or was it this month? I believe it was earlier this month. They had a conversation about it as to 42 just how much it would be reduced by and roughly the number of people that would be considered a 43 substantial support element they thought 25 would be considered substantial. If there are 25 people that 44 sign on to an appeal then there should be this discount of an appeal fee. So the only appeals that there 45 are are the architectural review appeals, Individual Review (IR) appeals, and home improvement 46 exception appeals. The other ones that you see, use permits and variances, neighborhood preservation 47 exceptions, those are not technically appeals. They do not have a fee associated with them. It’s really 48 just architectural review, IR which is the two-story homes, and home improvement exceptions. 49 50 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Ok, I guess from my perspective I’m not necessarily a big fan of this kind of 51 policy because I think that in all of these matters these are quasi-judicial matters, right? So any time 52 someone appeals one of these things if you are trying to do a project you basically have to bring an 53 entire architectural team and you have to bring in your lawyer. And every time someone appeals it costs 54 you lots of money. And basically because there are so many different ways to hold up a project and it 55 takes years to get a project going we’re basically telling the community that there’s actually there’s no 56 City of Palo Alto Page 7 penalty for slowing down that project whether or not the complaints are legitimate. Whether or not 1 they’re correct, right? And signing on 25 people it’s not that hard in a city of 65,000. You could sign on 2 25 people who don’t even live anywhere near that project, right? So I don’t think it’s really fair for 3 someone to be able to appeal all the time without having any skin in the game. I’m not a supporter of 4 these appeal reduction fees. 5 6 Robin Ellner, Administrative Associate III: Excuse me, Vice-Chair. The public is having a hard time 7 hearing you. 8 9 Chair Tanaka: Ok, I’ll try to speak up and closer to the mike. So the Acting Vice-Chair has a position on 10 this which is that this is maybe not fair to the process. And so what I’d like to do just so we could get a 11 quick feel as to whether there’s support or not support for this is if anyone doesn’t agree with the Acting 12 Vice-Chair on her position which is that this probably doesn’t make sense, please hit your lights and 13 speak about it. So let me clarify. So basically if you disagree with what the Acting Vice-Chair said please 14 hit your lights and explain why you disagree. I have Commissioner Rosenblum. 15 16 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, I actually agree with the substance of what Acting Vice-Chair Downing 17 has said, but I think given the clarification that this is what Council has asked for in this case I don’t know 18 what our role is? If they specifically have asked for these fees to be removed I feel comfortable with us 19 saying that this leads to unintended consequences so essentially frivolous attempts to block for no cost 20 that there’s an unintended consequence of this and so it could be flagged, but if staff is simply 21 responding to what Council has already basically ordered I would say I would be in agreement to flag this 22 as something that they should consider unintended consequences of. 23 24 Chair Tanaka: Alcheck, Commissioner Alcheck. 25 26 Commissioner Alcheck: So I think to respond I actually agree with the idea that we should not 27 recommend this alteration and I think that there’s some failed logic here. I think when an application so 28 the first review part of this process is that staff has already made a conclusion on the item and so our 29 City has gone through a process of reviewing the application, they made a decision, this is when 30 somebody isn’t happy with the decision and wants to hear it or wants to review the decision of our staff. 31 And I think in a situation like that I think the argument that the fee should be reduced when the number 32 of signatures rises is sort of a failed logic. The more people involved the more you can spread the cost. 33 And so I don’t see if you’ve got a hundred signatures why the fee would actually be probably very 34 minimal and I think that the idea here is we should encourage people to get involved in an appeal when 35 it matters to them and not encourage an appeals process that lacks sort of a significance. I appreciate 36 that Council may have suggested or directed this review, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they 37 anticipated it… the amendment would be brought to them this way. 38 39 I think another issue that concerns me is that it would require only three Council Member votes to pull off 40 consent. I don’t like that either. I don’t think we should encourage review of our staff’s hard work by I 41 should say unmeaningful minorities. So I think both the financial fee creates a disincentive for people 42 take it more seriously when the fee is there and I also think that the votes to pull off of consent should 43 stay at four. I just don’t think it makes sense to have it any I mean maybe when our Council goes from 44 nine to seven as some have suggested will happen one day then three makes sense, but at nine I think 45 four would probably be the right number. And so I agree here with Commissioner Fine, I mean sorry, 46 Commissioner Downing. 47 48 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so on this item Vice-Chair has, Acting Vice-Chair has flagged it as a potential problem 49 and it seems like the majority of Commissioners agree. I think Commissioner Rosenblum I guess 50 opposes it. Well, in principle agrees, but opposes it mainly because it’s directed by Council and I think 51 Commissioner Alcheck just also spoke in favor of it. So I think that’s what the conclusion of 62 is. Oh, 52 Commissioner Michael. 53 54 Commissioner Michael: So first a comment on the process and I think echoing I think some of the public 55 comments about the rigor with which we can approach this exercise I’ve been trying to pull up on my 56 City of Palo Alto Page 8 iPad the actual language of 18.77.075 to see what we were actually trying to deliberate about and it’s 1 actually hard to pull it up in my system for some reason. So I can see what it’s about, but I can’t see the 2 full, full text and I find it makes it difficult for me to think through this analytically. With that the role of 3 the PTC is to be a recommending body to the Council and particularly here where the Council has taken 4 the first crack at something which they believe to be in the public interest I’m curious what further 5 recommendation they would like to have regarding their efforts to make this improvement. It looks to 6 me like given the nature of what 18.77.075 concerns to the extent that there is an appeal fee reduction 7 when there’s a significant number of signatures it doesn’t seem to be a particular raising or lowering of 8 the bar. In one case the bar is at a level that you have to have a least a couple of signatures and a fee 9 then the fee is less if you have more signatures so I think it’s a commensurate indication of public 10 interest. And I actually I’m not particularly concerned about how many votes on Council is required to 11 pull something off of the consent calendar. That strikes me as something that is of not an area where 12 the Council is interested in our recommendation. 13 14 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias. 15 16 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the comments I have are from two areas. So 17 there’s also here an item that at the end about increase of the number increased number of dates to 18 consent calendar and I remember staff speaking to this last time and I heard the comment if I heard 19 correctly that the reason was because there was because of the workload there was not enough of the 20 throughput to pretty much just to meet the deadline as it’s currently in the code. When I thought about 21 this I truly understand the concern and the intent, but I think that if you flip the coin and if you think 22 about the customer which is the public we should be rather meeting that ceiling of 30 days as opposed to 23 trying reduce because otherwise it impacts the public. And here is our customer and the customer is the 24 public. So for this reason I think that we should not be recommending of the increase of that of the 25 number of days from 30 to 45. So this is one number. 26 27 Number 2 is that because this item and I think that my computer works colleague Michaels I was able to 28 pull it out and this particular paragraph is for low density residential review process. And that’s for this 29 reason reduction of the fee makes sense because pretty much it’s just although the cost per head 30 spreads out, but pretty much it’s looking at Los at our prior item, Los Robles item, if you see that if the 31 public is engaged then pretty much it’s the substantial argument to pretty much for us to pass certain 32 policy. And then for this reason just imposing the fees, the fees because of this reason the fees may be 33 reduced because that element engagement of the public should be the compelling argument to allow this 34 policy or this revision or appeal in this case to accept. 35 36 So summarizing I would recommend to meet the Council and I would support a reduction of the fees with 37 the increase of the signatures. Then in terms of the last item I would recommend not to extend the 38 timeline. And then just there is another item about the votes about decreasing the number of the votes 39 so I totally agree with the colleague of that was talking about that reduction from four to three votes it’s 40 not appropriate because it would override some others work. 41 42 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Rosenblum. 43 44 Commissioner Rosenblum: Just a question for staff and I should have asked this up front. My 45 understanding of this whole exercise is that this is a simplification so essentially these are items that are 46 either clarifications, fixing of typos, fixing of outdated clauses, and that all of these items were being 47 done kind of in omnibus fashion for us to zip through. And so items like this are clearly new and you 48 even have in change category new policy per Council direction. So I’m curious why is this even part of 49 this exercise? So I’m not sure we should be here debating the wisdom of new Council directions. And it 50 seems if you’re making zoning changes or changes that are new policies that that’s fundamentally 51 different from this exercise of the annual cleanup exercise, which we had discussed last time as I think a 52 good idea and for the most part we should just the test that we’re applying I think is are these things big 53 deals or not? And so when I think about this one I’m reversing myself a little bit, it is kind of a big deal 54 to be able to take something off consent calendar easily and reduce the friction with which people can 55 oppose developments for example. That’s a big deal and you can agree with it or not agree with it, but it 56 City of Palo Alto Page 9 is a big, it is a change. And I didn’t think that was the point of this whole exercise. So I’m wondering if 1 you could address that. 2 3 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Thank you, Commissioner Rosenblum. Yes, the intent is to again sort 4 of get the, improve the clarity, the administration, you have that correct about what the intent here is 5 and yes there are a couple of items that are on here that maybe push that envelope a little bit. And 6 however I don’t know that this is one of them. We certainly do have a couple of others that have been 7 flagged already that we’ll want to have more of a conversation about. But where we get into a for some 8 of those other ones and maybe for this one a little bit is when staff is having a challenge either in our 9 application of the code working with customers, conflicts of code interpretation or processing that’s when 10 we have we’ve put it on this list so we can make the process smoother for people. 11 12 And with respect to this one so there’s three things being done on this particular amendment. One is the 13 30 to 45 days. We have an internal processing report review preparation that our internal system for 14 having reports prepared and reviewed is 35 days. The draft of the report is due 35 days before the 15 Council hearing date. So by reducing it or by increasing it from 30 to 45 we’re giving ourselves a fighting 16 chance, ten days, to prepare a response to an appeal that comes in, write a staff report, and get it to the 17 first supervisor reviewer so that it can get into the City process. And that’s the report review time for all 18 Council reports. It’s five weeks, 35 days. It’s just untenable we cannot make it work under the 30 days. 19 So we’re just looking to have some time to do a thoughtful report. That’s that change. 20 21 The four number there’s been some confusion at the Council and at staff level as to is it three or is it 22 four. Because I think as Amy was saying there are other permits where you can request a hearing or pull 23 something off, but it’s three votes. For these appeals it’s four votes or maybe I have that backwards? 24 25 Ms. French: Correct. 26 27 Mr. Lait: And to this day we’re still figuring out which one’s three, which one’s four. So we’re just trying 28 to create parity between all the other items that can get pulled off and heard by the Council. We just 29 want to make it one number whether it’s three or whether it’s four we’re fine either way. And so maybe 30 the Commission’s recommendation would be change the other ones to be four and leave this one at four. 31 We just thought that going from three to four was… from four to three was the direction that we thought 32 would be most palatable. That could be a conversation. 33 34 And with the appeal fee I understand all the pros and cons about that. I’ll just say that the appeal fee 35 itself is pretty low. It’s $416 or something like that. So a 50 percent reduction after twenty-five 36 signatures gets you down to $200. Some may argue that that’s a barrier. I’ve heard that, but compared 37 to other communities it’s a pretty low subsidized fee as it is. So I appreciate your comments and I think 38 if there’s an opportunity for us to have a dialogue back and forth about why we’ve put some things on 39 maybe we could explain that a little bit more. That’s why this one is on and plus we had the 40 recommendations from the Policy and Services Commission. 41 42 Ms. French: Could I just provide one more piece of enlightenment because I did attend that Policy and 43 Services Committee? The Policy and Services Committee started off with an intent to increase from three 44 to from sorry, from… they wanted to have two votes. Correct. They wanted to have reduce it from three 45 to two votes to only have two Council Members to pull it off consent. And so I made the argument at 46 that meeting to say well, everything else is three, how about three and there’s just one outlier which is 47 this four vote. I just wanted to give some context. 48 49 Commissioner Alcheck: Can you give me, I’m sorry. [Unintelligible] on this committee. Yeah. I’m just 50 curious. 51 52 Ms. French: Council Member Burt, Council Member Wolbach, sorry. Those are two and there was a third 53 and yeah. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Commissioner Rosenblum: So I do want to finish this question though. So I had thought again our role 1 here is to based on our discussion in the last meeting was to make a determination about whether or not 2 these pass muster as being essentially administrative changes. And so are these things we can kind of 3 like push in without having to really, these aren’t making new ordinances per se, they’re just clarifying 4 existing ordinance. Can I understand that is our role? And so (interrupted) 5 6 Mr. Lait: And so… I’m sorry. It’s both. We want to address some clarifications and we had a great 7 comment at the last meeting about some of these things are we can just talk to the code publishing folks 8 and take care of some of the you know so we’re going to look at that and see which ones we can pull off. 9 But since we’re going through this effort we one of the things that I’ve observed since I’ve been here is 10 that I think what we’ve had is so we have a code that’s been I guess most comprehensively updated 11 about a decade ago and since that time I think there are some provisions that the way that they are 12 written or have been interpreted over time have maybe strayed a little bit from their original intent. And 13 so what we’re seeing in some instances what we have is conflict at the counter or as we’re processing 14 development proposals. And so we’re using this opportunity to realign that. And so it’s not just going to 15 be a straight, clean, yes administrative, it’s what is the policy? But hopefully we’re just at the margins. 16 17 Commissioner Rosenblum: So my comment here is my personal take for our mandate is I don’t feel 18 comfortable with us debating the goodness or badness of any new ordinance in this forum. I don’t think 19 we have the authority to do it. I do feel comfortable with a once a year cleanup of administrative things 20 that have been dragging along or inconsistent language or typos. I think that’s very much in the spirit of 21 this and we should go through those, but I would personally just abstain from any discussion around 22 goodness or badness of policy. And I don’t think that’s the spirit of this whole exercise or how it was 23 originally represented. So I don’t know if others would agree with that, but I feel that’s a separate thing 24 which is if you propose a new policy even if it’s a minor policy I, and this one I don’t actually I’m not sure 25 it’s such so minor to be able to very easily take things off consent. So moving from four to two I think is 26 major as had originally been proposed. Four to three actually is it’s not difficult to get three people to 27 agree with you. The whole point is how easy is it to launch appeals and I think that’s again you can 28 agree or not agree with the policy, but it’s certainly new. 29 30 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael. 31 32 Commissioner Michael: Yeah, I’d like to echo Commissioner Rosenblum’s I guess suggestions about 33 improving the process in relationship to what our, what our purview as a Commission might be. And I 34 think that the overview provided by Assistant Director Lait was actually extremely helpful and maybe if 35 this had come at the beginning of our discussion we could have focused in on the areas where we might 36 add value or where input would be most useful. And again I think that the effort the staff has gone 37 through to lay out all the changes in terms of this matrix is obviously there’s a tremendous amount of 38 hard work that’s gone into it, but just the way my aging brain works it’s very helpful to go through what 39 the language of the actual code section is which isn’t in the matrix and I was having to pull those up. 40 Then you find out what the, what it concerns. 41 42 In this case it is in fact a low density and my iPad is being a… residential review process the notion of the 43 fee being $421 whatever to $210 does that matter? Or even the issue of the Council through its Policies 44 and Services Committee has actually had deliberations on this. Is it important for us to redeliberate area 45 that they’ve already covered or is it something where the staff has actually had substantial experience on 46 what’s working or not working and what the actual logistical problem or allocation of resources might be? 47 And even it may be a philosophical question is to if it’s more protective of the public interest to allow it to 48 be easier to come off consent which seems to me to be more protection of the public through a more 49 robust debate whether if it’s harder to pull off consent that means it might just blow through without 50 further airing of concerns. So anyway I would think that our time tonight might be best spent on the 51 things where staff feels that the most input would be beneficial and if we could actually maybe have a 52 process where we begin with a more in depth overview from staff as to what the actual open issues 53 might be that would help me focus. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Mr. Lait: Can I just offer one comment on that? So this is last week or last meeting was just this 1 introduction of the concept. This matrix is a further evolution of the concept. We will be coming back 2 with ordinance language for strikeout and underline, we just didn’t want to go through the process of 3 preparing an ordinance for items that you thought were Tier 2 items or shouldn’t be addressed so that 4 we can focus in. So we saw this as kind of a step wise approach to kind of get through it and it may very 5 well be that you say hey, this is not, we don’t have to spend as much time on a particular item. You can 6 say I want more information on fees, where do those come from? There may be things that you need a 7 diagram say hey, I need to have a diagram. We don’t have to debate the merits of each individual one. 8 If there’s a clarification we can maybe answer that clarification, but I think we can come back at the next 9 meeting with more. There’s another meeting in two weeks. We can come back. You only have one item 10 on the agenda. So we can maybe there’s a, if we can do a quick run through it somehow and then flag, 11 we’ve already flagged ones that you want to talk about. Maybe some of the ones that you flagged are 12 just clarifications. Maybe some are more in depth. 13 14 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias. 15 16 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you. Actually I just wanted to make comment that after explanation of 17 Director’s Lait, Director Lait I agree with processing this item and I don’t really see it as a pretty much 18 new policy the way that he explains it’s quite reasonable and pretty much they are talking about the 19 alignment. It’s maybe unfortunate because the language that is in the matrix about the issue doesn’t 20 support the way that you describe this to us so I think that maybe some, some clarification maybe some 21 improvement of the language would be needed to pretty much provide the reason as opposed to just 22 simply repeat that the changes that are in certain in other columns because then the reason that you 23 provided it’s quite clear to me. I really agree that $400 whatever dollars in this community it’s not 24 substantial fee and your explanation about alignment with the other votes on other items was also 25 reasonable to me when I heard this, which I would not know from this description. So that’s addressing 26 this item. 27 28 And if I may just turn the table and suggest something because we just spent 40 minutes or 30 minutes 29 on this item I would recommend to go from the top of this chart because those are the easy items that 30 would pretty much reduce our average very quickly. We can go through them, make the things going 31 because those are probably items that are very easy just to quickly review, agree or disagree and then 32 spend some time or more on more problematic items that are at the bottom of this matrix. Thank you. 33 34 Chair Tanaka: Ok, Commissioner Alcheck. 35 36 Commissioner Alcheck: Yes, I concur. I think that we can raise our average here by doing that, but I just 37 want to respond to one thing Commissioner Rosenblum said. He suggested he was a little uncomfortable 38 in this role tonight and I, look there are five items in this new policy list that are supposedly Council 39 directed and only two or three of them we even flagged. And I agree this is a little off putting because 40 we approach this process from the perspective of this is some sort of minor cleanups and potential 41 interpretation issues. I’m not surprised though that our community or our staff or our City Council is sort 42 of using the opportunity to actually inject maybe some changes that are a little bit more meaningful. 43 That said I actually think we should feel comfortable, we should be encouraged to provide a little advice 44 and direction from our perspective. I only say that because we were appointed from different 45 backgrounds for the sole purpose of giving them a little backboard and to bounce these ideas off and 46 maybe a committee of three Council Members had a discussion about this item and by reading it from a 47 different perspective we’re highlighting other issues. 48 49 Maybe 40 minutes is too long. I agree and I think Mr. Lait mentioned that we can easily say hey, this is 50 something we really aren’t comfortable with in its current state and maybe this gets jumped to Tier 2 51 which I think is obvious at this point and we can move on. But look this there are a lot of issues here we 52 may only get one appointment here. This is an opportunity to participate in the process. I don’t think 53 we should feel uncomfortable with this. I’m not suggesting we take 40 minutes on each one, but it’s ok 54 to sort of give our opinion and move on quickly. I don’t necessarily think anything that we see here in 55 City of Palo Alto Page 12 new policy is going to make it to City Council exactly how it is and I think that was what Mr. Lait sort of 1 suggested that maybe a lot of this would get rehashed. 