HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-11-07 City Council Agenda Packet
City Council
1
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.
November 7, 2016
Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
6:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 10 days preceding the meeting.
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
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Manager Comments 6:00-6:10 PM
Oral Communications 6:10-6:25 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.
Minutes Approval 6:25-6:30 PM
1. Approval of Action Minutes for the October 17 and 24, 2016 Council
Meetings
Consent Calendar 6:30-6:35 PM
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
2. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation That the Council Adopt
the Net Energy Metering (NEM) Transition Policy and Adopt a
Resolution Revising the NEM Cap Calculation Methodology
2 November 7, 2016
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.
3. Approval of Amendment Number 3 to Contract Number C15157271
With McGuire Pacific Construction to Extend the Term of the Contract
for Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Sign Installation to
September 1, 2018 With no Additional Costs
4. SECOND READING: 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 (FIRST READING: December 7, 2015 PASSED: 7-0 Scharff
Not Participating, Burt Absent)
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 6:35-7:45 PM
5. Adoption of a Resolution Amending and Restating the Administrative
Penalty Schedule and Civil Penalty Schedules for Certain Violations of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code
Established by Resolution Number 9554 (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER
4, 2016)
7:45-9:00 PM
6. Review and Potential Direction to add Optional Enhancements and
Associated Costs for the Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Pedestrian
Overcrossing Project, Capital Improvements Program Project PE-11011
9:00-10:15 PM
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Finance Committee Recommendation That the
Council Adopt an Ordinance Updating the Procedure for Collection of
Impact Fees by Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 16
(Building Regulations), Chapters 16.45 (Transportation Impact Fee for
new Nonresidential Development in the Stanford Research Park/El
Camino CS Zone), 16.46 (Approval of Projects With Impacts on Traffic
in the San Antonio/West Bayshore Area), 16.47 (Approval of Projects
With Impacts on Housing), 16.57 (In-Lieu Parking Fee for new
Nonresidential Development in the Commercial Downtown (CD) Zoning
District), 16.58 (Development Impact Fees), 16.59 (Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee), 16.60 (Charleston Arastradero Corridor
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee), 16.61 (Public Art for
Private Developments), 16.64 (Development Fee and In-Lieu Payment
Administration); and Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of
Land), Chapter 21.50 (Parkland Dedication or Fee In-Lieu Thereof),
and Finding the Action Exempt From Review Under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
3 November 7, 2016
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.
4 November 7, 2016
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
Policy and Services Committee Cancellation November 8, 2016
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Informational Report
Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) for the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for Fiscal Year 2016
City of Palo Alto Utilities Update for the Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year 2016
Proclamation in Honor of Law Enforcement Records and Support Personnel
Day
City of Palo Alto Investment Activity Report for the First Quarter, Fiscal Year
2017
Independent Police Auditors Second Report- 2015
Public Letters to Council
Set 1 10/31/16
Set 1 11/07/16
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
November 7, 2016
The Honorable City Council
Attention: Finance Committee
Palo Alto, California
Approval of Action Minutes for the October 17 and 24, 2016 Council
Meetings
Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: 10-17-16 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOC)
Attachment B: 10-24-16 DRAFT Action Minutes (PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 8
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2016
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:07 P.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois arrived at 6:11 P.M., Filseth arrived at
6:09 P.M., Holman, Kniss arrived at 6:09 P.M., Scharff, Schmid,
Wolbach
Absent:
Special Orders of the Day
1. Life Saving Recognition Ceremony to Recognize Police and Fire First
Responders for Saving a Young Man.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
None.
Minutes Approval
2. Approval of Action Minutes for the September 26 and October 4, 2016
Council Meetings.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Berman
to approve the Action Minutes for the September 26 and October 4, 2016
Council Meetings.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Consent Calendar
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois
to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-10.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 2 of 8
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 10/17/16
3. Resolution 9629 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending Utility Gas Rate Schedules G-1, G-1-G, G-2, G-2-G,
G-3, G-3-G, G-10, and G-10-G, to Include a Separate Transportation
Charge as a Discrete Pass-Through Component and to Reduce the
Distribution Charge by the Initial Transportation Charge Amount of
$1.1088 per Therm Effective November 1, 2016.”
4. Approval of Contract No. C17164199 With Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
in the Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $466,318 to Provide Design
Services for the new Primary Outfall Line at the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant - Wastewater Treatment Fund Capital Improvement
Program Project WQ-80021.
5. Annual Review of Williamson Act Contract Renewals, Approval of
Non-Renewal for APN 351-05-050 and Approval of Exemption Under
Section 15317 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
6. Three Resolutions: Resolution 9630 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council
of the City of Palo Alto to Execute State Revolving Fund (SRF) Financial
Assistance Applications, Designate the Amount of Project Expenditures
to be Reimbursed by SRF Proceeds, and Pledge Revenue for
Repayment of SRF Loans;” Resolution 9631 Entitled, “Resolution of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto Amend the 2009 SRF Assistance
Agreement;” and Resolution 9632 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council
of the City of Palo Alto Authorize Contract Amendments With RWQCP
Partners Cities of Mountain View and Los Altos, East Palo Alto Sanitary
District, and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior
University for the Funding of the Sludge Dewatering and Load Out
Facility, the Primary Sedimentation Tank Rehabilitation, the Fixed Film
Reactor Rehabilitation, and the Laboratory Environmental Services
Building for the Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund Facilities at the
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP).”
7. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the
Disability Rates and Workers' Compensation Audit.
8. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the City
Auditor's Office Fiscal Year 2017 Proposed Work Plan.
9. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the City
Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2016.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 3 of 8
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 10/17/16
10. Ordinance 5388 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending the City’s Minimum Wage Ordinance to Align With the
Santa Clara Cities Association Recommendation to Increase the
Minimum Wage to $15.00 per Hour in Three Steps: $12.00 on
1/1/2017; $13.50 on 1/1/2018; $15.00 on 1/1/2019; and a CPI
Increase After 2019 Indexed to the Bay Area CPI With a 5 Percent Cap
and no Exemption (FIRST READING: Sept. 26, 2016 PASSED: 9-0).”
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Action Items
11. Approval of 2000 Geng Road as the Temporary Location for Fire
Station No. 3 During Construction of the Replacement Fire Station
No. 3.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois
to:
A. Direct Staff to locate Temporary Fire Station No. 3 at 2000 Geng Road
while the permanent replacement Fire Station No. 3 facility is under
construction; and
B. Amend the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for the
General Fund by decreasing the revenue estimate for rental of the
Geng Road site by $55,922.
MOTION PASSED: 8-1 Wolbach no
Council took a break from 8:39 P.M. to 8:46 P.M.
12. Discussion and Direction Regarding Parameters of an Ordinance
Strengthening Retail Protections in Downtown and the South of Forest
Area (SOFA II).
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to
approve the draft framework for an Ordinance strengthening retail
protections in the Downtown and South of Forest Area (SOFA II) with the
following changes:
A. Remove Number 1, Bullet 2 and Number 1, Bullet 3; and
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 4 of 8
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 10/17/16
B. Protect all current retail in the Downtown Business District.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to add to the Motion, “eliminate 17 foot first floor height
standards.”
AMENDMENT RESTATED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION
WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the
Motion, “no alterations to Design Criteria in SOFA II.” (New Part C)
AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Mayor Burt to
add to the Motion, “direct Staff to return with potential limits on hair and nail
salons, gyms, and other similar personal service uses on University Avenue.”
AMENDMENT FAILED: 3-6 Burt, Holman, Wolbach yes
AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to add to the Motion, “require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for
private schools in SOFA II.
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the end of the Motion Part B, “and SOFA
II.”
AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to add to the Motion, “require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for
private schools in the RT-35 District.”
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
INCORPORTATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “prohibit window treatments
made of reflective glass.” (New Part D)
INCORPORTATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to return with a
recommendation on lobby size.” (New Part E)
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 5 of 8
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 10/17/16
AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to add to the Motion, “require the hours of operation be a
minimum of 6 hours a day and 5 days per week for Retail Use.”