2 3 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I got a lot of input here. So here’s what I think we should do because obviously we 4 can’t do what we’re doing now because I think we’ll be here for many more meetings if we keep going 5 the way we’re going. So what I think we should do is I think that we should have like a 10 minute max 6 for every item. If it goes more than 10 minutes like I think clearly on this item there’s different opinions 7 and this one is probably above the standard of a minor cleanup. And so when it becomes clear that 8 something’s above that standard and I’m going to use this 10 minute as this as that if you’re going more 9 than 10 minutes it’s not a minor cleanup. You can’t get agreement within the Commission on this it 10 should be its own separate thing than us trying to solve it today. So we’re going to do a 10 minute thing. 11 I think the other thing that we’ll do is we’ll I think the idea of having the staff give kind of like a rationale 12 of like why so maybe like a one minute rationale why just to help frame it because maybe it’s just a 13 simple misunderstanding might help solve a lot of wasted time. 14 15 So in terms of a revised process what I propose we do is we’ll continue as the Vice-Chair, Acting Vice-16 Chair originally recommended we start from the items, pages that have the least number of items to the 17 ones that have the most. Maybe we’ll even adopt the fact that we will start from the beginning the more 18 truly administrative ones that are just typo type stuff so we could kind of make more headway on stuff 19 that’s truly cleanup versus policy changes. And then the other thing we’ll do is we’ll have a 10 minute. 20 So maybe one of my fellow Commissioners can be timekeeper. So if we start spending more than 10 21 minutes on an item I think we should table it because it means this is not a cleanup item. This is 22 something much more substantial that needs more rigor and discussion on. Ok? Does that sound good 23 to everyone? Ok. So let’s go back to (interrupted) 24 25 Mr. Lait: So Chair I’m sorry before we leave that conversation and the many minutes that we spent on it 26 with my clarification as to what we’re trying to accomplish with that one putting aside the conversation 27 that we the time that we’ve already put into it is the Commission saying it’s a Tier 1 or a Tier 2? 28 29 Chair Tanaka: Well let me see if I can summarize, well I think it’s definitely a Tier 2. It’s something that 30 needs more discussion I don’t think it’s a, this is not I mean I just listening to different voices here we do 31 not have consensus here at all. It’s a contentious item and I don’t think we can, I don’t think we can 32 solve it in this meeting. Alright. 33 34 Ok, so… so let’s go to the let’s start from the beginning, which will probably be a lot easier and maybe 35 we’ll do this as well. I think also it’s probably not too productive to go four hours straight, so let’s take a 36 break at 7:30 as well. But let’s try to get through another item and let’s start with Page 2. There was an 37 item brought up by Commissioner Gardias, Item 11. And so maybe, maybe what we could do is we could 38 start with the process of staff can quickly say well why the heck did we do Number 11 and then 39 Commissioner Gardias can say well what is his concern about that and what is his position. And if this 40 turns out to be more than a 10 minute conversation we should table it for something for a time later. So 41 does staff want to talk about Item 11? 42 43 Ms. French: Yes. Item 11 is much like Item 8. Both of them are regarding single-family homes air 44 conditioning equipment. We have a situation where folks come to the counter, they have existing noisy 45 equipment they want to replace with quiet equipment in the same spot. Because of our ordinance they 46 can’t do it they have to find a new spot in their home. Sometimes they don’t have a spot for it so what 47 ends up happening is things just happen out there and there are no permits. We also have a situation 48 that we’ve heard from the public, gee, you allow it 6 feet from my neighbor over here, but I have to put 49 it 20 feet from my neighbor here and so this was a loosening. This was a suggestion that maybe eight 50 feet from the rear property line is acceptable and if there is equipment that is within the six foot setback 51 on the side that has been existing there with a permit for years that they want to replace with quiet 52 equipment this provides a way to do that. 53 54 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias do you have a position on this? 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Commissioner Gardias: Yes, so let me understand right? So we discuss this 8 plus 8 and 11 those are the 1 same items, right? So the question is like this so what is the reason why the code is more stringent so 2 the items that were that were placed before were placed under different code and then they were placed 3 closer to the fences or to the sight lines and then now because that we have a we have a setback then 4 pretty much the prior placement it’s not adequate in today’s world. Is this correct? 5 6 Ms. French: Yes, so there may be existing conditions that became noncomplying facilities back in 2006 or 7 2005 when this new regulation was put into place to have more restrictive location for equipment for 8 home, for pools and for air conditioning. So it made noncomplying situations out there. So we have a 9 situation where there are noncomplying equipment in setbacks and somebody wants to come in and 10 replace that with quieter equipment they can’t do that because our code says it has to be put at 6 feet 11 from the side and 20 feet from the rear. 12 13 Commissioner Gardias: Why can’t we have one why can’t we allow for grandfathering location of the 14 equipment that new equipment should be that’s modern should be at least the same size or much smaller 15 because of the efficiency and technology (interrupted) 16 17 Mr. Lait: That’s what’s proposed. That’s what this is attempting to do. 18 19 Ms. French: That is part of this. That’s the first part. The second part is that we think that 8 feet from 20 the rear yard is reasonable and 20 feet can be a hardship if somebody has a pool they want to put in 21 their rear yard they need to find a place for the equipment. Maybe eight feet from the rear yard is ok 22 because six feet is ok from the side yard. 23 24 Commissioner Gardias: Yes, but the way that it’s written, right, it doesn’t explicitly convey this thought. 25 So (interrupted) 26 27 Mr. Lait: Right, so this will be a comment that I think we’ll hear as we go through the matrix that we 28 need to provide in one of these columns a little more explanation as to what we’re trying to accomplish, 29 but I think Amy accurately verbally had reported that we’ve got existing equipment in yards people can’t 30 obtain a building permit so they don’t obtain a building permit and it gets replaced. I think we want to 31 be not in a position where we’re discouraging trades to not pull the requisite permits and if we’re taking a 32 situation and making it better with more efficient quieter units that’s a positive. And then there’s this 33 question about the required yard, so no equipment is allowed in the required yards and this tension 34 about the rear yard comes up at the counter where people say hey, this doesn’t make sense to us. I can 35 be six feet away from the side yard here, but I have to be 20 feet away from my rear neighbor over 36 there. And so this is trying to reconcile that. 37 38 Commissioner Gardias: Ok, so I totally agree with the reason and with grandfathering. So that’s not a 39 problem. 40 41 Mr. Lait: Ok. 42 43 Chair Tanaka: So I guess Commissioner Gardias you’re saying that you’re ok with this item? 44 45 Commissioner Gardias: That’s right. 46 47 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Does anyone have any issues on this otherwise let’s, Commissioner Michael. 48 49 Commissioner Michael: So I have a question about the grandfathering. So on my house full disclosure on 50 our kitchen range the Thermador range has a range hood which makes a certain amount of noise. I’m 51 not sure if it qualifies as a commercial kitchen fan, but it’s a pretty substantial range and range hood and 52 whatnot. Is that the sort of thing that’s covered by this Subsection L, location of noise producing 53 equipment? And also I have a question that when we built our house we decided that we wanted a 54 backup generator, which is on the side of the house and I think that it’s probably in the six foot side 55 City of Palo Alto Page 14 setback if I’m not mistaken. So what exactly would happen in the situation where you’ve got the range 1 hood on the one side and the generator on the other side? 2 3 Ms. French: If you came in today to request a generator or a whatever that other thing was within your 4 six foot side yard setback we would not allow you to do that based on the current code. 5 6 Commissioner Michael: Yeah ok, so you you’re sort of stuck with the old noisy stuff because you can’t 7 change it. 8 9 Ms. French: Correct. 10 11 Mr. Lait: Today. 12 13 Commissioner Michael: So it would be a good idea to allow people to change it for quieter stuff. 14 15 Ms. French: That’s the loosening. 16 17 Commissioner Michael: Cool. 18 19 Commissioner Alcheck: Just a clarification here, if they redevelop the home then the six foot setback 20 would apply and if they had a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) unit that was two feet 21 from their neighbor’s fence it wouldn’t matter because they just redeveloped their home now it’s got to 22 be six feet. So this would be there’s an existing HVAC two feet from your fence that’s unattached to your 23 home and you can’t possibly move it outside of the setback because your home is there and you’re 24 replacing it with a newer, better unit that’s quieter. So just so we’re clear. Nobody gets to put new stuff 25 in the setback. 26 27 Chair Tanaka: So what we’re going to do also I think is we’re going to have like a beside the 10 minute 28 thing I think we all should like limit our comments to two minutes. Just because I think we’re going to be 29 here really late tonight. So Commissioner Gardias. 30 31 Commissioner Gardias: One more thing Mr. Chairman. So in just in terms of the setback, rear setback so 32 the concern is like this that if the unit malfunctions or pretty much wears out then start making noises 33 then a it makes sense just to set it farther away from the rear fence because this is the recreational area 34 of your neighbor on the other side. So I think that there is some logic to keep it as far away from the 35 fence. So this is the argument to pretty much to keep it within the outline of the rear setback and I 36 would find this reasonable, right? But in terms of the location I don’t have an issue if you’re going to tell 37 me that our noise regulation would allow the neighbor to react upon the defective unit that’s on the other 38 side of the fence. 39 40 Ms. French: I would say there’s another situation that you should be aware of, people come in with hot 41 tub/spa. They want to put it in their backyards. They can’t put it in their backyards because it has 42 equipment contained within the spa, so no spa for them in the backyard. 43 44 Mr. Lait: That said you are raising the point that is sort of the counter argument to the other half of this 45 regulation and it occurs to me that it almost maybe is not even administrative that this actually might 46 even be a new policy category. And I think it may of actually started off there and we were fine tuning 47 it, but the idea that you can put mechanical equipment into the rear yard, that’s new. That doesn’t exist 48 today and so I think that is noteworthy and there is another side of the argument which you’ve just 49 articulated. 50 51 Commissioner Gardias: Yes. 52 53 Mr. Lait: But the one thing that we think is important certainly is being able to just replace out the 54 already previously approved now failing equipment with newer equipment with permits. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Commissioner Gardias: Right, right. And that I understand. But from perspective of just putting the new 1 equipment that maybe just going too far so that’s the reason I just try (interrupted) 2 3 Mr. Lait: That would be helpful to get the Commission’s perspective on that. 4 5 Commissioner Gardias: Very good, thank you. 6 7 Commissioner Alcheck: I just want to make a quick clarification. I when I saw I thought that for a 8 second too that this is potential new policy, but there are a significant number of individuals whose side 9 yards are adjacent to somebody’s rear yard and so in that scenario for example you could have your rear 10 fence six feet from somebody’s air conditioning, but you’re not allowed to bring any of your units within 11 20 feet of their fence. And I think that to some extent that is the inconsistency related to where you put 12 mechanical equipment that you can infringe on potentially your neighbor to the left’s backyard, but not 13 your neighbor to the rear. And so I don’t know if this necessarily qualifies as [nec…] 14 15 Chair Tanaka: So it’s funny you should say that because we actually spent 10 minutes on it. I thought 16 this would be a very minor item, but it turns out not to be. So by the rule we just talked about this is 17 actually I guess I ok maybe… 18 19 Commissioner Alcheck: I have no problem with this one. 20 21 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so ok I did want to find out just so if we close it ok, Commissioner Gardias actually 22 agrees with it from what I hear. I think well it sounds like other people that talked about it agree with it. 23 Does anyone here disagree with it? If so, hit your lights. Ok, so nobody disagrees with it so I guess this 24 is good, but we actually hit the 10 minute limit even though all of us agreed to it. So we’re going to have 25 to pick up the pace somehow otherwise we will be here for many, many more meetings. So ok, there’s 26 only five minutes before 7:30 so I think what we should do is let’s take a break now and then come back 27 at 7:30. Thanks. 28 29 Commissioner Alcheck: But we did finish one page. 30 31 Chair Tanaka: We have one page finished, yes. That’s right. So when we come back what we’re going 32 to do is we’re going to keep the 10 minute limit. We’re going to also now the Vice-Chair will also try to 33 make sure that we only speak for two minutes each, no more than two minutes so that we can go 34 through this a lot faster. Ok, thank you guys. 35 36 The Commission took a break. 37 38 Chair Tanaka: It’s now 7:30 so let’s get started again. Ok, so I think the next one that has only two 39 items of contention are Page 7, Item 46 and 48. So Item 46 was brought up by Commissioner Alcheck 40 so in the same format let’s, let’s have staff talk on why they did 46 and then Commissioner Alcheck can 41 form a position. And I think just in terms of time expediency I don’t think all of us need to feel compelled 42 to speak and the way we’re going to do it is if people don’t agree with Commissioner Alcheck say 43 something. Otherwise no need to second his thought. So staff do you want to talk about 46? 44 45 Ms. French: Yes. We allow bay windows currently with the code to project into a required rear setback 46 into a required front setback. The front setback projection can be three feet into the 20 foot front 47 setback. The rear setback can be two feet into the 20 foot rear setback. We do not have a similar 48 allowance for street side setbacks which are typically 16 feet from the street side on a corner lot. So 49 we’ve had situations where somebody wants to make that façade facing the street side yard activated 50 with a bay window and they can’t do it because we do not allow it. So we have the proposal to have it 51 similar to the rear yard projection of two feet. In other words you could have a bay window 14 feet from 52 the street side property line if this were to be enacted. 53 54 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck do you have a position on this? 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, lighting round. 1 2 Chair Tanaka: Please. 3 4 Commissioner Alcheck: I would I just think this doesn’t go far enough. I would say amend the code to 5 allow a three foot street side bay window. Reason why think of the living room in the corner of 6 somebody’s home and on one side they have a three foot bay window on the other side they have a two 7 foot bay window. It’s the street view. We will see these windows so the fact that they don’t match up 8 seems like poor design. And so what I think would end up happening is by virtue of making one side two 9 the architect or whoever is designing this home will make both sides two because it won’t relate well. 10 And being in a room you may feel the same way. So again this is a 16 foot side setback. I don’t see 11 why anybody could potentially have a problem with three foot intrusion on the first floor. And so that 12 was my takeaways by creating uneven standards. 13 14 Mr. Lait: No objection from staff on that. 15 16 Chair Tanaka: Ok, anyone disagree with Commissioner Alcheck, say something or hit your lights and say 17 something. Ok. I see no objections to this so I think maybe all must agree. Let’s move on to Item 48 18 then. So Item 48 actually that’s one that I flagged. So can staff talk about it as to why they did it and 19 the rationale? 20 21 Ms. French: Yes, I would like to do that. We’ve had a number of projects come through the single-family 22 IR process that have the threshold for single-family IR, which is a discretionary review of two-story 23 homes is if they are adding a second floor of 150 square feet or more. We have had several situations 24 where somebody comes through and puts a 150 sf or greater second floor deck and that is not subject to 25 the IR, but it does create privacy impacts. Imagine a large deck going in on a second floor next to your 26 one-story home so this was a thought that if we require large second floor decks to also be subject to IR 27 process we will mitigate that privacy concern and have some discretionary review to require landscaping, 28 etcetera to mitigate that privacy impact. 29 30 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I don’t necessarily disagree with this. So this was one I flagged, but [unintelligible] 31 Commissioner Rosenblum said and several other Commissioners, this is not a touch up. This is a fairly 32 substantial policy change and so I don’t know whether this belongs in our discussion tonight so that’s 33 why I flagged it because I don’t, in spirit I understand what it’s saying, but it’s it seems like a pretty big 34 change because it’s not contemplated in the current code. It’s not like a misunderstanding it’s just it’s 35 not part of it. So I don’t think we should be doing it tonight. 36 37 Ms. French: Yeah, the code is basically it considers living area. It doesn’t so it for us to just say well we 38 now hereby interpret that that is living area that has no walls around it is pretty much of a leap of 39 interpretation. We would like to have it more formal in a code. 40 41 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Well I think that may be the case, but I still stand that I don’t think this is something 42 that’s a touchup. It’s a in my mind a pretty substantial change. So I don’t think we should… I mean in 43 the spirit of trying to really do touchups and fix broken stuff I think that’s my feeling. So if you guys 44 disagree with me hit your lights and say something. Commissioner Michael. 45 46 Commissioner Michael: So here again I think it’s helpful at least for me to go and look at the actual 47 language and Subsection B, Applicability, and just ask what would be the actual language change you 48 would be proposing? 49 50 Mr. Lait: So we don’t have the exact language, but the idea is that the 150 sf that is the trigger now for 51 requiring IR would include open air decks. 52 53 Commissioner Michael: So as I read expansion that’s not it doesn’t limit you to not include decks 54 currently. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Mr. Lait: So that’s part of the clarification/new policy. So we’ve interpreted that our practice has not 1 been to include open air decks. 2 3 Commissioner Michael: So for example after expansion you’d have comma including decks. 4 5 Mr. Lait: Right. 6 7 Commissioner Michael: Close comma. 8 9 Ms. French: Right, if somebody is already in the IR process for a second floor addition then of course we 10 look at the deck, but if they aren’t adding 150 sf of interior floor area they don’t come into the process at 11 all. 12 13 Commissioner Michael: Well so it just again to clarify our role here so if you’re just talking about adding a 14 phrase that would after the word expansion that would say including both interior space and decks 15 comma I don’t have any problem with that. And it’s actually very helpful if you would be as specific as 16 possible. 17 18 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck. 19 20 Commissioner Alcheck: I have a quick question. If you’re going to create a deck then the assumption is 21 you have to create an opening in a wall. If someone adds a window or a those like faux openings where 22 they put a fence right in front of the sliding doors on a second floor. If someone were to do that is that 23 subject to review? 24 25 Ms. French: So we have a provision in our IR guidelines that says if you’ve gone through IR process and 26 you’re now going to modify that second floor to do something that increases privacy impact concern we 27 would ask you to go back through as a revision, yeah. 28 29 Commissioner Alcheck: But if you had… 30 31 Ms. French: But if you hadn’t gone through IR (interrupted) 32 33 Commissioner Alcheck: Just so we’re clear, how old (interrupted) 34 35 Ms. French: We wouldn’t, we wouldn’t have that. 36 37 Commissioner Alcheck: How old is the IR process? Like (interrupted) 38 39 Ms. French: 2001. 40 41 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so any two-story home pre-2001 could theoretically modify (interrupted) 42 43 Ms. French: Correct. 44 45 Commissioner Alcheck: It’s second floor. 46 47 Ms. French: Put a Juliet balcony and they wouldn’t have any review process. They could put a 500 sf 48 deck and not go through any discretionary review, just a building permit. 49 50 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. 51 52 Chair Tanaka: Ok, I see no other lights, but it sounds like everyone’s (interrupted) 53 54 Commissioner Gardias: Just a moment. You would not have a building permit, but you would have to go 55 through the planning review. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 18 1 Ms. French: You would not have planning review. You would have a building permit. Discretionary 2 review is planning review. Building permit is simply ministerial. You walk up to the counter; you get your 3 building permit for a 500 sf second floor deck. 4 5 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I think Commissioner Michael disagrees with my position. My position is that 6 maybe this is good, but I think this is a bigger topic that we shouldn’t deal with today. I think 7 Commissioner Michael disagrees, everyone else seems to agree. Ok, let’s move on to (interrupted) 8 9 Mr. Lait: So that’s Tier 2, just to be clear. 10 11 Commissioner Tanaka: Tier 2. Ok, so let’s move on to Page 8. There are two items on this 54 and 60. 12 So 54 was flagged by Commissioner Alcheck and 60 was flagged by Acting Vice-Chair. Can staff frame 13 up 54 please? 14 15 Ms. French: Ok, we’re on 54 then? Page 8, correct? Ok, so this one we have in the Downtown you can 16 do a mixed-use project and you get to put FAR of 1:1 for residential plus 1:1 for commercial and then 17 there’s all that transferable development rights. We’re not going to talk about that in this one, but there 18 is nothing that says in order to get that 1:1 FAR for residential you have to put three or more units, 19 which is considered by definition mixed-used. So what this would do would to say we for new projects 20 that are mixed-use we want to see three or more units in that mixed-use project for residential in order 21 to capture that 1:1 FAR. You can’t come in with a new project with one housing unit that’s 6,000 sf 22 penthouse. We want to see three units to call it a mixed-use project and get that FAR that we have in 23 the code. 24 25 Mr. Lait: And I’m sorry if I can just add more to that so I, my read of the code is I think pretty clear. It 26 does allow in our down, in our commercial Downtown area we do allow mixed-use developments. And 27 mixed-use is defined as multiple family housing. And multiple family is defined as three or more units. 28 There has been a practice that has allowed less than three units for new development and you’ve seen 29 them I think on top of the there’s a new on Hamilton, whatever that is, Hamilton and Alma. So there’s 30 developments with one large penthouse, two units, and so what we’re saying is if you’re going to, Amy 31 said if you’re going to do a new mixed-use development it’s three or more out of the chute. But there’s 32 also a recognition that there’s existing commercial buildings where somebody might want to put housing 33 on top of that and we have a case on Forrest right now where there’s a the commercial building on the 34 ground floor and they want to put a housing unit on top. You couldn’t park the three units. There we 35 would still continue the practice of allowing a housing unit on top of that. So we’re making a distinction 36 in this between new development and existing development and we are requiring for new development 37 three or more units. 38 39 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck do you have an opinion on this? 40 41 Commissioner Alcheck: So I flagged this only because not because I don’t appreciate the need to raise 42 the number, but I also think that there’s a potential opportunity here to discuss the ratios. One of our 43 community members mentioned this earlier about how the requirement relates to the size of the build… 44 I’m a huge proponent of increasing our housing supply especially in mixed-use opportunities. I think the 45 question is would three units be sufficient if it was the Fry’s site? And I would suggest it wouldn’t. And 46 so I guess what I’m trying to say is I wonder if we could articulate this in a way that expressed a little bit 47 more clarity on how many units in terms of the size of the mixed-use project being proposed and for that 48 reason only I would suggest that it’s Tier 2 just so we could explore those the ratio relationship if you 49 will. 50 51 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so the proposal from Commissioner Alcheck is that this is a substantial item, Tier 2, 52 and that we don’t try to solve it tonight. I see there’s three lights, four lights that I assume disagree with 53 Commissioner Alcheck’s opinion. So let’s start with Commissioner Michael. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Commissioner Michael: So I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with the other opinions on the Council 1 and as I didn’t agree or disagree with Chair Tanaka earlier. The question I would have is that this 2 touches on some probably important policies in the community: importance of mixed-use, the importance 3 of adding more housing units and so forth. But the question I would have is that expressing it in terms 4 of number of units is probably not the best way to state it. Perhaps it should be for example if it’s a 5 10,000 sf penthouse that may be overly large. That might be a pretty nice opportunity for five 2,000 sf 6 units. But if it’s a 2,000 sf penthouse and you want to chop it into 650 sf studios it’s probably a different 7 proposition. So I think what you want to do is put this in the alternative. If there’s a target in terms of 8 policy for what you think would be the optimal range of unit size you might say a number of unit in this 9 optimal size or more, but I wouldn’t just say it’s got to be three units for any footprint of building because 10 their quite different in terms of the potential. 11 12 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Rosenblum. 13 14 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, so I feel like staff’s explanation makes this fall within the realm of 15 clarification. So if the definition of mixed-use should be three or more residential units and we allow 16 mixed-use developments to get mixed-use benefits by not having three or more units it seem to be an 17 inconsistency that should be addressed. 18 19 I also agree with Commissioner Alcheck that actually would be a big change, but I understand that this is 20 fundamentally inconsistent that we’re allowing projects to be considered mixed-use, get mixed-use 21 benefits and we have a definition of mixed-use that is not applied to those. So this one I it doesn’t 22 trouble me as much. I get the explanation. It’s fixing inconsistency. 23 24 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias. 25 26 Commissioner Gardias: Same comment from my side in terms of specifying minimum as three units. I’d 27 rather have some ratio which would be expressed differently as opposed to just specifying three. Thank 28 you. 29 30 Chair Tanaka: Vice-Chair. 31 32 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Yeah, I think I have similar concerns in the sense that there are some 33 projects which are actually quite small. They might not be able to fit in three units even if they’re small 34 units and I wouldn’t want those projects to switch to commercial rather than having housing there so I 35 do have that concern. And the other concern I have is that you may not be able to park three units and I 36 don’t want someone again to choose to build an entire floor of commercial rather than two housing units 37 instead of three. So just those are my comments, I don’t, the point of this is obviously to encourage 38 more housing units and I just I don’t want to see that kind of blowback from that. I don’t want to see 39 this become an incentive to not build them. But I definitely support where you guys are coming from, 40 what you’re trying to do. 41 42 Chair Tanaka: Ok, sum it up it sounds like most think that this needs more discussion or some sort of 43 modification. I think only Commissioner Rosenblum was ok with how it is so I think this kind of falls in to 44 Tier 2. 45 46 Mr. Lait: So [unintelligible] offer can I? So I do think that while we have this as new policy I think what 47 this really is doing is reaffirming what the code read, how the code reads today. And I in Tier 2 you don’t 48 have the list, but in Tier 2 we do want to have more of a housing conversation about minimum unit sizes, 49 appropriate densities, where would we allow smaller units, are there different parking ratios for different 50 kinds of units especially near transit, so I agree that there is a broader and perhaps proportional 51 conversation about how many units, but in the meantime I’m concerned that we’re missing out on 52 housing units Downtown because of a way that we’ve been applying the code in the past. And I think 53 this is just simply correcting the intent. But I want… but if the Commission thinks that it’s a Tier 2 then 54 that’s [unintelligible]. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Chair Tanaka: Yeah, so I hear staff’s comment, but I think from the Commission I think the majority of 1 the Commission, five of us actually except for one doesn’t agree with you. So I think there’s a lot of 2 tuning that has to happen. This is not a simple let’s do three minutes it’s clear as day that we need to do 3 it there’s a lot of different opinions of how we do it and I think this would take substantial debate for us 4 to come up with a consensus on this at this point in time. 5 6 Ok, 60. This was brought up by Vice-Chair. Can staff frame it up for us please? 7 8 Ms. French: Number 60 was about architectural review. Again it’s the same the appeal fee from the 9 Policy and Service Committee suggesting that. So another one on here is that there are currently several 10 options once the Council pulls with a vote of three an architectural review appeal off the consent agenda 11 then there’s this conundrum, we have to schedule it for a new hearing, oh, but if we simply hear it on the 12 record and we don’t have any people speaking to it maybe we can just hear it tonight, maybe we can’t. 13 It gets confusing. So the idea is to reduce that down to one option. If it’s pulled off consent it will be 14 scheduled for a public hearing. That’s one piece of that. I think the third piece of that is increasing 15 again that 30 to 45 days. Again because of the report review calendar that we have imposed on us for 16 Council reports. 17 18 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so before I let Vice-Chair kind of give her opinion on this I was just thinking this is 19 very similar to 62. We spent 40 minutes on and we couldn’t as a Commission come to a consensus. So I 20 don’t know whether it’s achievable with 60, but I don’t know if Vice-Chair has [as other] because I think 21 [we this] should be an automatic category two given that it’s the same topic. 22 23 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Yeah, yeah, I agree. 24 25 Chair Tanaka: Ok, ok. 26 27 Commissioner Alcheck: May I make a suggestion too? Maybe we could just quickly find out if 28 [unintelligible] I don’t think very many of us, I would be interested to know if very many of us have a 29 problem with the 30 to 45 day or the delete A and B options because those you have to bring your whole 30 team and you don’t even know if you’re going to be able to like those are, those are maybe we could 31 bifurcate this and part of it could move on and part of it could stay. 32 33 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so why don’t you make an opinion about (interrupted) 34 35 Commissioner Alcheck: I’ll go one at a time. I would say increasing the number of days and I would 36 suggest this applies to both, but for the sake of ease 60, 60. I have no problem moving forward with the 37 30 to 45 day increment. I really do think that that is we can’t effectively actually have this process 38 without making that change and I think we should just do that one bifurcate and then we can have a 39 second question about the other one. 40 41 Chair Tanaka: Ok. So who disagrees with the idea of increasing the number of days on consent calendar 42 from 30 to 45? Please hit your lights. Commissioner Gardias. 43 44 Commissioner Gardias: I would like to just offer a counter argument about this. When you spoke before 45 about increase of the numbers of days you said that 35 would suit you so [as and] this change from 30 46 to 45 it’s and I understand the operational aspects of just processing this, but if 35 is the reasonable and 47 doable number of days then I would just go with this as opposed to 45. Although I understand that 48 we’re just talking about the increments, equal increments of the [haps of the] months, but pretty much 49 we have the process we need to think when we just doing this changes we need to think about the 50 process how it we are seeing in the eyes of the public. We’re pretty much we’re seen that there is lots of 51 applications that go through pretty much they take years. There is number of some items maybe not on 52 this sheet but (interrupted) 53 54 Mr. Lait: I’m sorry, I’m sorry. So if I can just because I hear where you’re going and I have an answer 55 for you that may alter your perspective on that before (interrupted) 56 City of Palo Alto Page 21 1 Commissioner Gardias: [Unintelligible] fine. 2 3 Mr. Lait: So the 35 days is when the report needs to be presented to the supervisor. So there has to be 4 the staff work, the preparation, pulling together the attachments, writing the arguments, the pros and 5 con arguments, doing additional analysis that comes up with the appeal. So that extra 10 days which is I 6 would still argue probably not enough time for us to do the most thorough work that we would like to do 7 is the bare minimum that we can do to accommodate the appeal coming in. So 35 days that you have in 8 your mind that’s when, that’s when the work is done and we’re saying give us 10 days to respond to the 9 appeal so we can do our work and get it to the decision making body. 10 11 Ms. French: I would like to add to that as well. You may not know this because you’re not the Council. 12 The Council gets a full report as if it’s a public hearing that night on consent. It’s not a slim report. It’s a 13 big report to prepare. You as the Planning Commission have something on the books right now that 14 allows 45 days from when a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is requested to be heard by the Planning 15 Commission for us to get a report to you. We’re just saying we need the same courtesy time to get it to 16 the Council as the time we have to get you a CUP report because that’s already on the books, 45 days. 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: Ok, so ok good. So I totally understand it. That’s fine if more time is needed I’m 19 fine so I have no problems with this, with this explanation. But the comment that I was making that in 20 general, right, it may not be perceived well because of the lengthy processes that we have here in the 21 City so but I totally agree with your explanation in this case and I don’t see a problem. 22 23 Chair Tanaka: Ok, does anyone else have disagreement? Otherwise it sounds like at least for this the 24 Commission’s ok with that and I assume for 60 and 62, which is the one we talked about before? Ok, so 25 Commissioner Alcheck you had another opinion on the second item? 26 27 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I think I mean staff probably knows this a lot better than we do, but if 28 they’re suggesting that we delete Options A and B then I would do that, I would suggest we bifurcate 29 that as well because I don’t think that that’s, I don’t think that that actually works to the benefit of the 30 applicants or anybody else who is part of the appeal. I think it creates a tremendous amount of 31 confusion and you don’t know whether you have to prepare for that evening or not and as a result you 32 end up double booking everyone that’s involved. So I’m all for the change too and I would suggest that 33 we bifurcate that and allow that to continue. 34 35 Chair Tanaka: Ok, does anyone have any questions or does anyone disagree with this, hit your lights. Ok 36 guys, we’re in agreement then. Let’s move on. 37 38 Commissioner Alcheck: Just so we’re clear and the time thing I think we also suggested that would work 39 for 62. Ok. 40 41 Chair Tanaka: Ok, we’re now on Page 3, Item 23. So this was Page 23 [Note-Item] was flagged by 42 Gardias as was 25 and both Vice-Chair and Gardias flagged 29. Can staff start off with 23 and talk about 43 why they did that? 44 45 Ms. French: Item 23 on the matrix is basically there’s an outmoded Program H36 from the 2002 Housing 46 Element that is no longer the correct section to reference. So that needs to be changed. Also there is 47 it’s not on your matrix, but in Chapter 18.14 there’s a similar reference to Program H36 that needs to be 48 changed to the H2.1.1 or whatever it is. I had the reference. That’s (interrupted) 49 50 Mr. Lait: We’re correcting a reference in the code. 51 52 Chair Tanaka: Ok, Commissioner Gardias can you state your opinion on this? 53 54 Commissioner Gardias: So the only thing that I just flagged this item was pretty much that when we’re 55 writing things like this I’d recommend just not to put, not to put hard references because we’re going to 56 City of Palo Alto Page 22 just put ourselves in this loop again and again. And I know when I read the code it’s it occurs in many 1 places. My recommendation would be when we write it just let’s make this in a different way so pretty 2 much we don’t have to put the same thing in two different places because otherwise we would be 3 correcting this every year or every time when something changes. Otherwise I’m fine with the point. 4 Thank you. 5 6 Chair Tanaka: Ok, anyone that disagrees with Commissioner Gardias hit your lights and say something. 7 Ok, I guess we all agree. Let’s go on to 25. Can staff frame that up? 8 9 Ms. French: Yes, this Number 25 is (interrupted) 10 11 Chair Tanaka: Hold on a second we actually have a dissenter here, so Commissioner Alcheck. 12 13 Commissioner Alcheck: I don’t want to take any time. I don’t necessarily agree that we should be not 14 putting references to number sections simply because if we edit the code we have to go back and change 15 them. I think that’s just part and parcel of what it’s like to be in land use policy. Any kind of ordinance 16 work, but I don’t think it merits any time wasted on it, so. 17 18 Chair Tanaka: Ok, does anyone else have opinions on 23? 19 20 Ms. French: Ok. 21 22 Chair Tanaka: Ok. 23 24 Ms. French: 25. 25 26 Chair Tanaka: 25. 27 28 Ms. French: Ok, 25 is about conflicting setbacks within the same chapter. One says you can put a pool 29 six feet away from a property line another says you can put it three feet. My goodness, we just need one 30 standard and it should be six feet basically. 31 32 Chair Tanaka: Ok, Commissioner Gardias you flagged it. What’s your opinion on it? 33 34 Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, I flagged it because I didn’t understand how this is going to work. So are 35 we going if we going to have six feet it means that there will be number of the structures that will be 36 grandfathered? Is this correct because they were already built under this? 37 38 Ms. French: It’s possible that there may be pools out there, spas that may be located closer than six feet 39 to a property line. Yes. There could be noncomplying facilities. They are already noncomplying with one 40 of these pieces because it already says it has to be six feet in once section of the code and then in 41 another section it says three feet. I guess the number, which number is it? That could be debated, but 42 the fact is there are conflicting numbers and they should be one number. 43 44 Commissioner Gardias: So the reason that I flagged it is that when you have the discrepancy and we 45 have number of already built hardscapes or some other structures that some neighbors may be enjoying 46 some benefit of those that were already built and they will have a right to grandfather others on the 47 other side of the fence they will not have the same rights so that’s the only thing that I just wanted to 48 (interrupted) 49 50 Mr. Lait: And I guess the way this is written now the way that we always approach the codes is we take 51 the more restrictive standard. So the more restrictive standard would require the greater setback of six 52 feet. And so we got one code section that says three feet, one code section that says six feet, we have 53 to use the six feet. All we want to do is get rid of the three foot reference. That’s all we’re trying to do. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Commissioner Gardias: I understand that. So my question was do we have any structures and 1 apparently we do or we don’t? That were built three feet? 2 3 Mr. Lait: Maybe, but it’s irrelevant because when we apply this code section today we have to use the six 4 foot standard so we’re trying to minimize the confusion to the user of the code who says, oh, I could do 5 three feet and we say, no, you got to do six feet because we got to use the more restrictive standard. So 6 we’re just saying let’s make it six because that’s what we’re doing now. 7 8 Commissioner Gardias: And that’s fine. I totally agree with this. so I don’t have a problem, right, but 9 you may have owners that will be applying for exemption because somebody else may already have the 10 benefit of a closer (interrupted) 11 12 Mr. Lait: Not as a result of this change. 13 14 Ms. French: And I would like to say too there is a section of the code that says that enables us that says 15 exactly we will use the more restrictive section in the code if there is a conflict between codes. So we’re 16 already doing this. 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: Ok. 19 20 Ms. French: It would just be nice if it didn’t say it three paragraphs later in a way that confuses people. 21 22 Commissioner Gardias: Very good. I’m fine, thank you. 23 24 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I think Gardias is actually ok with it. If anyone disagrees with him hit your lights so 25 this is Commissioner Alcheck. 26 27 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I would just sort of suggest that I would actually encourage the adoption of 28 the three foot. So there’s a difference here between an above grade hot tub gazebo. Imagine that in 29 your head being three feet from a fence and then a below grade pool. And one of the things that I know 30 we have in our some of you are thinking well, they’re going to dig three feet from your property line, but 31 our light well when we have a light well that can extrude close to three feet to a side property line. And 32 so in my mind something that’s below grade I don’t I think there’s sort of you could go either way here 33 saying it could be consistent with the like the below grade light well question or it could be consistent 34 with the above grade limitations on everything. And in this case I would suggest that sort of the below 35 grade I’m not exactly sure why we would care if a swimming pool that was below grade came three feet 36 from a neighbor’s fence if a light well could theoretically come three feet from a neighbor’s fence. So I 37 wonder I don’t know if that’s easy to do because a hot tub that’s above grade poses a totally different 38 sort of issue, but I’m just throwing that out there because I support this change. But I sort of think we’re 39 going more restrictive in a way that doesn’t make sense. 40 41 Ms. French: Yeah, I get it and there could be a conversation there that we don’t want to do now, but 42 basically if you have a pool that’s three feet you’re not going to put trees there, they’re going to leak into 43 the pool so sometimes having a little bit of extra space, six feet, then you could have a vegetative screen 44 that doesn’t put leaves in the pool, so one thing to think about. 45 46 Chair Tanaka: Ok, does anyone else want to comment on this item, 25? Ok, I’ll comment on it. Actually 47 I think Commissioner Alcheck’s rationale in my mind makes sense. If it’s below grade you can’t see it, 48 what’s the big deal? So I support Commissioner Alcheck on this. Ok, let’s go to 29. Can staff frame it 49 up for us please? 50 51 Ms. French: Yeah, so there are several parts to this one. This is noncomplying facility so the first piece is 52 there’s a typographical error. It refers to a nonexistent Item C. So that’s silly, we get rid of it. The 53 second piece of it is that breakrooms outside of the Downtown district we have been, we have approved 54 several buildings that I’m aware of a breakroom as an employee amenity that does not count as floor 55 area or does not have to be parked. There have been several buildings that, applicants that have made 56 City of Palo Alto Page 24 the case that this will reduce employee trips and so we give them a break for breakrooms sort of like a 1 little cafeteria. So we’ve had a project 2555 Park I believe it came forward to this group because of the 2 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and it then went to Council. Council weighed in on this and had a 3 concern with breakrooms as giving them a break for breakrooms. So that’s why this is on there. Let’s 4 see, the third piece of this is we have other references to employee amenities and laundry facilities are 5 referenced so we want to we want to go ahead and add that to this section too just for consistency. 6 Finally there’s the old LM zone is now RP and ROLM. So that’s just a being consistent with a current zone 7 district acronyms. 8 9 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so this was flagged both by the Acting Vice-Chair and Gardias. So Acting Vice-Chair 10 why don’t you tell us what your opinion is on this? 11 12 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Sure, so I mean the explanation sort of made sense to me that you actually 13 want companies to, you want to encourage them to build breakrooms and amenities for their employees. 14 It means a greater quality of life for your employees. It means better facilities. It means fewer trips. 15 Those all sound like good things to me so I don’t get it. I don’t get why we’re trying to take this away. 16 This sounds like a good thing. As a person who’s actually worked here in Palo Alto I appreciate a City 17 that creates incentives for my employer to provide me with nice facilities and I feel like without that 18 incentive well, I don’t get a breakroom at work anymore and that would be really unfortunate because I 19 like heating up my lunch and I like getting snacks there. So from a very personal kind of point of view I 20 don’t get why we’re taking it away and I don’t support it. 21 22 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so the Vice-Chair has the opinion of not taking this away. So for those that disagree 23 with the Vice-Chair please flag your lights. Commissioner Alcheck. 24 25 Commissioner Alcheck: Actually I just need a clarification I thought that we were adding a provision that 26 said that we can exclude those from counting? 27 28 Ms. French: No it’s adding to clarify that breakrooms are not considered like cafeterias are in the 29 Research Park or what have you. Actually this is not specific to zone this particular change it’s basically 30 just saying that breakrooms are not in the same realm as cafeterias which are excluded from floor area 31 and parking. So you’d have to park the breakroom. Yeah, it’s not an employee amenity according to 32 this. 33 34 Commissioner Alcheck: I misunderstood that when I read that when I prepared and would just add that 35 maybe it would be helpful if there was a little bit more information regarding how we determine what 36 rooms qualify as employee amenities. I’m caught off guard because I didn’t understand that. I read it 37 the opposite way as you were enlarging the group of employee amenity things that would theoretically I 38 apologize, I misunderstood that. I would just I would appreciate to have more time for this one just 39 simply because I would, I’d like to understand better how we determine which floor areas are excluded 40 from the count because they’re “amenities.” 