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER
AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to return with a
recommendation on medical office size.”
AMENDMENT RESTATED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION
WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the
Motion, “direct Staff to return with a recommendation on medical office size
in SOFA II.” (New Part F)
AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to return with clarification of
Office Use definition that differentiates between general office and research
and development.”
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER
Council Member DuBois left the meeting at 11:11 P.M.
INCORPORTATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to return with
recommendations on how to treat existing retail basement use in the
University Avenue core area.” (New Part G)
INCORPORTATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to conduct
informal outreach to stakeholders including both small and independent
retailers.” (New Part H)
AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to remove, “and Number 1, Bullet 3” from the Motion Part A.
AMENDMENT RESTATED AND INCORPORTATED INTO THE MOTION
WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the
Motion, “outside of University Avenue, within the Ground Floor District allow
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 6 of 8
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 10/17/16
yoga studios, dance studios, martial arts studios, and similar uses.” (New
Part I)
INCORPORTATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to evaluate
aligning existing Planned Community Zone (PC) requirements with District
requirements.” (New Part J)
MOTION RESTATED: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council
Member Kniss to approve the draft framework for an Ordinance
strengthening retail protections in the Downtown and South of Forest Area
(SOFA II) with the following changes:
A. Remove Number 1, Bullet 2 and Number 1, Bullet 3; and
B. Protect all current retail in the Downtown Business District and SOFA
II; and
C. No alterations to Design Criteria in SOFA II; and
D. Prohibit window treatments made of reflective glass; and
E. Direct Staff to return with a recommendation on lobby size; and
F. Direct Staff to return with a recommendation on medical office size in
SOFA II; and
G. Direct Staff to return with recommendations on how to treat existing
retail basement use in the University Avenue core area; and
H. Direct Staff to conduct informal outreach to stakeholders including
both small and independent retailers; and
I. Outside of University Avenue, within the Ground Floor district allow
yoga studios, dance studios, martial arts studios, and similar uses; and
J. Direct Staff to evaluate aligning existing Planned Community Zone
(PC) requirements with district requirements.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 DuBois absent
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 7 of 8
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 10/17/16
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
13. Request for City Council Endorsement of Santa Clara County
Measure A, an Affordable Housing Bond Measure.
MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff
to endorse Santa Clara County Measure A, an Affordable Housing Bond
Measure on the November 8, 2016 ballot.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 DuBois absent
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Council Member Holman requested that an Agenda Item allowing the Council
to support or oppose the various State Propositions and Measure B, the
Valley Transportation Authority sales tax, on the November 8, 2016 ballot be
agendized.
Council Member Kniss suggested the City’s State Lobbyist could provide a
summary of the Propositions for Council’s consideration. She also suggested
that the Council limit consideration to Measure B.
Mayor Burt reported that the supporters of Measure B preferred to receive
individual Council Member support rather than City Council support. He
inquired whether the League of California Cities or similar organization had
taken positions on the various Propositions. He noted that the City Council
does not take a position on all Propositions.
Vice Mayor Scharff stated that reviewing all Propositions would be time
consuming.
Council Member Holman highlighted her interest in supporting Proposition
62, which would repeal the death penalty in California. She reported that
the Council supported a similar Proposition in the past.
Vice Mayor Scharff highlighted his interest in discussing Proposition 53,
which would require voter approval for projects costing more than $2 billion.
Mayor Burt reported that these topics will be discussed with Staff for
potential inclusion on a future Council agenda.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 8 of 8
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 10/17/16
Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager reported that two Council meetings are
scheduled prior to the November 8, 2016 Election, on October 24 and
November 7, 2016. He advised that there is minimal time left for a
discussion of Propositions and additional Measures on the November 8, 2016
ballot.
Council Member Berman reported his attendance and that of several other
Council Members at the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Athena Awards this
past Tuesday. He noted that Karen Kienzle, Art Center Director received the
Athena Award at the event. He felt this was a well-deserved award.
Vice Mayor Scharff reported his appointment as Chair of the Bay Area
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Enforcement
Committee.
Council Member Holman reported that she received the Project WeHOPE
Civic Award this past Friday.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 P.M.
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 13
Special Meeting
October 24, 2016
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 5:37 P.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach
Absent: DuBois
Closed Session
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS.
This Item removed from the Agenda.
Study Session
2. Partner Presentation and Discussion With Palo Alto Housing
Corporation.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Holman
to continue Agenda Item Number 14- PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an
Ordinance Approving Revisions to the Architectural Review Findings… to a
date uncertain.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Berman not participating, DuBois absent
Consent Calendar
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Berman
to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-8.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 2 of 13
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 10/24/16
3. Finance Committee Recommendation That the City Council Approve
the Proposed Low Carbon Fuel Standard Credit Program, Including the
use of Revenues From the Sale of Low Carbon Fuel Standard Credits.
4. Approval of a Contract With Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction,
Inc. (APEC) in the Total Amount of $2,746,563 for the Old Pumping
Plant (OPP) Rehabilitation Project at the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant - Capital Improvement Program Project WQ-80021.
5. Resolution 9633 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending Utilities Rate Schedule E-15 (Electric Service
Connection Fees) and Utilities Rule and Regulations 2 (Definitions and
Abbreviations) and 18 (Utility Service Connections and Facilities on
Customer Premises) to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Program.”
6. Nine Ordinances to Adopt 2016 California Building Codes, Local
Amendments, and Related Updates: Ordinance 5389 Entitled,
“Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto (1) Repealing Chapter
16.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt
a new Chapter 16.04, California Building Code, California Historical
Building Code, and California Existing Building Code, 2016 Editions,
and Local Amendments and Related Findings;” Ordinance 5390
Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto (2)
Repealing Chapter 16.05 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and
Amending Title 16 to Adopt a new Chapter 16.05, California
Mechanical Code, 2016 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related
Findings;” Ordinance 5391 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto (3) Repealing Chapter 16.06 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a new Chapter 16.06, California
Residential Code, 2016 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related
Findings;” Ordinance 5392 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto (4) Repealing Chapter 16.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a new Chapter 16.08, California
Plumbing Code, 2016 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related
Findings;” Ordinance 5393 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto (5) Repealing Chapter 16.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a new Chapter 16.14, California
Green Building Standards Code, 2016 Edition, and Local Amendments
and Related Findings;” Ordinance 9394 Entitled, “Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto (6) Repealing Chapter 16.16 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a new Chapter
16.16, California Electrical Code, 2016 Edition, and Local Amendments
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 3 of 13
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 10/24/16
and Related Findings;” Ordinance 5395 Entitled, “Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto (7) Repealing Chapter 15.04 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 15 to Adopt a new Chapter
15.04, California Fire Code, 2016 Edition, and Local Amendments and
Related Findings;” and Ordinance 5396 Entitled, “Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto (8) Adopt a new Title 16, Chapter 16.18
Private Swimming Pool and Spa Code, 2016 Edition and Local
Amendments and Related Findings;” and Ordinance 5397 Entitled,
“Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto (9) Amending Title
16, Chapters 16.36 House Numbering and 16.40 Unsafe Buildings for
Local Amendments and Related Findings (FIRST READING: October 4,
2016 PASSED: 9-0).”
7. Policy and Services Committee Recommends That the City Council
Approve its Motions Regarding the Cable Franchise and Public,
Education, and Government (PEG) Fees Audit.
8. Resolution 9634 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto to Amend and Correct Salary Schedules for: Managers and
Professional Employees, Service Employees International Union, Local
521 (SEIU); Service Employees International Union Hourly, Local 521
(SEIU - H); Limited Hourly, Local 521 (HRLY); International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1319; and Utilities Managers of Palo
Alto Professional Association (UMPAPA); and Amend the Table of
Organization in the City Manager's Office General Fund and Utilities
Department Enterprise Funds.”
MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Wolbach not participating, DuBois absent
Action Items
9. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposition 218 Storm Water Management Fee
Protest Hearing; Resolution 9635 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Calling a Mail Ballot Election for April 11, 2017 to
Submit a Storm Water Management Fee to Owners of Parcels of Real
Property Subject to the Fee;” and Resolution 9636 Entitled,
“Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rule
and Regulation 25.”
Public Hearing opened at 7:54 P.M.
Public Hearing closed at 8:02 P.M.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 4 of 13
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 10/24/16
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member
Filseth to adopt:
A. A Resolution calling a mail ballot election for Tuesday, April 11, 2017
to allow owners of parcels subject to the Storm Water Management
Fee to vote on whether the Fee should be imposed; and
B. A Resolution modifying Section 8(C) of Utility Rule and Regulation 25
(Special Storm and Surface Water Drainage Utility Regulations) to exempt certain developed parcels which do not impact City storm
drainage facilities, and to clarify how the Fee applies to parcels which
only partially drain to the City’s storm drain system.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 DuBois absent
Council took a break from 8:19 P.M. to 8:26 P.M.
10. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 9637 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council
of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the Professorville Historic District
Design Guidelines. The Project is Exempt From the Provisions of CEQA
per Class 8 Categorical Exemption (Actions Taken by Regulatory
Agencies to Protect the Environment) (Continued From September 12,
2016).”
Public Hearing opened at 8:30 P.M.
Public Hearing closed at 8:42 P.M.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to
adopt:
A. A Resolution adopting the Professorville Historic District Design
Guidelines (Guidelines) with the list of corrections and edits provided
in the Staff Report; and
B. A finding that this action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15308 (Actions By
Regulatory Agencies for the Protection of the Environment).
INCORPROTATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to add
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 5 of 13
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 10/24/16
references to incentives to the Guidelines and reference to the State of
California Historic Building Code.” (New Part C)
MOTION RESTATED: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council
Member Kniss to adopt:
A. A Resolution adopting the Professorville Historic District Design
Guidelines (Guidelines) with the list of corrections and edits provided
in the Staff Report; and
B. A finding that this action is exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15308 (Actions By
Regulatory Agencies for the Protection of the Environment); and
C. Direct Staff to add references to incentives to the Guidelines and
reference to the State of California Historic Building Code.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-1 Holman no, DuBois absent
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Mayor Burt to
direct Staff to return with:
A. A Zoning Code change to apply Individual Review (IR) to single-story
homes in Professorville; and
B. A definition of demolition.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “draft language for Council
consideration regarding” after “direct Staff to return with.”
MOTION RESTATED: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Mayor
Burt to direct Staff to return with draft language for Council consideration
regarding:
A. A Zoning Code change to apply Individual Review (IR) to single-story
homes in Professorville; and
B. A definition of demolition.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-1 Wolbach no, DuBois absent
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 6 of 13
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 10/24/16
At this time Council heard Agenda Item Numbers 11 and 12.
11. Adoption of an Emergency Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Adding Chapter 9.17 (Personal Cultivation of Marijuana) to Title 9
(Public Peace, Morals and Safety) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
Prohibit Outdoor Cultivation of Marijuana and Informational Update on
Proposition 64 and Finding the Amendment Exempt From Review
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
12. Ordinance 5398 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Adding Chapter 9.17 (Personal Cultivation of Marijuana) to Title 9
(Public Peace, Morals and Safety) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
Prohibit Outdoor Cultivation of Marijuana and Informational Update on
Proposition 64 and Finding the Amendment Exempt From Review
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).”
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to
adopt:
A. An Ordinance adding Chapter 9.17 (Personal Cultivation of Marijuana)
to Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals and Safety) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code to prohibit outdoor marijuana cultivation in Palo Alto; and
B. A finding that this amendment is exempt from review under the
California Environmental Quality Act; and
C. Direct Staff to return within twelve months to Council following public
outreach for potential changes to this Ordinance.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member
XX, if Proposition 64, Marijuana Legalization is adopted, to direct Staff to schedule a Council discussion of a regular Ordinance to provide restrictions
of outdoor cultivation of marijuana.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “the second reading will
take place after the November 8, 2016 election.” (New Part D)
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 7 of 13
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 10/24/16
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “incorporate a twelve month
sunset into the Ordinance.” (New Part E)
MOTION RESTATED: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council
Member Kniss to adopt:
A. An Ordinance adding Chapter 9.17 (Personal Cultivation of Marijuana)
to Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals and Safety) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to prohibit outdoor marijuana cultivation in Palo Alto; and
B. A finding that this amendment is exempt from review under the
California Environmental Quality Act; and
C. Direct Staff to return within twelve months to Council following public
outreach for potential changes to this Ordinance; and
D. The second reading will take place after the November 8, 2016
election; and
E. Incorporate a twelve month sunset into the Ordinance.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-1 Burt no, DuBois absent
13. Review and Direction on Formation of a Stakeholder Committee to
Advise the Council Regarding a Potential Local Tax to Raise Funds for
Transportation Programs and Projects.
MOTION: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to form a
stakeholder advisory committee, appointed by the Council, to advise the
Council regarding a potential future ballot measure; the Committee will be
comprised of the following:
A. Membership criteria:
i. Stanford Research Park Transportation Management Association
(organization selection); and
ii. Palo Alto Downtown Transportation Management Association
(organization selection); and
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 8 of 13
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 10/24/16
iii. Stanford Healthcare and Stanford Shopping Center (organization
selection); and
iv. Commercial Property Owner; and
v. Small Business Owner from elsewhere; and
vi. Medium or Large Sized Business Owner from elsewhere; and
vii. Transit advocate or Expert (preferably a Palo Alto Resident); and
viii. Bicycling advocate or Expert (preferably a Palo Alto Resident); and
ix. Non-Profit (preferably a Palo Alto Resident); and
x. Affordable Housing (preferably a Palo Alto Resident); and
xi. Palo Alto Unified School District (organization selection); and
xii. North or South Downtown Resident; and
xiii. Resident One (not representing other criteria groups); and
xiv. Resident Two (not representing other criteria groups); and
B. Ex Officio Membership criteria:
i. Planning and Transportation Commission; and
ii. City of East Palo Alto.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “(including at least one
representative be a Member of the Chamber of Commerce)” after
“Membership criteria.”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to replace Part A.iii. with:
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 9 of 13
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 10/24/16
iii. Stanford Healthcare (organization selection); and
iv. Stanford Shopping Center (organization selection); and
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “all applicants to be
committed to the outcome of determining a funding plan that will achieve
significant reductions in congestion and single occupancy vehicle trips in the
community and that an anticipation that the total funding for these outcomes will come from a local tax measure and other sources including
paid parking revenue, grants, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
sales tax.” (New Part C)
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part C, “(with a particular
focus on business license tax)” after “from local funding measures.”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct the Committee to
look at trip reductions both from measures that would support alternatives
for employees and measures that would reduce overall car trips in the
community.” (New Part D)
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTIONW WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion Part A.vi. and Part A.vii.,
“from elsewhere” with “from other than the organizations listed above.”
AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to add to the Motion Part A.vi. “two” before “Small Business.”
AMENDMENT RESTATED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION
WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace Part
A.vi. with, “
vi. Small Business Owner from other than the organizations listed above;
and
vii. Small Business Owner from Downtown.”
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 10 of 13
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 10/24/16
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part C, “and improve
mobility for residents and workers” after “in the community.”
AMENDMENT: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to add to the Motion, “that all members will get a full description
of the annual Stanford Medical Center Traffic Mitigation Program.”
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part D, “the Committee will
look at best TMA practices from within the Palo Alto/Stanford community and
elsewhere” after “trips in the community.”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct the Committee to
return to Council by November 2017.” (New Part E)
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion Part C, “a local tax
measure” with “local funding measures.”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “to explore priority
transportation needs, identify funding requirements and explore various
funding options and develop a funding plan” after “future ballot measure.”