41 42 Mr. Lait: Right, well (interrupted) 43 44 Commissioner Alcheck: I sort of I would agree with Acting Vice-Chair Downing that I would tend to lean 45 on the side of enlarging the group of rooms that don’t necessarily need to be parked if those are in fact 46 serving a purpose like a cafeteria. 47 48 Mr. Lait: Right. 49 50 Ms. French: We have a companion piece, 32. 51 52 Mr. Lait: We do. So we’re adding on the next page we’re adding the definition of amenity space, which 53 maybe we get to tonight, maybe we don’t. But for at this point perhaps this is another one where we 54 can advance the typo fix and we can fix the other issue as Tier 1’s and we can revisit this item when we 55 City of Palo Alto Page 25 come back to you as a possible Tier 2 or provide more clarification as we develop the definition of 1 amenity space as we’re proposing to do on the other item. 2 3 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, so I guess my comment would be I’m not entirely sure that I have a 4 position that differs from Commissioner Downing. I would just suggest it would be nice to have a little 5 more time to review this and come back to this as a Tier 2 item for that. 6 7 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael. 8 9 Commissioner Michael: so I think that the proposal that Assistant Director Lait has made is workable and 10 I think it’s an issue that is worthy of further discussion. The extension of this is in terms of amenity 11 space, which may not require that it be fully parked are we at any point going to take up the issue of 12 what’s the parking requirement in terms of the per square foot per employee ratio which I know has 13 come up as a major controversy almost every time a building is proposed. 14 15 Mr. Lait: So it’s not part of this effort, but yes. We do have even recently the Council directed us to do 16 some parking analysis for at least for the Cal Ave. area as it relates to the types of land uses that we see 17 there, but as far as a citywide reevaluation of our parking codes that’s not on our list right now to 18 evaluate. 19 20 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so it sounds like although there was a couple of people who spoke about the Acting 21 Vice-Chair’s proposal I think we all agree that, agree with her opinion which is not to take it away or to 22 have more discussion on it. So I think that’s pretty clear. 23 24 Let’s go on to Page 6. So on Page 6 there are three items flagged: 41 by myself, 42 and 43 by myself. 25 So 41 can staff frame it please? 26 27 Ms. French: Yes. The grandfathered facility which is a term that is generally used in the Downtown 28 Assessment District there are specific restrictions on replacement of a grandfathered facility or additions 29 to grandfathered facilities. We’ve had discussions with Council and they’ve come down on the strict 30 interpretation side of what does it mean to adjust a building footprint of a grandfathered facility. Clearly 31 taking floor area from a basement and putting it up top where it becomes mass and seen is was not, was 32 not ok. So that basically is documenting that interpretation also, but to have what we’re calling the carve 33 out to allow for shifting above grade to above grade to allow for as long as it doesn’t increase the degree 34 of noncompliance which can be a benefit to pedestrian friendly articulation, building mass, modifications 35 so to loosen or allow for this to happen subject to ARB review and all of that. 36 37 Mr. Lait: Is this the shrink wrap? 38 39 Ms. French: Carve out. 40 41 Mr. Lait: The shrink wrap? 42 43 Ms. French: Shrink wrap? 44 45 Mr. Lait: So we describe this as this provision is you take a nonconforming building today, exceeds the 46 height or floor area and this provision it basically shrink wraps it. You put on some kind of envelope and 47 you can’t budge that envelope. You can’t move it. And what we’re trying to do here is allow for a little 48 bit of flexibility not to increase nonconformities or not to add more floor area, but to allow the envelope 49 to adjust a little bit so that we can take into account a building that wants to modernize, have a little 50 different look because that footprint is unchanging under this language there’s no flexibility for somebody 51 to take a sort of a saw tooth design element at the ground floor and smooth that out or round it out or 52 do something different at all even though there’s no floor area being added. So we’re just trying to 53 introduce a little bit of flexibility to allow buildings to evolve. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 26 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so this was an item that I flagged. I was a little bit confused by it because I, first of 1 all if the building’s already maxed out and you’re trying to move basement floor area to above ground 2 floor area you couldn’t do that anyway so what’s the point of this? 3 4 Mr. Lait: So you’re right. That’s and there’s a case Downtown where I think that was sort of brought that 5 to a head and all we want to do is update the language to doubly ensure that that cannot happen. 6 7 Chair Tanaka: But you see but there are cases where the top, the building on top, the ground floor isn’t 8 maxed out, they can have more square footage and so you do want to allow it. So I guess I don’t 9 understand why we need I don’t it seems like we already have this covered so I don’t understand why we 10 need it again. That’s what I find confusing. 11 12 Ms. French: We need to be able to make a specific flexible language to allow the continuance of shaping 13 what’s above grade not to increase the floor area, but to allow differences in the massing. So it’s 14 rearranging the chairs. It’s not adding chairs. 15 16 Mr. Lait: And to be clear this is for buildings that are already over FAR. 17 18 Chair Tanaka: Yeah it doesn’t say that though. 19 20 Ms. French: Or grandfathered facilities which doesn’t mean they are necessarily over FAR it just means 21 perhaps they don’t have the parking for the building or yeah, they might they’re over 1:1 they might not 22 be over 3:1. That’s the case in some cases they’re over the 3:1 max, but in most cases they’re not over 23 3:1 they’re just a noncomplying facility which is also called grandfathered in the Downtown. 24 25 Mr. Lait: So to be clear and this will read better when we have the ordinance language in front of you, 26 this would not preclude a property owner from adding more square footage to their building if they are 27 allowed to already add more square footage to their building today. It’s not a restrict, this is not a 28 restriction this is actually a little bit of loosening and flexibility so that when you are restricted we can 29 adjust the building. 30 31 Chair Tanaka: Ok, well with that clarification I think I agree with it, but I it was not clear to me at all. It 32 didn’t make sense so that’s why I flagged it. Ok, does anyone have comments on this or? Commissioner 33 Michael. 34 35 Commissioner Michael: So I’ve heard the comments about massing and the shrink wrapping of the 36 grandfathered facility which wasn’t my question. One of the questions I have and I’ve actually seen this 37 in a building that I think is occupied by Institute of the Future and a long time ago this was a ground 38 floor retail with a bicycle shop called Wheelsmith and I know that there are pretty significant policy issues 39 in terms of ground floor retail versus office. If there’s retail sometimes the historic basement facility was 40 a place where they had storage and inventory or maybe a repair facility or something and now you have 41 a different use in terms of maybe there is no inventory because the modern supply chain logistics you 42 order on the internet and it’s delivered to your front door by drone or what have you. But what if you’re 43 a building occupant or building owner maybe you want to have more covert that to office they have 44 different issues in terms of noncompliance do you have adequate sanitation, bathrooms, egress, 45 emergency exits, so forth. And then you also have the issue of adequately parking if you change the 46 inventory storage to a whole bunch of offices and there’s there may not be adequate parking so this 47 probably is much more complex than a number of the other items and probably [unintelligible] much 48 further discussion. 49 50 Mr. Lait: So all of that policy thought is not implicated by this change. No, that already is addressed by 51 the citywide moratorium on retail conversions and other proposals that are being contemplated by the 52 City, but this one does not affect what somebody does or doesn’t do with their basement. This provision 53 does not address that and so what I’m hearing based on these two comments is that we need to give the 54 Commission more clarification as to what it is exactly we’re trying to illustrate here. And perhaps I said 55 illustrate because I’m thinking in my mind that maybe a graphic illustration is something that might 56 City of Palo Alto Page 27 accompany this one so that we can visually present what we’re trying to accomplish. This isn’t about 1 land use, this is about giving a building that’s built and likely nonconforming for some reason the ability 2 to adjust a little bit to account for a tenant’s desire to change an entry to their building or to and there’s 3 no net change in square footage and no increase in nonconformity. So if the Commissioner would allow, 4 let us keep this on the list and let us come back to you with some more information so we can provide 5 more clarification on that issue. 6 7 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias. 8 9 Commissioner Gardias: I totally support this change. I think it’s clear. I think there are other clarification 10 in the same paragraph that would not allow for departure from footprint and some other items. We’re 11 talking only about the shifting of the of certain parts of the building to allow for more flexibility. I support 12 this change as is. Thank you. 13 14 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Rosenblum. 15 16 Commissioner Rosenblum: I agree with Commissioner Gardias. 17 18 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Great. So on this item I actually I kind of changed my mind I actually agree with 19 Commissioner Michael about this is maybe a little bit bigger deal than I thought. I think staff’s [brings 20 up] a good point that it should come back with a lot more clarity. I think people that think it’s ok is 21 everyone else. Ok, so let’s go to Item 42. Can staff frame it up please? 22 23 Ms. French: You’re on 42? Ok. So this is a kind of companion to the one we talked about earlier. We 24 have no definition for onsite employee amenity and so that was in an earlier (interrupted) 25 26 Mr. Lait: Actually if I can interrupt you just for (interrupted) 27 28 Ms. French: Yep. 29 30 Mr. Lait: So we clearly need to come back to you with more information on this one. This is a definition. 31 There’s not enough information for us to engage in a conversation. So can we come back to you with 32 some more? 33 34 Chair Tanaka: That sounds good. 35 36 Mr. Lait: Great. 37 38 Chair Tanaka: Let’s go to Item 43. That’s one I flagged. Can staff frame it up please? 39 40 Ms. French: This is the rooftop dining new policy consideration. Currently gross floor area does not 41 address a rooftop dining area as floor area because it’s not substantially enclosed and covered; however, 42 rooftop dining area is contributing to need for parking, etcetera. So this is why we want to capture that. 43 44 Mr. Lait: And I can elaborate on that just a touch further. So our code the way our code works and the 45 parking standards work is you have to be gross floor area and so which can be enclosed area, but could 46 also be exterior area. For a rooftop restaurant seating area lounge that’s not covered and does not 47 qualify as gross floor area there’s no parking requirement for it. So you can have a space that’s 2,500 sf, 48 5,000 sf of restaurant dining and activity on the second, on the roof and there’s no parking for it. And so 49 what and this is clearly a new policy and we flagged it, but this is one that we thought needed to have 50 some standards for it. 51 52 Chair Tanaka: Ok. 53 54 City of Palo Alto Page 28 Ms. French: Again this is just for commercial rooftop dining; this does not include a multi-family 1 residential housing project that might have a patio on the roof to eat their lunch. This is where they’re 2 doing table service and seating customers that are there for commercial reasons. 3 4 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so the reason why I flagged it is because I, I think the intent of trying to restrict the 5 FAR is to prevent massing, right? So you don’t have these monster buildings and walls all over the place, 6 but the thing is if it’s uncovered and it’s rooftop dining it means tables you’re not, people aren’t going to 7 see it from the ground floor. There’s no wall, there’s no massing, which is what we’re trying to protect. 8 And in fact if anything it might make it more of a pleasant, more green because people often have trees 9 and other stuff on these kind of dining areas. So I don’t know, to me it seems like this is not a simple 10 administrative change it’s something that’s pretty substantial and so I think it’s in my mind a Tier 2 and 11 something that deserves more consideration. I mean to me it makes sense, but I think that in terms of 12 like a lot of things that it’s trying to protect I don’t think that that’s right. So folks that disagree with me 13 hit your lights. Vice-Chair. 14 15 Mr. Lait: And I’m sorry could I just say one clarification so you’re right we’re not trying to address 16 building mass and bulk and all of that. What we’re trying to do, address is the intensity of land use and 17 how parking gets addressed in these types of situations. 18 19 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: So very quickly so does this apply strictly to like retail to restaurants or would 20 this also apply to like office buildings? 21 22 Ms. French: It applies to any nonresidential building. 23 24 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Ok. 25 26 Mr. Lait: But that could be distinguished from cafeteria which could be considered an amenity space for 27 an office building if (interrupted) 28 29 Ms. French: On the same site. 30 31 Mr. Lait: Yeah, on the same site. 32 33 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Which we’re also trying to kill, so I don’t (interrupted) 34 35 Mr. Lait: So no. I mean what we’re trying just so we’re clear I mean what we need is a definition of what 36 amenity space is because it’s the lack of clarity which is creating a lot of confusion and a lack of 37 predictability and expectation for the community and for developers. We want to create a definition of 38 amenity space so everybody’s on the same page about what is and, what it is and what it isn’t, what 39 counts for parking, what doesn’t count for parking, what counts for floor area, what doesn’t count for 40 floor area. That’s the whole point of us trying to bring this forward not to impart any kind of policy 41 perspective as to good, bad, or indifferent. We need clarity. I think the community needs clarity as to 42 what it is. 43 44 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias. 45 46 Commissioner Gardias: Just a quick question. Is there an example of (interrupted) 47 48 Chair Tanaka: Sorry, sorry, Vice-Chair did you have some, do you want to finish your thought? 49 50 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Yeah, yeah, I do want to finish my thought. 51 52 Chair Tanaka: Ok, sorry. 53 54 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: I think it’s necessary to bifurcate this between restaurants and the office 55 space because I think you’re really talking about two very different things, right? Making sure that a 56 City of Palo Alto Page 29 restaurant is fully parked is really different then trying to park a rooftop when you’ve already parked all 1 the offices for all the people who are already in the building. 2 3 Mr. Lait: I agree with that. 4 5 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Those are two very different things so I don’t want to see them lumped 6 together like this and I also have to question this policy as this looks like a solution trying to find a 7 problem because I can’t think of a single rooftop restaurant in all of Palo Alto. So it seems like you’re 8 making a rule to prevent something which doesn’t even exist. So to say that this is a problem that 9 warrants like priority consideration troubles me. 10 11 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias. 12 13 Commissioner Gardias: The question was is there an example of such a rooftop area. 14 15 Mr. Lait: So we have a pending application that’s incomplete and it’s again so it follows from the same 16 thread through all these, which is we’re trying to minimize the amount of frustration at the Planning 17 counter and through the Planning review process whether it be from community members who think that 18 we’re interpreting things too liberally or from developers who don’t think we’re being flexible enough. 19 And what we’re trying to do is just add a little more clear definition as to what these things mean. The 20 policy is what the policy is; we just want to be clear so everybody understands. On this particular case 21 which possibly could come before the Commission via appeal or something I don’t want to get into the 22 details of it, but we have communicated to the applicant what we’re doing and they are aware of that 23 and their project actually I think is going to be changed and modified so that they’re not particularly 24 implicated by this potentially anymore, but that’s what got us thinking about it. And maybe it’s a one off, 25 maybe it’s a trend. We don’t know, but we thought we’d add it to the list. 26 27 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias did you have an opinion on it or no? Ok. Commissioner 28 Rosenblum. 29 30 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, so based on the discussion I think this is whatever Tier 2. Seems clear 31 for the point of like in the record I don’t like this, it just I think it has the effect of making it so one does 32 not want to use the roof because you get partial space, but have to fully park or it needs to be counted 33 as part of your square footage so it has the impact of making roof area less attractive for someone to 34 develop. And I think roof areas are great. We live in California. It’s sunny. We should take advantage 35 of that and so I think this has the effect of not making that as attractive, but given the discussion it 36 seems clear this is considered new item not a clarification to me. I would agree with that by the way that 37 I think it’s worth discussion. 38 39 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I see no other lights. Oh, Commissioner Michael. 40 41 Commissioner Michael: So I agree with what Commissioner Rosenblum just said. I also agree with the 42 concerns that Commissioner Downing [Note-Acting Vice-Chair] raised about being clear as to whether it’s 43 a restaurant or a different type of facility and echoing Commissioner Gardias I was trying to think if I 44 could think of an example for instance from my experience. And I recently was in Carmel. We went out 45 to dinner and there was a restaurant that walked in without a reservation and they said well there isn’t 46 any room inside, but if you want to go up on the rooftop there’s an area where you can get informal 47 service and beverages and appetizers and so forth. And it was extremely pleasant. Echoing what 48 Commissioner Rosenblum said it’s a wonderful climate and I think that that’s probably something that 49 should be encouraged. On the other hand it seems to have the exact same parking impacts as if we 50 were eating inside. So I think this is probably worthy of a discussion probably something that might want 51 to encourage this sort of development, on the other hand be really clear as to what the impacts are. 52 53 Chair Tanaka: Ok, to sum it up it sounds like the majority thinks that this needs more discussion. It’s not 54 a simple check box type thing. Just to add to it I think the other issue I have with it is like there’s some 55 places that use a sidewalk for extra eating area, but it doesn’t mean you suddenly increase their parking. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 30 Or at least I don’t think so, but anyways different topic. I think the majority thinks that at least four 1 Commissioners. 2 3 Ok let’s go to the next item, which is I think it might be Page 1 with five items (interrupted) 4 5 Mr. Lait: Yeah, I think Page 1’s got (interrupted) 6 7 Chair Tanaka: Oh no, sorry. Page 5 with four items. 8 9 Mr. Lait: Page 1 may have a few more than five, but I think Page 1’s going to be pretty straightforward 10 to get through. 11 12 Chair Tanaka: We’ll keep going with what we’re doing. How are you guys holding up? Do you guys feel 13 like we could ride through or? 14 15 Mr. Lait: That’s fine, I just think Page 5 may be a little more conversation because we got some bigger 16 issues on Page 5. 17 18 Chair Tanaka: We’ll do the… I think there’s only one page with four and then we’ll be on to the five and 19 then we’re in the home stretch at that point. Ok, so (interrupted) 20 21 Mr. Lait: I’m sorry Chair, but (interrupted) 22 23 Chair Tanaka: Page 5, Page 5, four items (interrupted) 24 25 Mr. Lait: But they’re not, this is going to be a 40 minute conversation I believe and I think, well no, up to 26 10 minutes, right? You said. So I’m thinking there’s going to be 10 minutes of conversation on that 27 page whereas I think you could probably blast through Page 1 in 15 minutes if you’re going with the 28 construct of trying to maximize the amount of items (interrupted) 29 30 Chair Tanaka: Well, I mean let’s put it this way if staff knows this much better than we do in some ways 31 so if you guys think that this is already Tier 2 we don’t even have to go there. We could just say ok, 32 these are all Tier 2 and let’s go onto the next one. We could do that too maybe, make this shorter. 33 34 Mr. Lait: Well I think we’ve articulated what tier we think it’s on in the second column we have listed 35 these as Tier 1. We do know that there will be some conversation (interrupted) 36 37 Chair Tanaka: No what I’m saying if the ones we flagged which is 36, 37, 39, and 40. So 36 was flagged 38 by Alcheck and myself, 37 is Gardias and myself, and then Downing flagged 39 and 40. If you think just 39 before you get started that these are Tier 2 items maybe we should just say they are all Tier 2 and move 40 on to the next (interrupted) 41 42 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: I think he’s just saying that we’re much more likely to get through everything 43 on Page 1 then on the other page. 44 45 Chair Tanaka: Ok let’s yeah, we spend time talking… let’s (interrupted) 46 47 Mr. Lait: Your meeting Chair. 48 49 Chair Tanaka: [Unintelligible] Ok, so 36. Can staff please frame it up? 50 51 Ms. French: Yes, so we have several places in R-1 so this is just for single family residential projects ok 52 where we define a neighborhood by block length of 600 feet. There’s some wording there and God I 53 wish I had the code right here to have you stare at it and you’d see what we see. The word first of all 54 the 600 foot language the way it is it just needs a couple of words to fix it because it’s basically 600 no 55 City of Palo Alto Page 31 longer than, blocks longer than 600 feet no more than ten properties and for a distance so anyways it’s 1 just a construct of the language. We want to fix that. 2 3 The other piece of this is the carports and garages. So right now we have a code that says the pattern is 4 based upon the carports and garages down the street and then if it’s determined that it’s rear placed 5 then what you come back with is a rear placed parking device to go along with that pattern. Well the 6 way the code is written it uses the word garage and carport doesn’t appear and so what happens is the 7 pattern is determined oh, it’s rear placed, oh, but I want to put a carport so now I get to put my carport 8 in the front because the code just talks about garages, where the garages are placed. So there it is. 9 10 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck you flagged it. Do you want to form an opinion? 11 12 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I think there is a very sincere argument here to suggest this is not a failure 13 to include a term. I think there is a case that could be made here that we did not intend for garages and 14 carports to be treated the same way. And I mean I don’t know if it bears the time to sort of go into the 15 language, but I spent the time going into the through this language and there are a lot of reasons why I 16 don’t like contextual garage placement. I’ll give you one example very quickly, bear with me. This is a 17 street I know where this happened. There’s 11 home, there’s 9 homes on this street. The code the way 18 it’s written doesn’t include in the calculation of the predominant pattern homes that are on the corner of 19 a street. So in this diagram there’s nine homes two of which have rear garages. All of the others have 20 front facing garages and in this particular instance these two can never move their garages up front 21 because the only two homes that count for their calculation are A and B. You can’t count the home on 22 the corner which have front facing garages and you don’t count the homes across the street. 