MOTION RESTATED: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member
Kniss to form a stakeholder advisory committee, appointed by the Council to
advise the Council regarding a potential future ballot measure to explore
priority transportation needs, identify funding requirements and explore
various funding options and develop a funding plan; the Committee will be comprised of the following:
A. Membership criteria (including at least one representative be a
Member of the Chamber of Commerce):
i. Stanford Research Park Transportation Management Association
(organization selection); and
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 11 of 13
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 10/24/16
ii. Palo Alto Downtown Transportation Management Association
(organization selection); and
iii. Stanford Healthcare (organization selection); and
iv. Stanford Shopping Center (organization selection); and
v. Commercial Property Owner; and
vi. Small Business Owner from other than the organizations listed
above; and
vii. Small Business Owner from Downtown; and
viii. Medium or Large Sized Business Owner from other than the
organizations listed above; and
ix. Transit advocate or Expert (preferably a Palo Alto Resident); and
x. Bicycling advocate or Expert (preferably a Palo Alto Resident);
and
xi. Non-Profit (preferably a Palo Alto Resident); and
xii. Affordable Housing (preferably a Palo Alto Resident); and
xiii. Palo Alto Unified School District (organization selection); and
xiv. North or South Downtown Resident; and
xv. Resident One (not representing other criteria groups); and
xvi. Resident Two (not representing other criteria groups); and
B. Ex Officio Membership criteria:
v. Planning and Transportation Commission; and
vi. City of East Palo Alto; and
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 12 of 13
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 10/24/16
C. All applicants to be committed to the outcome of determining a
funding plan that will achieve significant reductions in congestion and
single occupancy vehicle trips in the community and improve mobility
for residents and workers and that an anticipation that the total
funding for these outcomes will come from local funding measures
(with a particular focus on business license tax) and other sources
including paid parking revenue, grants, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) sales tax; and
D. Direct the Committee to look at trip reductions both from measures
that would support alternatives for employees and measures that
would reduce overall car trips in the community. The Committee will
look at best TMA practices from within the Palo Alto/Stanford
community and elsewhere; and
E. Direct the Committee to return to Council by November 2017.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 DuBois absent
14. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Approving Revisions to
the Architectural Review Findings in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter
18.76 and Approval of an Exemption Under Sections 15061 and 15305
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The
Planning and Transportation Commission Recommended Council
Approval of the Ordinance (Continued from September 12, 2016)
STAFF REQUESTS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN.
This Agenda Item continued to a date uncertain.
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
None.
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Mayor Burt reported on the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority
(JPA) Retreat. The JPA is working on a project to provide protection from
“50-year” flooding. This includes work at the Pope-Chaucer Bridge, Newell
Road Bridge, and other choke points along the Creek. He reported that
protection from a “100-year” flood would require upstream detention,
bypass, floodwalls, or a combination of these measures. The JPA is drafting
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 13 of 13
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 10/24/16
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to study alternatives. The JPA
received a report from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which stated
that the flooding that occurred in 1998 in Palo Alto is thought to be a
“60-year” floor. He reported that the JPA is considering prioritizing work on
the East Bayshore portion of the Creek. Historically, creek flooding begins at
this point. He reported his attendance at the United Nations Association Film
Festival. He hopes the Festival can be further promoted so that additional community members are aware of and attend the Festival.
Council Member Holman reported on her attendance along with other Council
Members at the inauguration of Leland Stanford Junior University’s eleventh
President, Marc Tessier-Lavigne this past Friday.
Vice Mayor Scharff announced that the Cities Association of Santa Clara
County is holding a Holiday Party at LinkedIn in Sunnyvale on December 1,
2016.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:29 P.M.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7346)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/7/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Council Priority: Environmental Sustainability
Summary Title: Net Energy Metering Transition Policy and Increased NEM
Cap
Title: Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that the Council Adopt
the Net Energy Metering (NEM) Transition Policy and Adopt a Resolution
Revising the NEM Cap Calculation Methodology
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that Council:
1. Adopt the following net energy metering (NEM) Transition Policy for eligible NEM
customers:
a. Establish a 20-year transition period from the time of system interconnection
through which NEM customers will remain eligible for net metering and related
terms and conditions described in California Public Utilities Code Section 2827, and
b. Allow NEM customers to expand their systems by any amount, and adjust the
transition period by a ratio of the expanded and original system sizes, according to
the following formula: New Remaining NEM Term = Original system’s remaining
NEM term X (Original system size in kW / New system size in kW); and
2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) revising the NEM cap calculation methodology to
increase the cap from 9.5 megawatts (MW) to 10.8 MW, and repealing Resolution
9557.
Executive Summary
Net energy metering (NEM) is a billing mechanism designed to promote the installation of
renewable distributed generation by allowing customers to be compensated at the full retail
rate for electricity generated by their on-site systems, such as solar photovoltaic (solar PV)
systems. State law requires all electric utilities to offer NEM to customers with eligible
renewable distributed generation up to a maximum cap, or “NEM cap”. Council adopted a
NEM Successor Program to be implemented when the NEM cap is reached, but requested
City of Palo Alto Page 2
that staff evaluate options and a recommendation for the NEM Transition Policy and change
the method for calculating the NEM cap.
The proposed NEM Transition Policy provides an equitable way for customers under NEM to
expand their systems and remain under NEM for a reasonable period of time before
transitioning to the NEM Successor Program. In August, Council approved a new methodology
to calculate the NEM cap. The new methodology results in a 13.3% increase in the NEM cap—
from 9.5 MW to 10.8 MW.
At its October 5, 2016, the UAC voted unanimously to recommend that Council approve the
proposed NEM Transition Policy.
Background
Council Action on NEM Successor Program
On August 22, 2016, the Council reviewed the proposed NEM Successor Program and NEM
Transition Policy (Staff Report 7150). The Council voted unanimously (8-0 with Council Member
Filseth absent) to:
1. Adopt a resolution:
a. Adopting a Net Energy Metering (NEM) Successor Rate, E-EEC-1 (“Export
Electricity Compensation”); and
b. Amending Utilities Rule and Regulation 2 (“Definitions and Abbreviations”) and
29 (“Net Energy Metering and Interconnection”); and
2. Direct staff to:
a. Return to Council within four months with options and a recommendation for
the NEM Transition Policy
b. Return to Council within one year of reaching the cap from the expiring NEM
program with a report describing other NEM programs in California, with a
comparison to the Palo Alto program including the effectiveness of Palo Alto’s
program in spurring local residential solar options; and
c. Change the method for calculating the NEM cap to five percent of the customer
class non-coincident peak.
Discussion
NEM Cap
The California Public Utilities Code requires all electric utilities to offer NEM to eligible
customers with renewable distributed generation, up to a cap. Currently, the California Public
Utilities Code affords publicly-owned utilities (POUs), like Palo Alto, with flexibility to define the
City’s 5% NEM cap. Section 2827(c)(4)(A) of the California Public Utilities Code specifies that
POUs must offer NEM until “combined total peak demand” of NEM customers exceeds 5% of
“aggregate customer peak demand” of the electric utility. The statute is silent as to how to
define “aggregate customer peak demand” for POUs, leaving matters such as the best method
City of Palo Alto Page 3
for calculating aggregate customer peak demand, or what reference year to use to the City to
decide.1
In October 2015 Council formally adopted a resolution setting a NEM cap calculation
methodology which resulted in a 9.5 MW cap for Palo Alto, which is equal to 5% of the City’s
2006 system peak demand for electricity of 190 MW (Staff Report 6139, Resolution 9557). The
reference year (2006) was utilized since California Senate Bill 1 (SB1) took effect on January 1,
2007, which set a statewide goal of deploying 3,000 MW of new solar PV systems by 2017 and
concurrently modified the California Public Utilities Code to raise the NEM cap from 0.5% to
2.5%.2
On August 22, 2016, Council directed staff to change the methodology to determine the City’s
NEM cap to be 5% of the customer class non-coincident peak. The sum of the customer class
non-coincident peaks is estimated to be about 215 MW, so the new methodology will revise the
City’s new NEM cap to 10.8 MW, or 5% of 215.6 MW, as shown below. Approval of the
proposed resolution (Attachment A) will formalize the NEM cap revision. As of early September
2016, the installed NEM capacity in the City is 7.8 MW, or 72% of the new NEM cap.
Rate: Customer Class Non-Coincident Peak in 2006 (MW)
E-1: Residential 36.8
E-2: Small Non-residential 18.5
E-4: Medium Non-residential 89.2
E-7: Large Non-residential 66.2
E-18: City Accounts 3.8
Street/Traffic Lights 1.1
Total 215.6
Proposed NEM Transition Policy
Transition Period
In March 2014, the CPUC ruled that the investor-owned utilities’ (IOU’s) existing NEM
customers (and all those who install eligible systems within each IOU’s respective NEM cap) can
remain in NEM through a 20-year transition period from the date of interconnection. The
length of the transition period was determined in part based on an assessment of expected
useful life, as indicated by module warranties, power purchase agreements, and third-party
financing agreements. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), the San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) have also
1 By contrast, the statute and the CPUC afford Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) with no discretion for how to
calculate “aggregate customer peak demand.” The CPUC approved a decision requiring the large IOUs to define
aggregate customer peak demand as the sum of individual customers’ peak demands, or so-called non-coincident
peak demands. The Public Utilities Code was later modified to further clarify this definition for the IOUs (Cal. Public
Utilities Code, §2827 (c)(4)(B)).
2 The NEM cap was later raised from 2.5% to the current 5% in 2010 by Assembly Bill 510.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
proposed that NEM customers remain eligible for NEM for 20 years from the date of initial
system interconnection.
To help promote regulatory certainty and transparency for existing NEM customers who have
invested in solar PV systems and for solar developers operating in Palo Alto, staff proposes that
existing NEM customers and all eligible customers within the NEM cap in CPAU service territory
remain eligible for NEM through a 20-year transition period.
System Expansions
Some customers who install systems within the NEM cap may wish to expand their systems
after the NEM cap has been reached. Allowing system expansion up to a given threshold is
broadly in-line with system expansion policies established in the California IOU service
territories and Turlock Irrigation District, as shown in the table below. Adopting a system
expansion policy would allow a customer to expand their system or to replace panels that failed
prematurely with higher efficiency panels while still remaining eligible for NEM.
Policies of California utilities for system expansions after the NEM cap has been reached
Utility Description of System Expansion Policy
IOUs:
PG&E,
SDG&E, So
Cal Edison
Customers may increase the system size up to 10% of the original system size and
remain eligible for NEM. Customers who wish to expand their systems more may
either 1) meter the added capacity separately under the NEM successor tariff, or
2) elect for the entire system to take service under the NEM successor tariff.
Turlock
Irrigation
District
Residential customers whose original system size is less than 10 kW may increase
their system up to 11 kW total. Residential customers with an original system size
of 10 kW or greater and non-residential customers may increase their system by
a maximum of 10%. For expansions beyond these thresholds, the customer must
transition the entire system capacity to the NEM successor rate.
Imperial
Irrigation
District
No existing policy for system expansions.
Modesto
Irrigation
District
Proposal: PV systems operating under NEM that want to add panels must reapply
under the NEM successor for the total system.
City of
Lompoc
No existing policy for system expansions.
Staff originally proposed that if the existing NEM system is modified or repaired after the NEM
cap is reached, the customer will remain eligible for NEM as long as the system does not
increase by more than 10% of the original system size. If the system modification or expansion
results in an increase of over 10% of the original system size, the customer would be required
to transition to the NEM successor program for the entire system capacity.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
A community stakeholder, Carbon Free Palo Alto, proposed a formula for system expansions
that would allow customers to expand their systems and remain under NEM for a term that is
proportional to the original and expanded system sizes. The formula for the modified transition
period (“Remaining NEM term”) for an expanded system is as follows:
New remaining NEM Term = Original system’s remaining NEM term x (Original
system size in kW/ New system size in kW).
For example, if a 4 KW system, which was interconnected for 5 years (thus, had 15 years
remaining under NEM), was expanded by 2 KW to 6 KW, the new NEM transition period would
be 10 years for the entire expanded 6 KW system using the formula as follows:
New remaining NEM term = 15 years X (4 KW/6 KW) = 15 years X 2/3 = 10 years
This formula results in the same amount of NEM-eligible “capacity-years” before and after the
expansion.3
Carbon Free Palo Alto argues that limiting the NEM transition period for expansions to only 10%
is not reasonable as customers are unlikely to make such small system additions. Instead, they
may seek to upsize their systems by at least 25% due to additional electricity needs due to the
addition of an electric vehicle or electrification of a gas-using appliance.
Options for system expansion policies are described in the table below.
Alternative policies for system expansions after the NEM cap has been reached
Alternative System Expansion Policy Discussion
Original
Staff
Proposal
Customers remain eligible for NEM
for system expansions within 10% of
the original system size using the
original system interconnection date
for the transition period. Larger
system expansions require the entire
system capacity to be transitioned to
the NEM successor rate.
This policy accommodates small
expansions that are driven by
replacement of damaged panels or those
that failed prematurely. Since newer
panels may be larger, or more efficient, a
simple panel-for-panel replacement will
likely increase system size.
Carbon
Free Palo
Alto
Proposal
Additions of any size are acceptable,
but the expanded system transition
period is shortened pro-rata by the
ratio of the original system size and
the expanded system size.
This policy allows all system expansions
to remain eligible for NEM, but shortens
the transition period by the fraction that
the system is expanded. This would
accommodate system expansions that
are sought to meet increased electric
usage.
3 Before the expansion, the 4 KW system had 15 years left in NEM, or 60 kW-years. After the expansion, the 6 kW
system has 10 years left in NEM, or (again) 60 kW-years.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Alternative System Expansion Policy Discussion
Allow
expansions
of up to
25%
Customers remain eligible for NEM
for system expansions within 25% of
the original system size. Larger
system expansions require the entire
system capacity to be transitioned to
the NEM successor rate.
This policy is similar to the original staff
proposal above, but allows larger
expansions. This policy is not
recommended since it could allow
significant additions to remain NEM-
eligible, pushing the installed NEM
capacity far over the NEM cap.
No
Expansion
For any system expansions, the
customer must transition the entire
system capacity to the NEM
successor rate.
This policy does not allow expansions of
any kind to remain under NEM so that all
expanded systems would be transitioned
to the NEM successor. This policy is not
recommended as repairing failed panels
or even minor system expansions would
not be accommodated.
Expansion
only under
NEM
Successor
System expansion capacity would be
under the NEM Successor while the
original system capacity would
remain under NEM for the transition
period (20 years from the date of
interconnection).
This policy is not recommended as it
would be a large metering and
administrative burden to accommodate
both NEM and the NEM successor
program and rates for the combined
system.
Staff Recommendation
Staff considered the options for how to treat solar PV system expansion in the City’s NEM
Transition Policy. Staff’s original proposal was targeted at small additions that were likely
prompted by the need to replace defective panels and, thus, limited the chance that significant
additional solar capacity would be added to the NEM program after the NEM cap was reached.
The proposal from Carbon Free Palo Alto is a creative and fair way to allow system expansions
prompted by customers who desire to add more solar PV capacity to their systems while
keeping the overall capacity under the NEM cap. Thus, staff recommends the Carbon Free Palo
Alto proposal to pro-rate the transition period for an expanded system according the formula:
New remaining NEM Term = Original system’s remaining NEM term x (Original
system size in kW/ New system size in kW).