23 24 So I don’t particularly love in general contextual garage placement. And for that reason I approach this 25 issue with a little more care because what it allows right now is if you don’t have a garage in the front of 26 your home, you have a driveway that takes you all the way to the back you can in theory move your 27 parking to the front of your lot if you build a carport, but not a garage. And in my mind a lot of people 28 use their garages for a variety of purposes and in my mind a lot of people who have garages in the rear 29 half of their lot actually don’t park in them. They park sort of on a single lane tandem in front of their 30 home as opposed to going all the way to the back. And so I love the idea that we’re encouraging people 31 to not pave nearly all of their lot with a garage, with a driveway, but not but the sacrifice is if that if 32 you’re going to build that carport up front it’s a carport and you can’t stuff it with all your boxes because 33 that wouldn’t be safe because there’s literally has no sides. 34 35 So there’s the language reads very specifically that if the pattern of essentially garages or carports is on 36 the rear half of the site then an attached garage has to be in the rear. I’m not going to go into whether 37 or not I like the idea of contextual garage placement, but I think that there I remember I sort of looked 38 into this and I could not find any suggestion in past deliberations of the code that suggested that we 39 treat garages and carports the same way. They are defined differently and I think there is a this 40 provision allows you to make a change, but it’s a substantial change and if we add that wording back in 41 then we’re suggesting that there was an intent here for garages and carports to be treated the same way 42 here and I don’t think you can infer that intent. And I don’t think it’s safe without having the greater 43 discussion about the topic in general to make that change now because then we’re essentially putting in 44 the intent that I can’t find in the code. That’s the reason why I’m not excited about this one. 45 46 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I think Commissioner Alcheck thinks that this is a Tier 2. Those that disagree hit 47 your lights. Commissioner Gardias. 48 49 Commissioner Gardias: Well I put my light not because I disagree, but actually just to I disagree with this 50 with this provision. So if that is this disagree that’s my vote it’s just to pretty much to strike it down. I 51 don’t agree with this proposal because of different reasons. I think that pretty much garages were built 52 at the back because of different historical reasons and then pretty much they meant just to house the car 53 and then also maintain the car and then variety of other purposes at the back of the house. A carport is 54 pretty much just a temporary, temporary purpose where you just store your car for pretty much 55 immediate exit from your property so for this reason they don’t need to be in the same location and I 56 City of Palo Alto Page 32 totally would disagree with equating them for the purpose of the setbacks and other reasons. So that’s 1 my argument. Thank you. 2 3 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael. 4 5 Commissioner Michael: I find myself in wholehearted agreement with both Commissioner Alcheck and 6 Commissioner Gardias. I think that the contextual garage placement policy is worthy of some 7 controversy. As an architectural, bit of architectural history when we were constructing our house in Palo 8 Alto 20 years ago or so I came across an article by a very distinguished architect who said that the 9 reason for putting garages in the back was because of horses, if you had horses that’s where you put 10 them. You put the stable in the back for obvious reasons and the way people use cars is entirely 11 different. Also there are a number of neighborhoods including one where my house is located where 12 there’s a pretty rich diversity of alleys. So some houses have access to parking in the rear because of the 13 alley. Also some houses for whatever reason built underground parking and then other houses had their 14 garage or what have you in front and there’s even some flag lots. So the application of the contextual 15 garage placement and I love the diagram that Commissioner Alcheck had of the anomaly of the block 16 with the corner houses not counting and leading to an irrational result seems to me that this is something 17 that’s definitely not Tier 1. 18 19 Chair Tanaka: Seeing no other lights it sounds like resounding agreement with Commissioner Alcheck. 20 Ok, let’s go to 37. This is flagged by Commissioner Gardias. Can staff please frame it? 21 22 Ms. French: Sorry, are we on Number 37 now? 23 24 Chair Tanaka: Yes. 25 26 Ms. French: Ok. This is basement under footprints. I’m going to load this up. 27 28 Mr. Lait: So this is a provision that our code defines, our code defines where you can place a basement 29 and a basement is permitted underneath the footprint of the building and we’re talking single family 30 homes is where this comes into play. And what is, what requires clarification is what is footprint, what is 31 the building footprint mean to include? Is it the perimeter exterior walls of interior spaces? Does it 32 include covered entries where you may have a raised porch and you can place the basement under that? 33 And what we’re seeing is building design being modified to accommodate more basement square footage 34 below grade. And this is not a judgement about whether basements are good or bad, but we need 35 clarity as far as what does footprint mean because we’re seeing the definition being stretched and what 36 we’re seeing visually is buildings are being altered in a way not for building function and design, but to 37 maximize basement square footage. The interpretation over time has included I think covered entries 38 and there’s this idea of completing the square and all these different ideas of how to address it and what 39 the proposal is so there’s clarity is that the footprint is the exterior walls of interior spaces. That 40 constitutes a building footprint and that’s where a basement could be allowed. That’s the proposal. 41 42 Chair Tanaka: Ok, Commissioner Gardias you’re the one who flagged it so (interrupted) 43 44 Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, that is fine. I totally understand this. The only thing that I flagged it is 45 pretty much that there could be different interpretation of the porches. You can also have enclosed 46 porches that serve different purpose and I’ve seen them around and they are all around the 47 [unintelligible] and pretty much in this case you can have a perfect argument that the footprint also 48 includes the area under those enclosed porches. So I’m just saying that this is not as clear and clearly 49 white and black. I mean if you’re going to talk about entry open porch yeah, I totally agree, right? But 50 then you may have some other building configuration where this may be perceived differently. 51 52 Mr. Lait: And when you say an enclosed porch are you talking about where you would have windows that 53 would be operable? 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 33 Commissioner Gardias: That’s right, yes. There are some porches that are pretty much used for example 1 (interrupted) 2 3 Mr. Lait: Like sunrooms or? 4 5 Commissioner Gardias: Yes, what did you say? I’m sorry. 6 7 Mr. Lait: A sunroom. 8 9 Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, like a sunroom or like a garden, interior garden or some other or they are 10 only used in the summer for example. So there are some variety of those porches that pretty much you 11 may open the windows they pretty much just are not inhabitable or they may just serve a temporary 12 purpose like a summer room, something like this so. 13 14 Mr. Lait: Would it be conditioned space? 15 16 Commissioner Gardias: Not necessarily. 17 18 Mr. Lait: Ok. Ok, so yeah I mean so this is what we’re getting at is there needs to be some clarification 19 because more often than not we’re struggling with where do you draw the line? And so the initial 20 posture on this is let’s draw the line at something that is clear and that’s exterior walls of interior 21 habitable space is what we’re looking at. 22 23 Chair Tanaka: So it sounds like Commissioner Gardias is saying this is not such a simple thing and he 24 thinks it should be Tier 2. 25 26 Commissioner Gardias: No, no, no. I think (interrupted) 27 28 Chair Tanaka: [Unintelligible] clear. 29 30 Commissioner Gardias: I think we’re good after this. 31 32 Chair Tanaka: Oh, you think we’re good. Oh, ok. 33 34 Commissioner Gardias: If we could just proceed with this I’m going to be perfectly happy. I think this 35 explanation (interrupted) 36 37 Chair Tanaka: I stand corrected. 38 39 Commissioner Gardias: Was [unintelligible]. 40 41 Chair Tanaka: So Commissioner Gardias is cool with 37. 42 43 Commissioner Gardias: It’s cool. 44 45 Chair Tanaka: Anyone that’s not good with 37 hit your lights. Commissioner Alcheck. 46 47 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I have a there’s a special problem that I have with limitations on 48 basements because I can’t conceivably understand why as a City we care too much where a basement 49 extends. Now the section says something that maybe it’s in a different one, but there was oh yeah, here 50 “to maximize basement with adverse impacts to home design.” And so I’m going to use this argument, 51 I’m going to use this diagram for a second because this is an example of where I imagine this comes into 52 play. This is the street, this is the home, this is a roofed porch, these are steps. You step up, there’s a 53 railing, you walk 10 steps to your front door. I don’t see why we would conceivably care if the basement 54 extended from this corner to this corner of the lot. And I don’t see how this would affect any aesthetics. 55 This is a raised patio let’s say that is in line with the threshold of the home and to me I feel like if the 56 City of Palo Alto Page 34 basement’s built to code, it’s one thing if your basement’s protruding out the side of your home and 1 threatens your setbacks, but if it’s within the setback then I think that the instead of the instead of us 2 saying interior walls I think we should say, I think we should use things like well… there is a definition I’d 3 pull it up right now. I don’t know if it’s structure or building that I think is sufficient. For example, a 4 porch that’s covered for example is maybe a structure and if it’s I mean we have rules for example on 5 porches that say that if your porch is enclosed on more than 50 percent of its sides which is in this 6 diagram that I drew (interrupted) 7 8 Mr. Lait: Right, so if I (interrupted) 9 10 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah. 11 12 Mr. Lait: So your diagram is how we currently do it today. We don’t have a problem with that design. 13 Let’s call it completing the square informally. And if everybody operated under that common sense 14 approach that you’ve laid out then we wouldn’t be having the conversation today, but what we actually 15 have is we’re seeing projects where they’re pushing the envelope and jutting out a closet wall so that 16 they can then claim credit for a lot more basement square footage and so this jutting out of the wall to 17 get more basement area is having an effect on the quality of the design. 18 19 Commissioner Alcheck: Are you suggesting that if this space here wasn’t a room, but it was a closet 20 (interrupted) 21 22 Mr. Lait: Right, so make that a little bit bigger and you punch that out a little bit and now you’re claiming 23 all that space in front of it as basement area which isn’t under (interrupted) 24 25 Commissioner Alcheck: You mean from here to here? 26 27 Mr. Lait: Yeah, so you put a porch between the front, what I think is your front in your diagram to that all 28 the way back so now you make that a porch that’s the kind of thing that we’re beginning to see now on 29 both sides of the building. And it’s creating this confusion about well we’re not intending to capture, I 30 don’t think we’re intending to capture porch area, but I have an alternative suggestion (interrupted) 31 32 Commissioner Alcheck: Let me respond to this. I don’t disagree with you that there may be an incentive 33 to designing your home differently, but we don’t have an IR process that applies to one-story homes. 34 35 Mr. Lait: Correct. 36 37 Commissioner Alcheck: And there is something very American about that because what you think of as 38 aesthetically unpleasing like doing this with the porch could still be done, you just couldn’t build a 39 basement under it. And so the implication is that the only reason they would do this is because they get 40 a certain amount more basement. And what I’m suggesting to you is if you don’t like the way this looks 41 then as a policy we shouldn’t allow someone to build a porch from the closet to the front of the building, 42 but it shouldn’t restrict somebody’s ability to build a basement which you can’t see under the building. 43 And that’s sort of how I approach this. 44 45 Mr. Lait: So I’m comfortable with that as well. I don’t (interrupted) 46 47 Chair Tanaka: Guys hold on, hold on. If we keep doing this we will spend 40 minutes. So I think 48 (interrupted) 49 50 Mr. Lait: I’ll come back with more clarity on this one. 51 52 Chair Tanaka: I think this is a kind of Tier 2 thing, but actually Commissioner Michael has been patiently 53 waiting. Commissioner Michael why don’t you go? 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 35 Commissioner Michael: So I agree it’s a Tier 2 item. I think to the extent the completing the square 1 methodology is something which is actually used in practice it would be helpful to clarify that when you 2 come back. And I think if there’s a structural reason in terms of the integrity of the house, the 3 waterproofing, whatnot such that the walls of the first floor should be extend up from the basement walls 4 that may be a reason to have a discussion about structures which are more safe or durable or seismically 5 safe or whatnot. 6 7 Mr. Lait: If we’re heading Tier 2 there’s no point in talking further about it. 8 9 Chair Tanaka: Ok, ok. So I also think it’s Tier 2. I saw Commissioner Rosenblum was shaking his head 10 yes, so I think we have a majority of Commissioners that think this is Tier 2. Let’s move on to 39. 11 12 Ms. French: Ok, 39 multi-family residential the code does not have in the development standards table a 13 statement that there is a minimum number and we’re ok with that. There is no minimum density [there 14 is] a density range that is permitted and so it clarifies that it’s just a clarification that we’re not… this 15 came up recently on a project was it’s this many units per acre, does that mean they have to do that 16 many units? No, it doesn’t mean they have to do that many and it’s because they could do that many. 17 They’re doing a multi-family project, this is how many works with the parking with the driveway access, 18 etcetera. We don’t have to make them do the that number, the minimum number (interrupted) 19 20 Chair Tanaka: Ok. This was flagged by the Vice-Chair so why don’t you form an opinion? 21 22 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Yeah, I think there’s a lack of cohesion there because for the mixed-use 23 project we’re now saying oh, we want a minimum and we want to be clear, but for non-mixed-use 24 projects where we could get even more housing now we’re saying minimums don’t apply. So I don’t get, 25 I don’t understand this policy. This doesn’t seem, it doesn’t to make sense to me these two things 26 together from a policy perspective. 27 28 Mr. Lait: Is the just so I understand so is the position that you’re articulating is that development of a 29 multi-family needs to meet, has to comply with the density range and cannot be less than the density 30 range? 31 32 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: I’m just saying that I don’t understand where the policy here is going 33 because you’re making two changes in two different directions, right? On the one hand you’re saying I’m 34 making a policy and I’m making a clarification so that we end up with more housing, but on the other 35 hand you’re saying well now we’re going to do it in the other direction and we’re going to make sure 36 there’s less. 37 38 Mr. Lait: So let me (interrupted) 39 40 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: So where you have a chance for interpretation I’m not sure why you’re taking 41 it in different directions. 42 43 Mr. Lait: So let me clarify that then if I may. In the commercial area where we allow mixed-use you get 44 certain incentives for developing a mixed-use project which we’ve already talked about a being a defined 45 type of housing type with three or more units and that’s what we wanted to clarify. That if you’re going 46 to get these incentives for doing mixed-used you’ve got to at least have three units. That’s the one area. 47 In the multi-family zone we have these ranges of density of housing that could be accommodated in 48 these areas, but we also permit single family homes, other land uses, duplexes, a triplex. And all we’re 49 saying is let’s be clear so that again we’re trying to minimize confusion whether it’s an architect or 50 property owner or a resident who’s concerned about a project. We’re trying to provide clarity that our 51 practice has been in a multi-family zone we permit all kinds of housing densities up to the max range in 52 that district. Our code says and I’m just picking numbers, you can do between 8 and 16 units. And so 53 we want to be clear that that’s a range, but you could also do 1 unit or 2 units or 3 units up to 8, up 54 through 16 in that example. So it’s not a diversion of policy it’s a clarification of the permissive land uses, 55 permissive densities. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 36 1 Chair Tanaka: ok so I think the Acting Vice-Chair is saying that this is a type or Tier 2 and doesn’t agree 2 the diverging directions. Commissioner Michael. 3 4 Commissioner Michael: Well if this is going to be a Tier 2 then I would hold my fire, but I think Acting 5 Vice-Chair raises an interesting point. If there’s a property that might be suitable for one very nice 6 mansion for a Palo Alto billionaire or home for 40 families who could have students in schools and use 7 the parks and whatnot I think it raises a pretty significant policy question about land use. So. 8 9 Chair Tanaka: Ok, seeing no other lights it seems like everyone agrees with the Acting Vice-Chair. Ok, 10 Commissioner Alcheck. 11 12 Commissioner Alcheck: It’s just a quick question to staff. This is not necessarily changing anything; this 13 is just articulating what is in the law? 14 15 Mr. Lait: That’s correct. 16 17 Commissioner Alcheck: We don’t currently have a minimum density. 18 19 Mr. Lait: That’s right. And so if the Commission pushes this to Tier 2 (interrupted) 20 21 Commissioner Alcheck: But you probably get asked the question? 22 23 Mr. Lait: Yes, we do. And so nothing would change from a policy, from an application (interrupted) 24 25 Commissioner Alcheck: It’s just continuing to publish it. By publishing that we have no minimum density. 26 We are not creating a no minimum density. 27 28 Mr. Lait: That’s correct. 29 30 Commissioner Alcheck: I think, I think there is a debate we can have, but I don’t think that this allowing 31 this change to be published actually changes anything. They I mean we could ask the City Attorney, but 32 I don’t think anybody would be stopped from building a single family, a single unit as a result of our 33 inaction today. And to the extent that it makes staff’s life easier by clarifying that their own limitation 34 even potentially for the broader public which may be upset about potentially low development let’s say 35 then staff can say, look this is if you want to change this then this is the this is where we need to change 36 it as opposed to maybe not being able to point to something to clarify the current legal standing, so. 37 38 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Rosenblum. 39 40 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, just quickly I support this as Tier 1. I think this is interpretation. 41 They’re not changing anything. They are clarifying that the range that they have does not include a 42 minimum. The outside interpretation about whether or not we should have land use policies that 43 proscribe minimums I think is a different issue. So I think this is well within the intent of this exercise 44 which is clarifying that’s a range not a minimum or is a preferred range, but not a minimum. So I think 45 that this is fine. It gets my support. 46 47 Chair Tanaka: Ok. So actually I got persuaded by my fellow two Commissioners so I actually agree that 48 this is also Tier 1. So I think at this point in time it’s a split vote or a split feeling among the Commission 49 unless… 50 51 Commissioner Gardias: If there is a split vote I can just pretty much argue for just having this as Tier 1. 52 I think it’s just a clarification. 53 54 Chair Tanaka: Ok, then majority says Tier 1. Ok, let’s go to 40. This was flagged by the Acting Vice-55 Chair as well. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 37 1 Ms. French: Ok, this is the seismic bonus. For many years we have allowed for buildings and its written 2 in the code that you can replace an existing building with a new building and we’ve allowed seismic when 3 you replace a building that’s on a list of seismically challenged buildings you can replace that building 4 with a new building and the incentive to do that includes bonus floor area up to a certain amount, 2,500 5 sf, something like that. We’ve had pushback on that we that from Council that they think that we should 6 not be allowing for bonuses for a new building. That it should only be granted if you’re keeping the 7 building and reinforcing it with structural steel or what have you. Then you get the bonus. This is an 8 interpretation of an existing code that talks about use of the bonus and so it would be more restrictive 9 than is existing in the code. We don’t, we’re just bringing this forward as per request. 10 11 Chair Tanaka: Acting Vice-Chair do you want to give an opinion? 12 13 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Sure. So I think the issue that I take with this provision is that we had a 14 Downtown Cap Study and part of what the study told us is that in order for it to be profitable for people 15 to tear down buildings and rebuild them for commercial space they need to be able to double their 16 square footage in order for that to be profitable and worthwhile. For residential space they need to be 17 able to triple that square footage for it to be profitable and worthwhile. So the City which commissioned 18 the study and paid people for this information has that information and seems to be making policies 19 which ensure that in fact people don’t tear down these buildings and don’t retrofit them which does not 20 make sense to me. Whether or not you retrofit an existing building or you build a new building we want 21 to encourage people to we want to encourage people to fix them. So I’m not sure why we’re taking 22 away an incentive to fix them. I mean is the Council really saying that like extra square footage and 23 extra parking is more important than the lives of the people who live and die in these buildings? I can’t, I 24 can’t really support this. 25 26 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so Commissioner Downing thinks this is a type two [Note-Tier 2] and disagrees with it. 27 So anyone that disagrees with, anyone that supports it should flag their lights. Commissioner 28 Rosenblum. 29 30 Commissioner Rosenblum: I completely agree with Commissioner Downing so. 31 32 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael. 33 34 Commissioner Michael: I also agree with Commissioners Downing and Rosenblum, but I think that just to 35 add another nuance I think the seismic bonus issue whether you retrofit or replace may be confused with 36 historic preservation and in certain instances building may have no redeeming historic value and by 37 providing a or imposing a constraint that prevents people from replacing a dysfunctional, outmoded, 38 unattractive building with something that would be of higher quality, etcetera, I think it’s going in the 39 wrong direction and confusing preservation, seismic, and building Palo Alto of the future. 40 41 Chair Tanaka: Ok so, oh, Commissioner Alcheck. 