Committee Review and Recommendation
The UAC reviewed the proposed NEM Transition Policy at its October 5, 2016 meeting. In its
discussion, the UAC clarified that the revised PV system expansion policy will reduce the
transition period even if the system is only increased by 10% or less and noted that this is
different from the original proposal that would allow system expansions of up to 10% to remain
under NEM with no reduction in the transition period.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
The UAC voted unanimously (4-0 with Vice Chair Danaher and Commissioners Forssell,
Johnston, and Trumbull voting yes and Chair Cook and Commissioners Ballantine and Schwartz
absent) to approve the proposed NEM Transition Policy. Draft minutes from the UAC’s October
5, 2016 meeting are provided as Attachment B.
Resource Impact
The proposed NEM Transition Policy and expansion of the NEM cap support Strategy #2 of the
Local Solar Plan, to “develop proper policies, incentives, price signals and rates to encourage
solar installation”.
Environmental Impact
Council’s adoption of the proposed NEM Transition Policy and adoption of a resolution revising
the NEM cap do not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s (CEQA) definition of
“project” under California Public Resources Code Sec. 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section
15378(b)(5), because it is an administrative governmental activity which will not cause a direct
or indirect physical change in the environment, thus no environmental review is required.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Revised Net
Energy Metering Cap Calculation Methodology and Repealing Resolution 9557 (PDF)
Attachment B: Excerpted UAC Minutes of October 5, 2016 Meeting (PDF)
Attachment A
NOT YET APPROVED
161011 jb 6053846 1
Resolution No.
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Revised Net Energy
Metering Cap Calculation Methodology and Repealing Resolution 9557
R E C I T A L S
A. Net energy metering (NEM), is a billing arrangement that provides credit to
customers for the full retail value of the electricity their system generates.
B. State law requires all electric utilities to offer NEM to eligible customers with local
distributed renewable generation up to a maximum cap of 5% of the utility's aggregate
customer peak demand.
C. The California Public Utilities Code affords publicly owned utilities (POUs), like Palo
Alto, with the discretion to define "aggregate customer peak demand," leaving matters such as
the best method for calculating "aggregate customer peak demand" and what reference year to
use up to the City.
D. Given the flexibility available to POUs and other non-Investor Owned Utilities, there
are a variety of differing methodologies in use for calculating the NEM cap across the state,
resulting in confusion for utility customers and renewable energy installers operating across
multiple utility service territories.
E. On October 26, 2015, via Resolution 9557, Council formally adopted a NEM cap to
be five percent of the City's peak demand achieved in 2006, or 9.5 megawatts (MW).
F. On August 22, 2016, Council directed staff to revise the NEM cap calculation
methodology to be five percent of the customer class non-coincident peak. Staff determined
that the sum of the customer class non-coincident peaks in 2006 was 215.6 MW and that five
percent of that is equal to 10.8 MW. The City's NEM installations are currently approximately
70% of the revised 10.8 MW NEM cap and staff estimates that the cap could be reached in
2017. Local renewable generation installations after the NEM cap is reached will be subject to
the NEM Successor Program.
G. Increasing Palo Alto’s NEM cap will encourage additional local renewable generation
and formal adoption of the NEM cap promotes greater market certainty and transparency for
customers and renewable energy installers operating within the community. The proposed
revision to the NEM cap is consistent with NEM legislative and regulatory obligations and the
Council-adopted Local Solar Plan to promote distributed solar projects.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council adopts the methodology for calculating the City's NEM
cap to be five (5) percent of the sum of the City's non-coincident customer class peak demands,
Attachment A
NOT YET APPROVED
161011 jb 6053846 2
which is defined as the sum of the 2006 historical non-coincident customer class peak electric
demands of 215.6 megawatts (MW), or 10.8 MW.
SECTION 2. Resolution 9557, which formally adopted a Net Energy Metering Cap
Calculation Methodology as of October 26, 2015, is repealed.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that adoption of the revision to the NEM cap does not
meet the California Environmental Quality Act's definition of a "project" under Public Resources
Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), because it is an administrative
governmental activity which will not cause a direct or indirect physical change in the
environment, thus no environmental review is required.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
Director of Utilities
Director of Administrative Services
EXCERPTED DRAFT MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 5, 2016
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
ITEM 1: ACTION: Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend that
Council Adopt a Net Energy Metering (NEM) Transition Policy
Assistant Director Jane Ratchye noted that, in accordance with the UAC’s recommendation,
Council adopted the proposed Net Energy Metering (NEM) Successor Program on August 22,
2016, but requested that staff return to Council with options for the NEM Transition Policy. She
added that Council also directed staff to use an alternate method to calculate the NEM cap.
Ratchye indicated that the original staff proposal for the NEM Transition Policy was that
customers would remain in NEM for 20 years from the date of interconnection and that
customers may expand their systems by up to 10% and still remain in NEM. However, solar
photovoltaic (PV) system expansions larger than 10% would result in the entire system being
under the NEM Successor Program. Ratchye indicated that a community group, Carbon Free
Palo Alto, developed an alternative for the system expansion aspect of the Transition Policy
such that systems could expand and remain under NEM, but that the transition period would
be proportionally reduced by the amount of the increase. Ratchye said that the proposal is now
staff’s new recommendation. She explained that staff’s original proposal accommodated
increased systems that would be prompted by the need to replace a failed panel or two in a
system. The revised expansion policy accommodates larger PV system expansions that could be
prompted by the desire to increase a system size since the price of PV panels has decreased or
because electric use has increased with the addition of an electric vehicle (EV), or after
electrification of an appliance.
Ratchye indicated that the revised methodology for calculating the NEM cap is 5% of the sum of
the customer class non-coincident peak loads, rather than 5% of the overall system load. The
revised calculation increases the NEM cap from 9.5 megawatts (MW) to 10.8 MW providing
more room under the cap for the
Vice Chair Danaher described the NEM program as one that pays the retail rate for all PV
generation and noted that the program will transition to the NEM Success
Commissioner Johnston clarified that the original proposal allowed an expansion of a system by
up to 10% without any change in the transition period, but the new proposal would shorten the
transition period even with a system expansion of up to 10%. Ratchye said that this statement
was correct.
ATTACHMENT B
ACTION:
Commissioner Forssell made a motion that the UAC recommend that Council adopt the
proposed Net Energy Metering Transition Policy. Commissioner Johnston seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously (4-0, with Vice Chair Danaher and Commissioners Forssell,
Johnston, and Trumbull voting yes and Chair Cook and Commissioners Ballantine and Schwartz
absent).
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7360)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/7/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Contract Amendment for McGuire Pacific Contractors
Title: Approval of Amendment Number 3 to Contract Number C15157271
with McGuire Pacific Construction to Extend the Term of the Contract for
Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Sign Installation to September 1,
2018 With no Additional Costs
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager to execute
Amendment Three to Contract No. C15157271 with McGuire Pacific Constructors
(Attachment A) to extend the term of the Contract for standard sign installation for the
Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) program through September 1, 2018,
at no additional cost to the City.
Executive Summary
In March 2015, Council awarded a 12-month contract to McGuire Pacific Constructors
for fabrication and installation of all Downtown RPP signage, and for initiating
underground utilities verification for all proposed signage locations. In February 2016,
Amendment One was executed, which added $154,500 for construction services to
support the expanded boundary of the Downtown RPP district. In June 2016,
Amendment Two was executed, extending the term of the contract through September
1, 2016.
A further extension of the existing signage contract with McGuire Pacific Constructors is
needed to accommodate sign installation as new streets within the “eligibility area”
downtown opt into the program.
Background and Discussion
City Council directed staff to move forward with the implementation of a Residential
Preferential Parking (RPP) program in the Downtown neighborhoods. An expansion of
the program boundary and approval of an eligibility area adjacent to the Downtown RPP
district were later approved by City Council.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Streets within the approved eligibility area are able to opt in through a petition and
survey process, and be approved for the program administratively. The RPP program
requires standard signage to be installed on all streets where parking restrictions have
been adopted. The streets opt in on a rolling basis, requiring signage to be installed
following each request.