42 43 Commissioner Alcheck: Look I’m not I wanted to just chime in here because I think that we create these 44 incentives because we want to encourage redevelopment of buildings that potentially aren’t safe, but if 45 you don’t need to encourage development because development is so appealing in general then this is an 46 opportunity to potentially I don’t think anybody suggest, I just I do think this is a policy and for that 47 reason it’s Tier 2. Whether or not the decision to not further incentivize seismic improvements I think 48 there’s something to be said for the fact that if you are tearing down the… I think this is a policy 49 discussion and I don’t know that we necessarily need to suggest that we wouldn’t, whatever. It’s a 50 broader discussion. I just don’t want to be silent and suggest that I don’t think that we could have this 51 change and it could be potentially something that the public wants. Not all of us feel that way. Maybe 52 this is something that we want to do, but it’s certainly more of a public policy discussion. That’s all I’m 53 going to say. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 38 Chair Tanaka: Ok. So it seems unanimous that this is definitely a Tier 2 and it seems like myself included 1 support Commissioner Downing’s point of view on this. 2 3 Ok, so let’s move on. We’re down to the final stretch guys. We have two pages left. Unfortunately 4 they’re the two hardest pages. They have five items each although the first one is Page 1, which is 5 administrative so maybe these are actually just typos and we could do this fast. So we have Item 1, 4, 5, 6 6, and 8. Item 1 was myself, Item 4 was Commissioner Michael, Item 5, 6, and 8 were Gardias. So can 7 staff help frame up? 8 9 Let me just do a time check. So it is 9:00. We all have been here for three hours and so we should take 10 a break or the other thing we could do is we could say well hey we did enough tonight and do the rest 11 next week or next in two weeks. What do you guys feel like doing? Adjourning? Ok, well there’s also 12 Page 4. There’s also Page 4 which has five items and this is an interpretation page. 13 14 Commissioner Alcheck: How about we revisit the question after we finish [unintelligible]. 15 16 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so [photo] is that we will maybe blast though page, this page and then we could look 17 at the mountain on Page 4 and decide whether we go for it or not. Do you guys want to do that? Do 18 you guys want to try and power through Page 1 now or should we take a break? Want to take a break? 19 Who else wants to take a break? Ok, we’re going to go through Page 1 and so staff why don’t you? 20 21 Mr. Lait: Thank you. So Number 1 is sort of a legacy issue of when the Development Services 22 Department and the Planning and Community Environment were together as one department and the 23 building official had the authority to make decisions on signs and fences and things like that. And so the 24 reality is the Building Official is not involved in those decisions. Those are all in the Planning Department 25 and so what we’re doing here is reflecting the actual decision authority as the Director of Planning and 26 Community Environment as opposed to the Building Official which is in Development Services. 27 28 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I’m the one who flagged that. I guess that makes sense. It was just I forgot why I 29 even flagged it. So let’s move oh, ok well does anyone disagree with this topic or anyone have questions 30 or comments on it? Otherwise let’s move on. Ok, Item 4. This was flagged by Commissioner Michael. 31 32 Mr. Lait: Thank you. So this is one where throughout the course of our business day to day we’re having 33 to make interpretations of the code and right now we don’t have a process for documenting that, sharing 34 that with the community, and giving people an opportunity who might be aggrieved with that 35 interpretation a process of appealing that and having it reviewed by an appeal body. So we do this 36 today. What we want to do is memorialize the decisions that we make and give people a chance to 37 appeal it to the Council. 38 39 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael it was your item. 40 41 Commissioner Michael: So that sounds very positive and I would support that. It would be nice to see 42 what the new provision and process would be at a subsequent meeting. 43 44 Mr. Lait: Great, something along the lines of 14 days, posted on the web, and all that kind of stuff. 45 46 Chair Tanaka: Ok, Commissioner Michael thinks, supports it. It’s a type one [Note-Tier 1]. Anyone that 47 disagrees hit your lights. Commissioner Alcheck. 48 49 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I have a little question here. I imagine that when an applicant comes 50 forward and they feel like they have a strong argument for the interpretation of their application in a 51 certain way and I’m suggesting on a single family home for example I’m, I like the idea that in theory 52 there’s an opportunity for them to sort of have an in depth discussion with Planning Staff as opposed to 53 Planning Staff saying look, this is our interpretation, you don’t like it, appeal. I don’t know that if we add 54 this we won’t have that that will eliminate this opportunity, but there’s a part of me that thinks that 55 today, today if how what would be the different result? An individual doesn’t agree with the 56 City of Palo Alto Page 39 determination that Planning Staff have made and they want to have a further debate or discussion about 1 it or they want to have a I mean what would be today’s situation? 2 3 Mr. Lait: So today let me start by saying the concern that you’re beginning to articulate I don’t think 4 would happen. We’re always working to solve problems and find solutions to make things work and that 5 applies across the board for the work that we’re doing. We try to be problem solvers. And where it 6 where we come into a disagreement about a particular policy right today you’re stuck with it. You’re 7 stuck with the Director’s interpretation or decision about how that policy gets implemented. And what 8 we’re suggesting then is that should you be aggrieved with that, should you have your conversations and 9 you get to an impasse we’re extending now the opportunity to continue to air your perspective on that 10 code interpretation to an appellate body where it can be heard and decided on in public forum. 11 12 Commissioner Alcheck: As opposed to what? 13 14 Mr. Lait: Well, again so (interrupted) 15 16 Commissioner Alcheck: Pursuing like legal remedies? 17 18 Mr. Lait: Yeah, if you think we’re (interrupted) 19 20 Commissioner Alcheck: I mean I only say this because our current leadership is exceptional in their effort 21 to work with applicants in my opinion. And I know other communities where they can’t boast that their, 22 that the leadership at their Planning Department is so available, let me put it that way, to have these 23 discussions. And so in a future where it’s I don’t want to create a situation where your only whatever 24 this is probably a broader discussion and we don’t need to have it today. And I won’t not support this as 25 a Tier 1 item, but it is something to think about because I don’t love the idea of if you don’t like it take it 26 across the street. We don’t have that today and I think that’s principally because our Planning Staff is, 27 has a very open door policy with applicants and for, but I don’t know. Ok. I don’t know what to say 28 about it except for I didn’t realize that from your perspective that they just walked away. I figured that 29 there was some other I mean, other meeting opportunity. 30 31 Mr. Lait: We will continue to meet and all we’re trying to do is create more transparency in the process. 32 33 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, alright. 34 35 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael. 36 37 Commissioner Michael: So I just wanted to add I wonder if this is an opportunity consider making a 38 recommendation to the City Council for a process in which the PTC would actually have some decision 39 making authority versus simply being a recommending body and that it would be appeal would be a one 40 step process to the Planning Commission and then there could be a further appeal if that decision was 41 not accepted. But if you have a process that is guaranteed to be a two-step process that may be less 42 efficient and there may be an opportunity here to inject more substance and responsibility into the duty 43 of the Planning Commission, which I think would be a good thing. 44 45 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so it seems like that, that I think in general we agree it’s a Tier 1 although there’s 46 some concern on this one from several Commissioners. Ok, so let’s go to Item 5. Item 5 was 47 Commissioner Gardias. 48 49 Mr. Lait: So this is one (interrupted) 50 51 Commissioner Gardias: We already addressed that. 52 53 Mr. Lait: Yes, we’ve already addressed it. 54 55 Chair Tanaka: So we’re going to table that one then. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 40 1 Mr. Lait: I’m sorry, we’re I don’t think we’re tabling it, right? We’re (interrupted) 2 3 Commissioner Alcheck: [Unintelligible-off mike] 4 5 Chair Tanaka: Well, that’s right. Yeah. [Unintelligible] I mean (interrupted) 6 7 Mr. Lait: [Unintelligible-talking over] 8 9 Chair Tanaka: We don’t need, ok. Six. 10 11 Mr. Lait: Item 6 is it’s you’ll know it when we see it. We’ll give you the code language as it reads. You’ll 12 see how we’re fixing it. It’s just adding more clarity to the sentence. We’re not changing anything 13 except for how the sentence reads and it’s kind of hard to talk about it in the abstract so we need to 14 come back to you with some what the language is. 15 16 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias (interrupted) 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: So the only reason that I flagged it is because it wasn’t clear to me. I totally 19 agree, right? It looks like just a cleanup, but when I was reading this it wasn’t clear to me what it means 20 that also references a new definition for substantial remodel. 21 22 Mr. Lait: Oh right, so substantial so we have a practice… what number was that one? 23 24 Ms. French: I put it on the screen [unintelligible-off mike]. 25 26 Mr. Lait: Ok, so we have a, we have a, so our code… Ok so I’ll answer your question that has to do with 27 substantial remodel, which is not about this issue. Ok? So this one is simply just fixing an awkward 28 sentence. Your other question (interrupted) 29 30 Commissioner Gardias: Ok, and I think, I think (interrupted) 31 32 Mr. Lait: There was another question about what substantial remodel means (interrupted) 33 34 Commissioner Gardias: No, I think that I already understand once this was displayed. 35 36 Mr. Lait: Ok, ok. Thank you. 37 38 Commissioner Gardias: So let’s move on unless there is some other question. 39 40 Chair Tanaka: Ok, I see no other lights so let’s move on to eight. Staff? 41 42 Mr. Lait: And so Item Number 8 is just expressly putting in the code an opportunity for the Director to 43 make a decision that this use classification that is not specifically identified in the zoning code is similar to 44 other types of use, uses that are identified and give the Director that express authority to bridge the gap 45 where our code is silent on a particular use. We do this today we just want to codify the practice. 46 47 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias this is yours. 48 49 Commissioner Gardias: Right, the reason that I ask about this because I understand that we’re talking 50 about the map designation. Is this correct? Because this is the section. 51 52 Ms. French: [Unintelligible-off mike]. 53 54 Mr. Lait: Yes. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 41 Commissioner Gardias: I knew this. Ok. 1 2 Mr. Lait: So permitted uses. 3 4 Commissioner Gardias: Ok. So that’s so I was just wondering if there was an example of the area that 5 may not have the designation that you could provide to us that would clarify this item. Where there 6 could be a disagreement was there [unintelligible] could you give an example of some disagreement? 7 8 Mr. Lait: So I’ll give you an example. I mean it may not have any basis on reality, but I’ll just give you an 9 example. 10 11 Commissioner Gardias: Well I mean I was just hoping for (interrupted) 12 13 Mr. Lait: It’s hypothetical. 14 15 Commissioner Gardias: local, you know. 16 17 Mr. Lait: So the land so the properties are designated. That’s not the question about where a property 18 might not be designated, but you may have a commercial zone that permits recreational uses and 19 somebody wants to put a bowling alley there. And maybe there’s some question as to well is bowling 20 alley recreation, is it social, is it a restaurant? There could be a dialogue about does it fit. And so all 21 we’re trying to do is say yeah, a bowling alley that’s pretty close, similar to recreation. There might be 22 some incidental uses, but yes that’s a similar and permitted use and being able to make that decision. 23 24 Commissioner Gardias: Right, but still the question was: was there anything concrete that triggered this? 25 26 Mr. Lait: No. Was there one? 27 28 Ms. French: There’s lots of examples. People walk in the counter they want to put a tutoring business. 29 Guess what? Our code doesn’t specifically state tutoring business anywhere because it’s a new thing, 30 relatively new. So how do we classify it? Well, it’s kind of like these personal services. We make the 31 call, ok? So we’re making a call, we’re doing it already. This is just talking about it and giving somebody 32 a venue to challenge that if we make the call that they don’t like. 33 34 Commissioner Gardias: Ok, so you’re going to pretty much come to us with you’re going to provide the 35 process for resolving those conflicts? 36 37 Ms. French: Disagreements. 38 39 Commissioner Gardias: Disagreements. Ok. 40 41 Commissioner Alcheck: I get it. 42 43 Commissioner Gardias: Right. 44 45 Chair Tanaka: So Commissioner Gardias what is your opinion? Do you support it? 46 47 Commissioner Gardias: No, I think that I understand. Once I will see the so I understand that [ones] 48 you’re going to put the total the language, right, we will see the details in there, right? 49 50 Mr. Lait: Ok. 51 52 Commissioner Gardias: That’s fine. 53 54 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so folks that disagree with Commissioner Gardias which is essentially what this says 55 here, hit your lights please. I think he supports he’s for this ordinance. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 42 1 Commissioner Gardias: Yep. 2 3 Chair Tanaka: This change. 4 5 Ms. French: [Unintelligible] ok. 6 7 Chair Tanaka: Number 8. So if you disagree [see it] Commissioner Alcheck. 8 9 Commissioner Alcheck: So I’ll just retract the previous one that I was because I couldn’t foresee an… in 10 our effort here it’s the idea is to takeaway things that are ambiguous so that we eliminate interpretational 11 opportunities and this is a really good example of something that I didn’t quite so I retract my previous 12 problem with the process for reviewing an interpretation because I didn’t really appreciate what sorts of 13 interpretations they would make. 14 15 Chair Tanaka: Are you referring to Item 6 or? 16 17 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I just want to clarify that. 18 19 Chair Tanaka: Ok, ok, ok. 20 21 Commissioner Alcheck: Just in case that was a… 22 23 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Ok, does anyone have anything for Item 8? 24 25 Ms. French: We were just on 8, right? 26 27 Chair Tanaka: I know, I know. So I just wanted to close that out. Actually I had a concern which is just 28 that I understand what staff’s saying and in general I actually support it, but it’s actually kind of a, a 29 rather in my mind a rather big change. It doesn’t seem like a type one or Tier 1 type change. It seems 30 to me more of a Tier 2 because it’s, it’s actually a very substantial, it could be a very substantial issue. 31 So that’s my opinion. I don’t want to spend too much time on it because we are, we are actually 32 Commissioner Michael. 33 34 Commissioner Michael: I mean I would tend to support this being as a Tier 1 item; however, one of the 35 things that I think would be of benefit to the public and maybe enhance the credibility of the work that 36 the staff does is when the interpretation is made that it somehow be published because just in this 37 course of this discussion I’m getting lots of new learning about what goes on and of things that aren’t 38 necessarily things that I would be able to research easily in the code. So if there’s a process by which 39 the lore and the legacy of this ongoing interpretive process be made more transparent I think that would 40 be beneficial to the Palo Alto process. 41 42 Mr. Lait: Alright, thank you. That’s the intent and if you look at number Item Number 4 under change 43 description, the last sentence we speak to that very point which would transcend to Number 8. 44 45 MOTION 46 47 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I think the majority supports Number 8. Ok guys we’re at the time now it’s 8, 9:18 48 and we have to make a decision. We have Page 4, which is I’m sorry, not Page yeah it is, Page 4. 49 There’s five items on that. I am I did take a quick peek at this. I do think these are substantial 50 discussion items. I don’t think that I personally think all these are Tier 2, but I think you guys might 51 differ in opinion. We could try to power through it or we could say well look, if we tried to go through 52 these we’re probably here another hour which would take us to about maybe 10:30 or more perhaps. 53 And so my proposal is I think we did pretty good. I think staff actually has a lot of homework to do 54 already over the next couple of weeks and we could take this again on, on the 28th. So… 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 43 SECOND 1 2 Commissioner Rosenblum: Second. 3 4 VOTE 5 6 Chair Tanaka: Ok. All in favor, raise your hand. Ok, all not in favor raise your hand. Ok. So majority, 7 majority says we do the rest later. Ok. So ok, ok great. 8 9 MOTION PASSED (____________, Vice-Chair Fine absent) 10 11 Mr. Lait: The next meeting is. 12 13 Chair Tanaka: Ok, great. Ok so, so we can close Item 2. 14 15 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Verbatim Minutes 2 September 9, 2015 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 Study Session7 Zoning Code “Omnibus”: Study session to discuss First Annual "Omnibus" ordinance of changes to the8 Zoning Code and related Municipal Code chapters. For more information, contact Amy French at9 Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org10 11 Acting Chair Fine: Let’s do it? Ok. Item Number 5, anybody need a break?12 13 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: At least I don’t have to plug anything in this time.14 15 Acting Chair Fine: Ok, let’s just do it. So our next item is Item Number 5, Zoning Code Omnibus, which is16 a study session, essentially staff is bringing us an omnibus of ordinance changes to the Zoning Code or17 the Municipal Code chapters if I understood it some of these are about issues of interpretation such as18 what was an average, cleaning up a few new policies, and then also fixing some references and typos.19 Amy are you presenting this one?20 21 Ms. French: Yes, I am. As you may note on the first slide here the word omnibus has fallen off. We are22 now calling it (interrupted)23 24 Acting Chair Fine: Oh.25 26 Ms. French: That’s all right; we did put an ad in the paper calling it that. There’s a story there. So this is27 now we’re referring to this as the first annual Planning Code Update. I say Planning Code because it’s28 chapter Title 18 which is actually Zoning and we also are bringing forward Title 16 Building Codes where29 they intersect with Planning. Oops, what happened? That’s the last slide. You’ll see I still have the30 image of a bus.31 32 So wanted to give a little bit of a background we’ve been collecting some suggestions from Council33 Members and staff. We’re operating under a tier one, tier two format. We’re phasing. With the tier one34 items coming forward again to you this year, two tier we’ll discuss later on. We are targeting a Policy35 and Services meeting on October 13th so leading up to that we’re hoping to come back to you, targeting36 coming back to you on September 30th with an actual ordinance annotated and a matrix that we’ve been37 working on to kind of describe why we’re doing some of these changes, what we’re hoping to fix. And38 then we have an option to come back again in October after we’ve done a little bit more massaging and39 then hoping to get to the Council by the end of the year.40 41 So we have some goals. We would like to improve the entitlement zoning compliance processes, the flex42 city codes, city policies and practices. We would like to make noncontroversial changes this year so43 many of these are typos, references to chapters that are no longer in that location and now a different44 chapter. We want to improve clarity and other administrative changes. And maybe anticipate that we45 may need to remove some controversial items if we do get some pushback from the public. So we want46 to recalibrate code sections, look at our long time interpretations to support customer service, review47 code sections that we publish online. We do want to address the input we’ve received from Council48 Members, have those conversations, and then we would like to explain some of our way that we’re doing49 this so we would like to call these different categories again administrative, clarification, interpretation,50 and new policy. I will give you some examples of those tonight.51 52 Some administrative change as I mentioned typos, correcting chapter section references, and eliminating53 duplications. We have some clean ups. It’s silly the zoning index table of contents doesn’t include the54 2 hospital district, which is a fairly new chapter. Other items are on the screen here, clean up items really, 1 discrepancies in the code that compete with each other. 2 3 Some clarifications where we have in mind is again to those building codes that intersect with Planning, 4 signs being one of them. The first Chief Building Official, well the Planning Director and designee are 5 engaged in the process of reviewing signs, taking them to the Architectural Review Board (ARB). We 6 also have some, some clarifications to how we look at wall signs, projecting signs, and so we think just 7 strategically or surgically going in touching those two areas of the sign code will be helpful to us. We do 8 process quite a few sign exceptions to get around the awkwardness of the code. 9 10 The fences also the first Chief Building Official and new building permits are issued for standard single 11 family residential fences. When we do have non-residential or multi-family projects those generally are 12 looked at by the ARB and generally those are also six feet. Most of those don’t require building permits. 13 14 Here’s just a list of interpretation items that we’ve identified. There’re a number of definitions. 15 Contextual garage and carport placement, basements under footprints, the home improvement exception 16 is what that stands for, eligibility which is set in the code at 75 percent of the walls retained as exterior 17 walls not being subsumed into an addition in order to be eligible for those additional 100 square feet (sf) 18 or what have you, preserving a nonconforming feature perhaps. In the multi-family zones we want to 19 clarify that there is no minimum density set forth in the code. There’s generally a range there. There’s 20 the seismic bonus concern and that’s basically Downtown where we have the ability to rehab a building 21 and then there’s a bonus to be had that can either be used onsite or transferred off the site, purchased 22 by an interested buyer. We’ve had concerns that buildings have been demolished and then bonuses used 23 onsite rather than the intent perhaps of rehabbing the seismic building in place and adding to it or 24 transferring off. There’s the grandfathered facility and this came up during the 261 Hamilton project 25 across the street, University Arts, where the concern about a grandfathered facility not being able to 26 change its footprint. In the case of that project it was going from the basement to above grade. We 27 think there’s a good case to be made for allowing some modifications above grade to above grade to 28 increase pedestrian friendliness, articulation, these kinds of things, massing, to approve a building and its 29 interaction with the pedestrians. 30 31 Here’s just an example of an interpretation where we could note that a breakroom is basically not a 32 cafeteria. So this is outside the Downtown. People have said this breakroom is helping reduce trips and 33 so we’re not going to count it as floor area, we’re not going to park it. So that’s an idea that has some 34 legs and it does refer to dry cleaners, maybe onsite laundry facilities is more apt in today’s laundry world. 35 36 Some new policy items have a list here so one of those is interpretations and use classifications. This 37 would basically allow in the code the Director to make qualitative decisions regarding what type of uses 38 since it’s not listed, but it’s like these and therefore as far as use classifications as far as interpretations 39 gee, what is a contextual setback in this case and would be an example. Those could be set forth the 40 arithmetic mean or whatever in a formal written interpretation that could be basically appealed up 41 through Planning Commission and Council. Gives people a due process over a determination. 42 43 New definitions so again, just a couple of examples; back to this concept of amenities for employees on 44 site. What are we after here? And then substantial remodel, we get into this what percentage are we 45 retaining this kind of thing and how can we approve that in the code? Revising the gross foot area 46 inclusions and exclusions both for commercial and residential, there are some areas that could be 47 improved there. Came up tonight, delete the fee for single-story overlays. That’s in there. Noise 48 equipment is another area where we feel that that could be improved. There was an ordinance passed 49 to be quite restrictive these days and quiet equipment is to be had and so we want to look at that, could 50 we add some flexibility? Large second floor decks that are not having to go through the IR process that 51 might cause privacy concerns we have that on the list. Residential density bonus I’m just going to go 52 through these little quicker. Some of this relates to the Housing Element, extending the term from 30 to 53 55 years, office use restrictions, there’s site and design review, there’s quite a few here that we’re going 54 to be taking a look at. On the ARB findings we just met with the ARB on September 3rd and had a good 55 3 conversation there about findings. On California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provisions we do look 1 forward to having a code chapter on CEQA provisions, we could do a curved path. 2 3 And then I’ll just focus on the appeals and hearing requests. I visited with the Policy and Services 4 Commission, Committee of the Council a week or so ago and there was a discussion about reducing the 5 votes from four votes to three votes for individual reviews and home improvement exception appeals to 6 be consistent with the other vote of three threshold for other types of appeals such as ARB. And then 7 also looking at reducing the options there are three options now. It gets a little confusing so if they pull 8 it, schedule a hearing, and then looking at reducing the appeal fee when there’s support, verifiable 9 support. Here’s another example of process items; we’re looking to increase from 30 days to 45 days to 10 get reports prepared and reviewed, and 30 days is a little fast these days for us given the volume of work 11 and also the 5 day turnaround on decisions is too few days. 12 13 So here’s the process. Again we did visit with ARB. Tonight we’re talking a bit about this. We’d love to 14 hear some feedback on your initial thoughts and we’re visiting with you again on September 30th. And 15 Jonathan did you want to expand on that? 16 17 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Yes, so just a, so there’s really not a whole lot here for the Commission 18 to react to. We’re not presenting any ordinance for you this is really just a head’s up that something’s 19 coming. And the list that we presented there’s some of these items that were presented to you there’s 20 greater certainty in our mind moving forward than others and so this is I would qualify this as a tentative 21 list that we’re working on that we’re going to be presenting to you. We’re still we’re working on the 22 details. And again if something the intent here is not to create any substantial new policy, but introduce 23 to policy where the code is doesn’t provide enough guidance or to address a recurring problem we’re 24 seeing, not to do a whole sea change of policy and if we do present some code amendments where it is 25 generating a lot of conversation or concern we’re just going to simply put that one aside, it goes off the 26 list, we’ll come back to it next year, and the idea is to move the ones forward that are pretty 27 straightforward and not controversial. 28 29 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you so much. I don’t see any speakers from the public so let’s turn it over to 30 the Commission questions and comments. I think we can do this quickly, Commissioner Gardias I think 31 you’re the first up. 32 33 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you very much. It’s a simple question, from the sequence perspective I 34 mean I understand cleanup is a simple thing to do, but knowing that we will be just going through the 35 planning process there may be more changes. They will result of course with changes in the code 36 ultimately I presume and then we’re going to get to the cleanup mode again. So I’m just asking why we 37 are doing this when we will be doing this again. 38 39 Mr. Lait: I don’t think anything that we’re doing here would have a, it doesn’t rise to that same level of 40 Comp Plan policy conflict or concern. What we’re really doing here is trying to improve clarity to get rid 41 of outmoded or inaccurate references in the code. Where we are introducing ideas of new policy it’s I’ll 42 just one that Amy had highlighted was the idea of substantial remodels. So we have a number of single 43 family homes that our codes do not provide sufficient guidance’s to how much remodeling can take place 44 before it’s considered new construction. And all we want and we have a practice that we’ve been using 45 and what we want to do is codify that practice. So when we talk about new policy that’s what we’re 46 really talking about is codifying our practice as opposed to now you can do something more than couldn’t 47 have done before. 48 49 Commissioner Gardias: Right. I totally understand this. But anyway I was just giving you the priorities. 50 I mean knowing that if we’re going to work on the Comp Plan there will be a number of other 51 modifications to the code and I’m assume that there’s just we’ll just resolve many other changes so just 52 from the perspective of just loading us with this, with this item although I know that this will be maybe 53 clean from your perspective to pass, because those are clean up items. But if we’re going to do this 54 again in a year and a half, and this has to lead to something else. That’s the (interrupted) 55 56 4 Mr. Lait: Well and I (interrupted) 1 2 Commissioner Gardias: That’s the question. 3 4 Mr. Lait: And I would say that the value is in the daily interactions that staff has with the homeowners, 5 architects, business community so that we can provide more certainty and clarity as to how the existing 6 codes are today or how they ought to be and how that might apply to their particular issue or project. I 7 mean the Comprehensive Plan is going to continue for a bit longer and then once that does get adopted 8 there’s the implementation phase which does result in code changes. So we’re looking at that, that 9 horizon is a little more longer term than where we are today and we’re dealing with this on a daily basis 10 the issues that we’re talking about. So I think it just creates a better sense of predictability and 11 accountability that people will feel more comfortable with. 12 13 Ms. French: And I would just add to that that it’s the first annual omnibus so we’re anticipating not a year 14 and a half, but (interrupted) 15 16 Commissioner Gardias: It’s going to be ambitious. 17 18 Ms. French: It may be less than a year (interrupted) 19 20 Mr. Lait: It’s ambitious, but I think it’s worthwhile because the Zoning Code hasn’t been updated in a 21 while and we’re not looking to do a full scale update. I think those efforts are challenging so we’re going 22 to see what we can do to make some progress while we’re able to do so. 23 24 Acting Chair Fine: Commissioner, Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum. 25 26 Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum: I think this is a good idea. I think it’s a good idea to do it regularly so it 27 makes sense. It’ll reduce your burden and make things clearer. 28 29 Two quick things; in the area of typos and obvious the position of Chief Builder has been eliminated since 30 1880 and now it’s called something else does that have to go in front of us or Council or anyone? Can’t 31 that just be changed so I would love for us to spend time on probably the balancing test on whether or 32 not the other things being changed are rise to the level of probably that needs to be part of the Comp 33 Plan it’s a bigger thing versus this is obvious we’ve been doing it, this just gets codified. That to me is a 34 good discussion. A less good discussion is typo by typo do we change this word? This word somehow 35 got omitted and I would think that this is a question for the lawyers I guess that staff has the ability to fix 36 obvious typos. 37 38 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: I am going to have to look into that. Cara Silver, Senior 39 Assistant City Attorney. So there is some flexibility on the part of staff to work with our Municipal Code 40 Codifier to fix clear typographical types of issues. However, changing titles from Planning Director to 41 Chief Building Official that is really a giving something else an additional statutory duty so that type of 42 change would not be entertained by the Codifier. So we’ll certainly use our judgement. The typos that 43 we’re suggesting are going to be in the areas where we think we don’t have the flexibility to do that at a 44 staff level and we will group them I don’t think there needs to be a large discussion about those things 45 and it would be great if you all could just focus your attention on the non-typographical issues. 46 47 Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum: And so then my second thing is a request. So when this in the schedule of 48 ruling this out comes back there’s some line that you cross over that line and it’s a big deal and below 49 that line it’s not such a big deal and we should just do it as part of the omnibus or part of the annual 50 review process. So above, over the line I would say are things like parking minimums. That’s a 51 controversial item. I have a viewpoint on it and it probably will be addressed in the Comp Plan. And 52 there are other items that seem less controversial. I think it would be really is the list of all items 53 considered and where you drew the line. So this is approximately where people are fairly accepting and 54 these are things we expect will be part of the Comp Plan because one of the things I could see us is say 55 well, why don’t we consider this or shouldn’t this be in? I think that would be a really helpful thing 56 5 instead of I know that you’re just giving examples of a couple of things that would be in or out or in in 1 this case, but I think it would be really helpful for all of us to have a superset and then some idea of the 2 things you’re asking us to consider and then some things that will likely be part of the Comp Plan 3 discussion. So that’s my request in terms of moving this forward. 4 5 Mr. Lait: Thank you for that comment. And that’s actually what we had intended to do although in your 6 analogy our above the line are, is the easy stuff and the below the line’s is more complex items, so we 7 call that tier one and tier two and so what Amy presented tonight was sort of the tier one and some of 8 those maybe fall down into tier two, but it is our intent to present that complete list. And you’ll see 9 something for instance like we heard a lot about single or about second units tonight. We think there’s a 10 policy discussion that needs to take place with respect to second units, but that’s going to be more 11 controversial then so that’s when you’ll see that kind of tiered principle. 12 13 Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum: So as personal input if you’re looking for feedback about whether or not 14 you’ve calibrated tier one and tier two correctly there’s nothing on the list that gave me any alarms. It 15 looks like about the right level of stuff. It’s a, it seems clarifying, fairly noncontroversial, but frequent 16 enough to come up that it’s worth our while to actually fix. 17 18 Acting Chair Fine: Commissioner Alcheck. 19 20 Commissioner Alcheck: I had a quick question. What are DU’s? You refer to DU’s, minimum DU’s. 21 22 Ms. French: Dwelling Units (DU). 23 24 Commissioner Alcheck: Does the so this list tonight was long. The items that are under new policy items 25 would you consider those tier two? 26 27 Ms. French: No. Everything in the PowerPoint tonight is in our tier one list at the moment, but we 28 welcome your (interrupted) 29 30 Commissioner Alcheck: Alright, I mean I don’t want to get too specific tonight. I don’t think that’s what 31 you’re looking for and I say that to mean that I don’t really want to debate the items or why they are 32 complex, but I would suggest that some of the new policy items I would like to have an opportunity to 33 discuss in greater length. Minimum DU’s in new mixed-use units for example stuck out. 34 35 I’m not exactly familiar with the office use restrictions loophole is. Loopholes in general I think 36 sometimes using the term loophole suggests that the way staff is interpreting something is different or I 37 should say it like this: loophole suggests that the way something is possible now wasn’t intentional and I 38 don’t love that because if it wasn’t intentional it depends if it was a misspelling that’s one thing, but I 39 think sometimes we don’t always I think other I think different people can look at some of the same thing 40 and think you know what, there are reasons why this should be interpreted in this way because it lends 41 itself to these opportunities. There are reasons why it should be interpreted this way. It lends itself to 42 those opportunities and you close a loophole someone might feel like you’ve made a decision that 43 opportunity wasn’t intentional and so I’m just I don’t know what the office use restrictions loophole is. It 44 might be really like innocuous, but some of these new policy items I think would I don’t know I would 45 suggest maybe they are tier two. Maybe they deserve a little bit more interpretation. 46 47 Look in general I love the idea of us making this easier so this notion of noise equipment the only one 48 that stuck out to me is I mean there are some, delete the fee, but the noise equipment low density R-1 49 zones that’s great because that suggests that the concerns that we had are being improved by 50 technology maybe we should be a little less strict, more lenient on the placement of noise producing 51 equipment. I like that because our community’s zoning is really specific like I have a little bit of 52 experience with building codes and we have a book that is I’ve never met a contractor or builder that 53 didn’t say wow, Palo Alto’s really got the book on books. So in all seriousness it’s like this thick. It’s 54 really specific and I just like I like the idea of us evaluating to make sure that well all the things that 55 6 we’re requiring are still relevant. So in that regard I’m happy to see that in the new policy items and 1 maybe that one isn’t necessarily controversial. 2 3 In doing a touch upon the interpretation section I feel like it’s there’s this like notion that people who 4 rehabilitate homes and they keep some existing walls are somehow like it’s like perverse that they got 5 away with something because they kept a couple of walls and I my assumption here is that we’re trying 6 to make it harder to get away with something. I think that will affect a lot of people and I wonder if that 7 would rise to the level of “controversial.” 8 9 And then again I don’t want to get too specific, but the contextual garage carport placement today we 10 talked about contextual setbacks. I don’t want to get too specific, but this particular provision in the 11 code I think incentivizes a very dated design element and I’d be curious to know what the rewrite looked 12 like obviously. And I also think that we are going to experience a tremendous, like tremendous change in 13 the way people experience car ownership in the next 15 years and the houses that are going to get built 14 in the next 15 years will be built for 60 years and this garage placement provision has actually really 15 significant impacts on the way people layout their homes and it causes them to make decisions about 16 how to… anyways it’s complicated. I just want to suggest that that might be a tier two item because I 17 actually do think that there’s a real question as to what are we incentivizing with that, with that specific 18 policy and I think we owe it to ourselves to have that discussion. 19 20 So finally I want to just respond to that last statement which is I actually think this is great that we’re 21 doing this all the time. I think that this should definitely be annual because when we provide clarity we 22 make it easier on all the parties involved. And so I actually welcome the idea of this happening as often 23 as possible. I don’t think it has to be a very convoluted process. 24 25 Acting Chair Fine: Commissioner Gardias. 26 27 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you. So the reason I spoke about this because I think it just takes our 28 attention off the grand prize and doesn’t use our and your time or schedule properly. And of course I’m 29 proponent of any cleanup, but there is a knowing how costly the Palo Alto Municipal Code is to design or 30 plan a building. If you see it from the planners and if you see it from the perspective of the customers 31 they pretty much spend thousands or ten thousands of dollars for any modifications, changes. Then 32 pretty much you would appreciate that change in the code should be going to make their life easier in 33 interpretation and making this clear and making this readable and pretty much just making their life 34 easier so pretty much they can focus truly on just designing great public spaces, great streets, and great 35 houses for themselves as opposed to just spending their time just interpretation of the, of this what we 36 write. 37 38 So I’m sorry for making this comment, but I think that of course we will help staff with any intention, but 39 I think that just listening to what my colleague just said any of this of this items will open can of worms 40 and pretty much will engage the Commission on just discussing items. And I can just add I would just I 41 had to make myself a list of a few items that I could add to this and I could just make others and 42 probably would be very long list and each one of my colleagues probably would add to this list and we 43 would end up with just pretty much just opening restructuring of the code totally while we are in the 44 beginning of just looking into the Comprehensive Plan. So my suggestion would be rather with full 45 respect to this plan to rather just focus us on the planning items, just put this in the proper perspective. 46 Thank you. 47 48 Mr. Lait: So if I could just make a couple of comments to so thank you for all the remarks. We’re in 49 accord with you on your where you’re coming from and where this gets placed in the scheme of things. 50 And I don’t think we’re taking our attention off the grand prize principally because Amy and myself are 51 not engaged in the Comprehensive Plan the way that Hillary and Jeremy and other people in the 52 Department are focused in on that effort. So we do have dedicated staff that’s focusing in with our 53 consultants and the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) and there’s a whole effort underway and the other 54 resources that we have at the Department is focusing in on processing those applications that you 55 mentioned. 56 7 1 And part of our job, my job and working with Amy is to find opportunities to streamline and make it 2 easier for customers and staff to get through the process because it is an old code. It hasn’t been 3 updated in a while and I think some of the controversies that we have seen have generated because of 4 lack of clarity and interpretation over years of how the code has been used. And so when we’re seeing 5 that kind of discourse taking place in the community and we look at the code and we see that this isn’t 6 helping us I think that there is this need to address some of the problems. So in many respects I think 7 it’s focusing our attention where it needs to be placed on the critical issues that are affecting residents 8 and neighborhoods where there’s these conflicts of code interpretation and how that’s taken place. 9 10 We welcome additional items to be added to the list. We want to hear what else needs to be added and 11 part of the reason why we’re making this an annual event is if we don’t capture it this year we’ll tackle it 12 next year. And piece by piece slowly but surely we’ll be able to have this be more of a living document. 13 There’s not enough here for the Commission to respond to right now. So you will see the language, you 14 will see the actual strikeout underlined text being added there. You’re absolutely right that there is there 15 are some items that will drop off into tier two and that’s we’re ok with that. We’re not saying that this all 16 has to be tier one. If contextual garage placement is an issue ok, let’s table it and we’ll have another 17 conversation about it when the time comes. 18 19 There was just one other… thank you for the comment about loophole. We’ll take a look at that and 20 make sure that the terminology that we’re using is not suggestive or something like that. It’s a fair 21 comment. The comment about the minimum DU’s that’s more of a reflection of existing policy, but I can 22 understand how that might evolve into a conversation. 23 24 Two more, two more comments. The we spend a lot of time at on at the staff level having planners 25 talking to each other first one on one then groups and there’s this conversation taking place about how 26 to interpret it if you go to code section to a particular project. And that consumes a lot of our staff 27 resources, it delays the applicant, it would be much better if we can have clarity in our regulations. And 28 this doesn’t solve all the problems, but it starts the ball rolling so that we’re not having those, we’re not 29 extending the planner view process by dialogue. And also in the case of substantial remodels and there 30 is no effort underway to make that more difficult and we’re not looking at this as people are getting away 31 from something. What we’re trying to do is establish a very clear line as to what is a substantial remodel 32 and what is not so that we’re not having to place a stop work order on somebody’s new home that 33 they’re trying to remodel and then have that protracted conversation about did you cross the line or not 34 when there isn’t sufficient guidance in the code to do that. So all we’re trying to do is make sure that 35 everybody understands what the playing field is and that way everybody operates or plays accordingly. 36 37 Ms. French: Can I note something about the substantial remodel? That that is particular to noncomplying 38 facilities. 39 40 Mr. Lait: Yeah. 41 42 Ms. French: So I mean I think the goal is again not to say the word loophole, but there’s this somebody 43 already has something vested basically in the building that crosses over a property line that has more 44 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) than you could get if you built it today. So it’s kind of trying to dial that in to 45 something that can be explained very well. 46 47 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m not familiar with (interrupted) 48 49 Mr. Lait: Right. And just a last comment. I wanted to appreciate the comment about the noise 50 equipment because we’re not we’re looking at typos and clarifications, but we’re trying to figure out how 51 are people getting… are we asking for something that’s not reasonable or doesn’t make sense? And so 52 you’ve got a lot of equipment in side yards that is existing that predates our code because now you can’t 53 put any air conditioning (AC) unit in a side yard and it’s the old systems and they’re 15 years old or 20 54 years old and they’re humming pretty loudly and all somebody wants to do is replace that with a new 55 quieter system that complies with our noise ordinance. And so the idea here is well if we told somebody 56 8 they couldn’t do that they’re probably not going to come to the City and pull a permit and get it done 1 right and not have the inspections that go along with it. So we’re discouraging people from doing the 2 right thing by having this prohibition. So we’re trying to recognize that and say yeah, that’s fine, if you 3 want to put in, if you want to replace your equipment, great. Pull your permit and let’s get it inspected 4 and let’s make sure it’s compliant with the noise ordinance and what should be the harm in that? So 5 those are the kinds of things we’re doing. 6 7 Acting Chair Fine: Commissioner Michael. 