Resource Impact
This is an extension of time only, and no tasks are added to this contract. There are
sufficient resources to fund this contract. There is no additional resource impact by
extending the term of the contract through Amendment Three. Staff expects to return
to Council to request additional funds when new Residential Preferential Parking (RPP)
districts are approved and signage installation is required.
Policy Implications
The recommended action is consistent with prior City Council direction to implement
residential preferential parking downtown.
Environmental Review
Approval of an extension of time for an existing contract is not a “project” requiring
review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
Attachment A: C15157271 McGuire Amendment No 3.doc (PDF)
1 of 1 Revision April 28, 2014
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO CONTRACT NO. C15157271
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
MC GUIRE PACIFIC CONSTRUCTORS
This Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. C15157271 (“Contract”) is entered into
June 10, 2016, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal
corporation (“CITY”), and MC GUIRE PACIFIC CONSTRUCTORS, a Sole Proprietor, located at
12500 Locksley Lane, Auburn, California, 95602, Telephone Number: (530) 888-0527
(“CONTRACTOR”).
R E C I T A L S
A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision to perform
standard highway sign installations in support of a new Residential Preferential Parking (RPP)
district in Downtown Palo Alto.
B. CITY intends to extend the Contract term
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 3 TERM is hereby amended to read as follows:
“3. TERM. The term of this Agreement is from March 2, 2015 to September 18, 2018 inclusive,
subject
to the provisions of Sections Q and V of the General Terms and Conditions.”
SECTION 2. 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:
MC GUIRE PACIFIC CONSTRUCTORS
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A64376B-B0F4-40F0-92F5-A3C4A60B2EBF
John McGuire
owner
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7425)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/7/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: SECOND READING: Crescent Park No Overnight Parking
Title: SECOND READING: 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
(FIRST READING: December 7, 2015 PASSED: 7-0 Scharff not participating,
Burt absent)
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.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The first reading of this ordinance occurred on December 7, 2015 and for some reason, a
second reading never occurred. The staff report from December 7th is available at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50006. The ordinance will become
effective 31 days following adoption.
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 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
November 7, 2016
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Adoption of a Resolution Amending and Restating the Administrative
Penalty Schedule and Civil Penalty Schedules for Certain Violations of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code
Established by Resolution Number 9554 (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER
4, 2016)
Recommendation
Based on input from City departments that exercise code enforcement responsibilities, the City
Attorney’s Office recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution amending the
administrative penalty schedule to update the penalty amounts for certain violations of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Background
California Government Code section 53069.4 allows cities, by ordinance, to make any violation
of its ordinances subject to an administrative fine or penalty. In 1999, the City Council adopted
an ordinance amending Chapters 1.12 and 1.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) to
establish administrative citations, penalties and remedies for Municipal Code violations. At the
same time, the City Council enacted a resolution setting the administrative penalty schedule for
those violations. Personnel in various City departments, including parking enforcement officers,
park rangers, and planning code enforcement officers, use the civil penalty schedule as one tool
that may be used to gain compliance with rules.
Approximately once each year the City Attorney’s Office coordinates an update to the penalty
schedule to reflect Council activity and recommendations from these departments based on
their enforcement experience. The amendments generally fall into three categories: (1)
establishing penalties for code sections that had not been included in previous penalty
schedules; (2) adding penalties for new PAMC sections that were added to the Municipal Code
since the penalty schedule was last revised, or deleting penalties for sections no longer in the
PAMC; or (3) amending penalty amounts for violations of certain code provisions where
departments feel changes would provide better support for their enforcement activities.
The proposed changes to the penalty schedule for 2016 are shown in redline/strikeout in the
attached resolution.
Discussion
Page 2
The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed all of the following proposed changes with the
enforcing departments and supports the recommendations.
A. Planning and Community Environment
The Department of Planning and Community Environment recommends amendment to the fee
structure for violation of Planned Community Zoning and Transportation Demand Management
conditions.
Currently, violations of the Zoning Code (Title 18 of the PAMC) carry a default penalty of $500
for the first offence, $750 for the second offense, and $1,000 for the third and subsequent
offenses, Each day of violation may be treated as a separate offense. Different penalties may
apply to specific offenses within Title 18, as noted in the administrative penalty schedule. The
Planning Department recommends adoption of an alternative penalty structure for violations of
Planned Community (PC) zoning ordinances and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
plans that are required by code or attached as conditions of approval affecting an individual
project.
Under the proposed penalty structure, the $500 penalty would apply by default. However, if
the violation is not cured within six months following the issuance of a notice of violation, the
department could impose a penalty of $2,000 for each day until the property comes into
compliance. The Council should consider whether the suggested dollar amount is appropriate,
recognizing that the City would retain discretion on whether and how frequently to apply these
penalties depending on the nature of the violation, the responsiveness of the party involved,
and the potential for the penalties to spur compliance. This is important because violations can
vary in scale and importance, ranging from minor deviations from conditions of approval (for
example, failing to post a sign) to more significant deviations from zoning requirements (for
example, failing to provide a grocery store that was promised as a public benefit).
It’s also important to recognize that enforcement activities will be most successful when code
requirements and conditions of approval are clear. There are some historic PC ordinances that
are not particularly clear, making their enforcement challenging.
Regarding TDM plans, staff will be bringing forward recommended changes to code provisions
in the near future. If adopted, these changes could require TDM plans for certain types of
projects, update required contents of those plans, and require regular monitoring and reporting
by the property owner.
This recommendation is consistent with the Planning Department’s Code Enforcement policy of
encouraging voluntary compliance. The Planning Code Enforcement team is able to achieve
voluntary compliance in most cases, which saves staff resources and allows the team to
effectively prioritize the investigations and enforcement activities they undertake.
Page 3
A Councilmember asked the department to consider modifications to the penalty schedule for
demolition or failure to maintain historic structures under PAMC Chapter 16.49. The
department recommends increasing existing penalties to $2,000 and adding penalties at the
same level for alterations or demolition of significant buildings outside the downtown without
or in violation of a permit. In addition to these changes to the administrative penalty schedule,
however, the City Attorney’s office recommends amendments to the municipal code.
Currently, the “enforcement” section of the City’s historic preservation ordinance (PAMC
section 16.49.090) only addresses downtown violations. This section specifically details
criminal and civil penalties (i.e. those imposed by a court judgment) for demolition or failure to
maintain a historic building in the University Ave downtown area. For example, the code states
that a person who demolishes a historic building in the downtown may be subject to a civil
penalty – after court judgment – “in a sum equal to the replacement value of the building or an
amount in the court's discretion, not to exceed ten thousand dollars.”
These detailed provisions for criminal and civil penalties are separate and distinct from the
administrative penalties set in this resolution. Administrative penalties are generally imposed
by citation and may be applied daily until a violation is cured, but the penalty schedule does not
itself require a particular remedy, such as restoration or reconstruction of a historic building.
For this reason, updates to the administrative penalty schedule should be accompanied by
revisions to the historic preservation ordinance. Among other things, revisions to the municipal
code could make enforcement provisions currently applicable to downtown apply more
broadly, specify the various remedial measures required, and provide clarity on what
constitutes “demolition,” “demolition by neglect,” “existing” and improper maintenance of an
historic structure.
B. Public Works Department
The Public Works Department recommends minor clarifications to the penalties associated with
encroachments into the public right of way. The descriptions of penalties for violations of
Chapter 12.12 of the PAMC have been update to make clear that work outside the scope of an
encroachment permit is no different from unpermitted work. This clarification does not
represent a change in the department’s interpretation or enforcement of the municipal code.
A Councilmember asked that staff review the penalties listed for violation of PAMC Chapter
8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management Regulations). These penalties are just one tool
available to staff in enforcing tree protection regulations. PAMC Chapter 8.10 authorizes staff
to issue stop work orders and require creation of a mitigation plan, which may include ongoing
care or replacement of damaged trees, as appropriate. Staff have found existing penalties and
enforcement tools are usually sufficient to ensure compliance. After receiving direction
through the Urban Forest Master Plan, staff will be reviewing and possibly proposing revisions
to Municipal Code and the Tree Technical Manual.