8 9 Commissioner Michael: I don’t really have any comments on the particular items that you’ve got 10 enumerated in your presentation made tonight, but I do think that there’s just a couple of comments that 11 might be made about process improvement relative to how the staff and the Planning Commission could 12 work together on something as important as this. In the materials that were distributed online, we’re not 13 getting hardcopy anymore and we didn’t, we didn’t get this material. It was three page so, so that 14 inherently forces us to react on the fly here with some lack of background or further analysis. So it sort 15 of it renders our feedback to you very superficial. So that is a process defect that I would really 16 encourage you to consider leading with the background information which may be more work for 17 Commissioners, but at least we would have a deeper, better understanding of what you’re points you’re 18 making when you make them and when you get to the next point in the analysis. 19 20 So it also impairs the validity of when you come back for our final approval because you don’t get the 21 backing material until the end of the process when we should have gotten the background material in the 22 beginning of the process. So that is a to me a significant defect and the quality of the deliberations of 23 the Commission and you might want to think about what the proper sequencing of that of giving 24 information to the Commission might look like. 25 26 And I know that of late there’s been a huge disincentive for the Planning Commission to constitute any 27 subcommittees. That was not the case when I joined the Commission four years ago. A lot of work was 28 done in subcommittee format. I think this might be an area where if you wanted meaningful interaction 29 with the Planning Commission a subcommittee, a standing subcommittee would be particularly 30 instrumental because this looks like it’s a very important process to make Palo Alto more resident friendly 31 and easier to do business with and reduce any costs that don’t add value to the process or time delays. 32 So I think there’s sort of a disconnect between just the huge amount of time that staff spends on these 33 very important questions and in fact that you’re not really getting a meaningful interaction with the 34 Planning Commission to provide you any assistance. So. 35 36 Mr. Lait: And just a quick comment on that. We weren’t looking for a substantive comment at all and I 37 appreciate your comments and as I noted to Chair Fine, Acting Chair Fine we’re kind of working through 38 some of these issues now. And so we thought it would just be helpful to introduce the concepts so that 39 when September 30th when we come back you had an understanding and that’s when your deliberation 40 clock starts. It doesn’t start today because you had nothing to look at. It’ll start on the 30th and then 41 you have this as just the background to that. 42 43 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you. I think we’re going to wrap this up. Just my quick comments; I would 44 encourage all of the Commissioners to email comments and questions before we come to our next 45 meeting. So it would be really helpful if we can get the ordinance if not the staff report early just so we 46 can all look it over and go through those things, even if it’s just the ordinance. And then I’d also 47 encourage staff to push items that will save the City time, money, and staff time. With that I think we 48 can close this item. All good? 49 50 Commission Action: Commission took no action, provided comment and suggestions. 51 ATTACHMENT E 1 THESE ITEMS WERE REMOVED BY THE PTC ON 10/28/15 FROM DRAFT ORDINANCE ALSO INCLUDES THREE ITEMS STAFF INTRODUCED ON 10/28/15 Tier 2 Matrix Items Proposed Code Language 1. CHAPTER 18.04 CHANGES (TIER 2 MATRIX #3). Section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) is added to read as follows: 18.04.030 Definitions (a) Throughout this title the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed in this section. . . . (11.5) “Amenity, on-site for employees” means a desirable and useful feature or facility of a building or place of work that provides space for an ancillary use to the building’s primary use, and allows employees to remain at work to handle personal matters, rather than leave the workplace. Such features when used in the context of this Title will generally reduce employee vehicle use. . . . (57.5) "Footprint" means the two-dimensional configuration of a building's perimeter boundaries (exterior walls) as measured on a horizontal plane at ground level. (TIER 2 MATRIX #4) . . . (65) "Gross floor area" is defined as follows: . . . (A) Non-residential & Multifamily Inclusions: For all zoning districts other than the R-E, R-1, R-2 and RMD residence districts, "gross floor area" means the total area of all floors of a building measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls, and including all of the following: (viii) Rooftop eating and drinking uses; (TIER 2 MATRIX #5) and (viii) (ix) In residential districts other than the R-E, R-1, R-2 and RMD residence districts, all roofed porches, arcades, balconies, porticos, breezeways or similar features when located above the ground floor and substantially enclosed by exterior walls. (See Section 6 for rooftop restaurant policy change) (B) Non-residential & Multifamily Exclusions: For all zoning districts other than the R-E, R- 1, R-2 and RMD residence districts, "gross floor area" shall not include the following: . . . (v) In commercial and industrial districts except in the CD District and in areas designated as special study areas, additions of floor area designed and used solely for on-site employee amenities for employees of the facility, approved by the director of planning and community environment, upon the determination that such additions will facilitate the reduction of ATTACHMENT E 2 employee vehicle use. Such additions may include, but are not limited to, recreational facilities, credit unions, cafeterias (excluding break rooms), (TIER 2 MATRIX #6) day care centers, automated teller machines, convenience stores, and on-site laundry facilities. 2. CHAPTER 18.12 CHANGES (TIER 2 MATRIX #11, #15 and #16). Sections 18.12.040 (Site Development Standards), 18.12.110 (Single Family Individual Review) and 18.12.120 (Home Improvement Exception) of Chapter 18.12 (R-1 Single- Family Residential District) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC are amended to read as follows: 18.12.040 Site Development Standards … (f) Contextual Garage and Carport Placement (TIER 2 MATRIX #11) If the predominant neighborhood pattern is of garages or carports located within the rear half of the site, or with no garage or carport present, attached garages or carports shall be located in the rear half of the house footprint and detached garages shall be located in the rear half of the site. Otherwise, an attached garage or carport may be located in the front half of the house footprint. "Predominant neighborhood pattern" means the existing garage placement pattern for more than half of the houses on the same side of the block, including the subject site. This calculation shall exclude flag lots, corner lots and existing multifamily developments of three or more units. For blocks longer than 600 feet, the calculations shall be based on the no more than 10 homes located nearest to and on the same side of the block as the subject property, plus the subject site, but and for a distance no greater than 600 feet. Detached garages or carports shall be located in the rear half of the site and, if within a rear or side setback, located at least 75 feet from the front property line. Detached garages or carports on lots of less than 95 feet in depth, however, may be placed in a required interior side or rear yard if located in the rear half of the lot. Access shall be provided from a rear alley if the existing development pattern provides for alley access. For the calculation of corner lots, the "predominant pattern" shall be established for the street where the new garage or carport fronts. . . . 18.12.110 Single Family Individual Review (TIER 2 MATRIX #16) . . . (b) Applicability The provisions of this Section 18.12.110 apply to the construction of a new singly developed two-story structure; the construction of a new second story; or the expansion of an existing second story, including balconies and similar outdoor areas above the first floor, by more than 150 square feet in the R-1 single family residential district. All second-story additions on a site after November 19, 2001 shall be included in calculating whether an addition is over 150 square feet. . . . 18.12.120 Home Improvement Exception (TIER 2 MATRIX #17) … (d) Findings ATTACHMENT E 3 Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a home improvement exception unless it is found that: (1) The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style, neighborhood character, protected tree or other significant tree, or of a residence that is designated on the city's Historic Inventory as a Category 1 or Category 2 historic structure, or any contributing structure within a locally designated historic district, which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of the regulations; (2) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; (3) The exception is being granted based on characteristics of and improvements on the property, rather than the personal circumstances of the applicant, and is the minimum exception necessary for the project to fulfill the purposes of subsection (a). (4) No prior Home Improvement Exception was granted for an alteration to the building and no prior addition to the building was constructed within the previous five year period. (TIER 2 MATRIX #17) . . . 3. CHAPTER 18.18 CHANGES (TIER 2 MATRIX #26). Section 18.18.070 (Floor Area Bonuses) of Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial CD District) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended to read as follows: 18.18.070 Floor Area Bonuses (TIER 2 MATRIX #26) . . . (b) Restrictions on Floor Area Bonuses The floor area bonuses in subsection (a) shall be subject to the following restrictions: (1) All bonus square footage shall be counted as square footage for the purposes of the 350,000 square foot limit on development specified in Section 18.18.040. (2) All bonus square footage shall be counted as square footage for the purposes of the project size limit specified in Section 18.18.060 (a). (3) In no event shall a building expand beyond a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:1 in the CD-S or CD-N subdistrict. (4) The bonus shall be allowed on a site only once. (5) For sites in Seismic Category I, II, or III, seismic rehabilitation shall conform to the analysis standards referenced in Chapter 16.42 of this code. To qualify for a bonus under this section the building shall be rehabilitated and not demolished., and the existing building shall be retained. ATTACHMENT E 4 (6) For sites in Historic Category 1 or 2, historic rehabilitation shall conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (36 CFR §67,7). . . . 4. CHAPTER 18.23 CHANGE. Section 18.23.050 (Visual, Screening and Landscaping) of Chapter 18.23 Performance Criteria for Multiple Family, Commercial, Manufacturing and Planned Community Districts is amended as follows: (TIER 2 MATRIX #29) . . . (B) Requirements (i) Walls facing residential properties shall incorporate architectural design features and landscaping in order to reduce apparent mass and bulk. (ii) Loading docks and exterior storage of materials or equipment shall be screened from view from residential properties by fencing, walls or landscape buffers. (iii) All required interior yards (setbacks) abutting residential properties shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen. (iv) Rooftop equipment or rooftop equipment enclosures shall not extend above a height of 15 feet above the roof and any enclosed rooftop equipment nearest residential property shall be set back at least 20 feet from the building edge closest to the residential property or a minimum of 100 feet from the residential property line, whichever is closer. Roof vents, flues and other protrusions through the roof of any building or structure shall be obscured from public view by a roof screen or proper placement. See Section 18.40.090 (height limit exceptions) for further restrictions. 5. CHAPTER 18.40: (TIER 2 MATRIX #23). Section 18.40.090 Height Exceptions) of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of PAMC is amended to read as follows: 18.40.090 Height Limit Exceptions. (TIER 2 MATRIX #33) Except as provided below, in OS, RE, R-1 and R-2 districts, flues, chimneys, exhaust fans or air conditioning equipment, elevator equipment, cooling towers, antennas, and similar architectural, utility, or mechanical features may exceed the height limit established in any district by not more than fifteen feet; provided, however, that no such feature or structure in excess of the height limit shall be used for habitable space, or for any commercial or advertising purposes. In OS, RE, R-1, and R-2 districts, flues, chimneys and antennas may exceed the established height limit by not more than fifteen feet. Exceptions (i) In the CC, CD, CN and CS districts, except for elevators and elevator equipment, features cited above shall not exceed the height limit by more than eight feet (8'); in the CC(2) zone district, such features may not exceed the height limit by more than five feet (5’). (ii) In OS, RE, R-1, and R-2 districts, only flues, chimneys and antennas may exceed the established height limit by not more than fifteen feet. ATTACHMENT E 5 6. CHAPTER 18.52: (TIER 2 MATRIX #5). Section 18.52.040 (Off-Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Facility Requirements) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) of PAMC is amended to read as follows: 18.52.040 Off-Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Facility Requirements . . . (c) Tables 1, 2 and 3: Parking, Bicycle and Loading Requirements Tables 1 and 2 below outline vehicle and bicycle parking requirements in general and for Parking Assessment Districts, respectively. Table 3 outlines loading requirements for each land use. Table 1: Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements This is an excerpt of Table 1: Use Vehicle Parking Requirement (# of spaces) Bicycle Parking Requirement Vehicle Spaces Bicycle Spaces Class 1Long Term (LT) and Short Term (ST) Eating and Drinking Services: (a) With drive-in or take-out facilities 3 per 100 sq. ft. of gross floor area 3 per 400 sf 40% - LT 60% - ST (b) All others 1 space for each 60 gross sq. ft. of public service area, plus 1 space for each 200 gross sq. ft. for all other areas. 1 per 600 sf of public service area, plus 1 per 2,000 sf for other areas (c) Rooftop Dining and Drinking Services 1 space for each 60 sq. ft. of public service area plus 1 space for each 200 gross sq. ft. for all other rooftop areas supporting the use. 1 per 600 sf of public service area, plus 1 per 2,000 sf for other rooftop areas supporting the use ATTACHMENT E 6 Table 2: Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements for Parking Assessment Districts (IF USE IS NOT LISTED, REFER TO TABLE 1 FOR REQUIREMENTS) This is an excerpt of Table 2: Use Vehicle Parking Requirement {# of spaces) Bicycle Parking Requirement Class1 Spaces Eating and Drinking Services: (a) With drive- in or take-out facilities 3 per 100 sf of gross floor area 3 per 400 sf 40% - LT 60%-ST (b) All others 1 per 155 sf of gross floor area 1 per 1,550 sf (c ) Rooftop Eating and Drinking Services 1 per 155 sf of rooftop service area 1 per 1,550 sf Table 3: Minimum Off-Street Loading Requirements This is an excerpt of Table 3: Use Gross Floor Area Loading Spaces Required ∙ Retail Services ∙ Eating and Drinking Services Rooftop Eating and Drinking Uses 0 - 4,999 sq. ft. 0-4,999 sq.ft. of rooftop service area 1 30,000 - 69,999 sq. ft. 2 70,000-120,000 sq. ft. 3 For each additional 50,000 sq. ft. over 120,000 sq.ft. 1 additional space ATTACHMENT E 7 7. CHAPTER 18.70 CHANGES (TIER 2 MATRIX #6). Sections 18.70.080 (Noncomplying Facility Enlargement), and 18.70.100 (Noncomplying Facility Replacement) of Chapter 18.70 (Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Facilities) of the PAMC are amended to read as follows: 18.70.080 Noncomplying facility - Enlargement. (TIER 2 MATRIX #6) … (b) Except in areas designated as special study areas, the director of planning and community environment may permit minor additions of floor area to noncomplying facilities in the commercial CC, CS and CN zones and in the industrial MOR, ROLM, RP and GM districts, subject to applicable site development regulations, for purposes of on-site employee amenities, resource conservation, or code compliance, upon the determination that such minor additions will not, of themselves, generate substantial additional employment. Such additions may include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) Amenity space area designed and used solely for providing on-site services to employees of the facility, such as recreational facilities, credit unions, cafeterias (excluding break rooms), on-site laundry facilities, and daycare facilities. (TIER 2 MATRIX #6) (2) Area designated for resource conservation, such as trash compactors, recycling and thermal storage facilities; and (3) Area designed and required for hazardous materials storage facilities, handicapped access, and seismic upgrades. 18.70.090 Noncomplying facility – Maintenance and Repair (a) Normal and routine maintenance of a noncomplying facility shall be permitted for the purpose of preserving its existing condition, retarding or eliminating wear and tear or physical depreciation, or complying with the requirements of law. (b) Incidental alterations to a noncomplying facility shall be permitted, provided such alterations do not increase the degree of noncompliance, or otherwise increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the requirements of this title. (c) Structural alterations to a noncomplying facility shall be permitted when necessary to comply with the requirements of law, or to accommodate a conforming use when such alterations do not increase the degree of noncompliance, or otherwise increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and requirements of this title. 18.70.100 Noncomplying facility - Replacement. A noncomplying facility which is damaged or destroyed by any means except ordinary wear and tear and depreciation may be reconstructed only as a complying facility, except as follows: ATTACHMENT E 8 (a) When the damage or destruction of a noncomplying facility affects only a portion of the facility that did not constitute or contribute to the noncompliance, said portion may be repaired or reconstructed to its previous configuration. (b) When the damage or destruction of a noncomplying facility affects a portion of the facility that constituted or contributed to the noncompliance, any replacement or reconstruction to such damaged portion shall be accomplished in such manner as not to reinstate the noncompliance caused by the destroyed or damaged portion of the facility, and otherwise in full compliance with this title; however, if the cost to replace or reconstruct the noncomplying portion of the facility to its previous configuration does not exceed fifty percent of the total cost to replace or reconstruct the facility in conformance with this subsection, then the damaged noncomplying portion may be replaced or reconstructed to its previous configuration. In no event shall such replacement or construction create, cause, or increase any noncompliance with the requirements of this title. (c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) hereof, a noncomplying facility in the commercial CS, CN and CC zones and the industrial MOR, ROLM, RP and GM districts, except for those areas designated as special study areas, existing on August 1, 1989, which when built was a complying facility, shall be permitted to be remodeled, improved or replaced in accordance with applicable site development regulations other than floor area ratio, provided that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased floor area. (d) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b) and (c) hereof above, a noncomplying facility housing a conforming use in the R-1 and RE zones, which when built was a complying facility, which is damaged or destroyed by non-willful means (i.e., acts of God) shall be permitted to be replaced, on the same site, and in its previous configuration, without necessity to comply with the current site development regulations, provided that any such replacement shall not result in increased floor area, height, length or any other increase in the size of the facility. shall be subject to the following, as applicable: (i) Non-Willful Damage or Destruction: A facility which is damaged or destroyed by non-willful means (i.e., acts of God) shall be permitted to be replaced, on the same site, and in its previous configuration, without necessity to comply with the current site development regulations, provided that any such replacement shall not result in increased floor area, height, length or any other increase in the size of the facility. (ii) Willful Damage or Destruction: The willful demolition or removal of fifty percent (50%) or more of the exterior wall elements, at any time over a five (5) year period shall require the entire noncomplying facility to be brought into compliance with current provisions of this Title. A. Exterior wall elements include, but are not limited to, the subsurface or non- decorative cladding necessary for structural support, columns, studs, cripple walls, or similar vertical load-bearing elements and associated footings, windows, doors, cladding or siding. B. The calculation for determining whether a structure has been demolished pursuant to this Section shall be based on a horizontal measurement of the perimeter exterior wall removed between the structure’s footings and the ceiling of each story. ATTACHMENT E 9 C. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project where the work will result in the removal of over forty percent (40%) of the exterior walls, the applicant shall submit written verification from a registered structural engineer, certifying that the exterior walls shown to remain are structurally sound and will not be required to be removed for the project. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner and contractor shall sign an affidavit to the City that they are aware of the City’s requirements under this section and the penalties associated with an unlawful demolition. D. During construction, if termite or dry rot or similar damage is discovered that would cause the project to exceed the 50% threshold described in (ii) above, the Building Official may grant up to a 5% increase in exterior wall element removal. This approval shall be based upon a written report prepared by a qualified licensed professional documenting the damage and need for repair. An inspection shall be required prior to removal of the exterior wall elements authorized by this section. (TIER 2 MATRIX #38) . . . 8. CHAPTER 18.77 CHANGES (TIER 2 MATRIX #42) Sections 18.77.070 (Architectural Review Process), and 18.77.075 (Low-Density Residential Review Process) of Chapter 18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals) of Title 18 (Zoning) the Palo Alto Municipal Code are amended to read as follows: 18.77.070 Architectural Review Process . . . (e) Appeal of the Director's Decision - Filing Any party, including the applicant, may file an appeal of the director's decision with the planning division. The appeal shall be filed in written form in a manner prescribed by the director. The written request shall be accompanied by a fee, as set forth in the municipal fee schedule. An appellant who obtains and submits 25 verifiable signatures of support will pay 50% of the appeal fee. The written request shall be accompanied by a fee, as set forth in the municipal fee schedule. An appellant who obtains and submits 25 verifiable signatures of support will pay 50% of the appeal fee. … 18.77.075 Low-density Residential Review Process . . . (f) Final Director’s Decision . . . (4) The applicant or the owner or occupier of an adjacent property may file an appeal of the director's decision by filing a written request with the City Clerk before the date the director's decision becomes final. The written request shall be accompanied by a fee, as set forth in the municipal fee schedule. An appellant who obtains and submits 25 verifiable signatures of support will pay 50% of the appeal. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6391) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/7/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 1050 Page Mill Continuation Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Approval of the Record of Land Use Action to Allow Demolition of Four Existing Structures Totaling 265,895 sf. and Construction of Four Two-Story Office Buildings Totaling 265,895 Square Feet of Floor Area With Below and At-Grade Parking and Other Site Improvements Located at 1050 Page Mill Road. Zoning District: Research Park (RP). Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report has Been Prepared. (STAFF REQUESTS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO JANUARY 11, 2016) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation This item will not be heard on December 7, 2015 and is instead being recommended for continuance to January 11, 2016 due to the Planning and Transportation Commission not having a quorum for review of this item at their meeting of November 18, 2015.