C. Development Services Department
Page 4
The Development Services Department recommends an increase in the penalty for violation of
the City’s construction and demolition (C&D) debris diversion requirements from $50 per ton,
with a minimum penalty of $1,000 to $150 per ton, with a minimum penalty of $3,000. This
increase is designed to enhance compliance from large development projects generating
several tons of C&D waste. The department has found that the current penalty level has been
ineffective as some applicants have found it more cost effective to simply pay the penalty than
take on the additional cost of C&D waste diversion. The department will also be increasing its
public outreach and education efforts so applicants are informed of the diversion requirement
and the various salvage, reuse, and recycling options available to them.
In addition, the department recommends adding a penalty for the newly adopted International
Swimming Pool and Spa Code at $500, commensurate with penalties for other violations of the
building codes.
D. Minor clerical updates
The attached resolution includes several technical and clerical updates to the administrative
penalty resolution to update or delete outdated code references.
Resource Impact
Any potential revenue estimate impacts from changes in these penalties, if approved by the
City Council, will be evaluated as part of the development annual budgets and mid-year budget
reviews.
Policy Implications
These recommendations provide the City’s code enforcement officers with a tool they may use
to enforce City rules when necessary to promote the safety and welfare of Palo Alto residents
and visitors.
Environmental Review
Approval of penalties for violations of the PAMC is not a project subject to review under the
California Environmental Quality Act.
ATTACHMENTS:
2016-10-13 (Reso) Admin Penalty Schedule Reso Update 2016 v3 (PDF)
Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney
Page 5
NOT YET APPROVED
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending and Restating
the Administrative Penalty Schedule and Civil Penalty Schedules for
Certain Violations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the California
Vehicle Code Established by Resolution No. 9554
The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. Administrative Penalties. The administrative penalty schedule for violations
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code established by Resolution No. 9554 is hereby amended and
restated to read as follows:
Standard penalty unless otherwise indicated below. $50
Second violation within 36 month period 150% of listed penalty
(unless otherwise specified)
Third & subsequent violations within 36 month period. 200% of listed penalty
(unless otherwise specified)
Delinquency penalty. 10% per month, simple interest, on
delinquent amount
4.04.020 License or permit required. 300
4.04.100 Display of license or permit. 300
4.10.045 License fees for pushcart vendors. 300
4.10.050 Regulations for solicitors and peddlers. 350
4.10.055 Identification cards for solicitors. 250
4.10.057 Regulations for pushcart vendors. 300
4.10.070 License required - circus etc. 300
4.10.120 Arcade prohibited. 250
4.10.200 Pawn brokers prohibited. 250
4.10.230 Daily report of second hand dealers. 250
4.10.240 Maintaining reports - second hand dealers. 250
4.10.260 Failure to make report - second hand dealers. 250
4.10.270 Second hand goods held for inspection. 250
4.18.040 Unlawful dog or cat kennel. 250
4.30.010 Soliciting without a permit. 250
4.30.100 Conduct of solicitations. 250
4.32.020 Soliciting without a permit. 250
4.32.060 Investigation of records of solicitor. 250
4.32.090 Acts required during solicitation. 250
4.32.100 Restriction of solicitation. 250
4.32.110 Hours of solicitation. 250
4.34.020 Permit required - closing out sale. 250
4.39.030 Audible alarms. 250
4.39.040 Limitation on automatic dialing devices. 250
4.39.060 Registration of alarm. 250
4.39.110 Alarm violations. 100
4.42.020 Certificate of public convenience. 1000
4.42.085 Controlled substance and alcohol testing. 500
4.42.090 Taxi owners permit. 250
1
160831 sh 2016-08-30 (Reso) Admin Penalty Schedule Reso Update 2016
NOT YET APPROVED
4.42.100 Taxi driver’s permit expired. 250
4.42.130(b) Taxi driver’s permit not displayed. 250
4.42.160 Unauthorized pickup of passengers. 250
4.42.190 Taximeters. 500
4.42.200 Taxi cab operating regulations. 250
4.42.210(a) Interference with inspection. 500
4.42.210(b) Inspection of vehicles. 500
4.42.220 Operating regulations. 500
4.42.230 Maintenance of vehicles. 500
4.51.030 License required - bingo. 250
4.51.050 Minors restricted - bingo. 50
4.51.080 Staffing and operations - bingo. 250
4.51.110 Physical presence required - bingo. 250
4.52.020 License required - billiards and bowling. 1000
4.52.040 Minors restricted - billiards and bowling. 250
4.52.060 Offensive conduct - billiards and bowling. 250
4.52.070 Interference w/emerg. Access -billiards/bowling. 250
4.54.030(a) Permit required - massage establishment. 1000
4.54.060(a) Permit required - massage tech. 250
4.54.110 Massage establishment facilities. 250
4.54.130 Business name - massage. 250
4.55.030 License required - adult entertainment. 1000
4.56.030 License required - hot tub and sauna. 1000
4.56.060 Employee permit required - hot tub and sauna. 250
4.56.100 Hot tub/sauna establishment and operations. 250
4.56.120 Business name - hot tub and sauna. 250
4.56.150 Display of permit - hot tub and sauna. 250
4.56.200 Employment of persons < 18 - hot tub and sauna. 250
4.57.020 Permit required - firearms sales. 1000
4.57.095 Firearms dealers – business and security. 500
4.58.020 Minors restricted - narcotics paraphernalia shop. 750
4.58.030 Regulations - narcotics paraphernalia shop. 750
4.59.010 Pet shop requirements. 250
4.59.020 Pet shop sanitation. 250
4.59.030 Pet shop food. 250
4.59.040 Pet shop notification. 250
4.59.050 Pet shop - sale of dangerous or wild animals. 250
4.59.070 Dead animals. 250
4.59.080 Permit required - pet shop and kennel. 250
4.59.090 Permit required - grooming shop. 250
4.59.095 Sales of kittens and puppies. 250
4.59.100 Sales of raccoons. 250
4.59.105 Sales of rabbits, chicks, ducklings. 250
4.60.030 Business registration required 250
4.60.060 Business registry application required 250
4.60.120(a) Business registry fee delinquency 50% of registry fee if 1-30 days late
100% of fee or 31+ days late
5.12.010 Permit required - refreshment stand. 250
5.20.030 Discarding solid waste. 100
5.20.040 Accumulation of garbage. 250
5.20.050 Unauthorized bins, boxes, containers-first violation. 500
Second and subsequent violations. 1000
5.20.080 Number of containers required. 250
5.20.130 Maintenance of bins and boxes- first violation. 250
2
160831 sh 2016-08-30 (Reso) Admin Penalty Schedule Reso Update 2016
NOT YET APPROVED
Second and subsequent violations. 500
5.20.160 Spillage or leakage of solid waste. 250
5.20.180 No accumulation of solid waste. 250
5.20.190 No burning, burial, or dumping of solid waste. 250
5.20.200 Hazardous waste. 500
5.20.220 Scavenging prohibited. 100
5.20.230 No trespassing in city landfill. 250
5.30.020 Polystyrene & Non-Recyclable Plastic. 500
5.35.020 Bags at retail establishments. 500
5.35.030 Bags at supermarkets. 500
6.08.020(b) Interference with animal control officer. 250
6.16.010 No dog license. 50
6.16.080 Number of dogs allowed. 100
6.16.100 Leash Law. 100
6.20.010 Animals at large. 100
6.20.020 Animals on unenclosed premises. 100
6.20.030 Animals kept in enclosures. 100
6.20.035 Tying animals to bicycle racks or trees. 100
6.20.040 Nuisance on sidewalk. 100
6.20.045 Animal waste removal - first offense. 25
6.20.045 Animal waste removal - second offense. 50
6.20.045 Animal waste removal - third offense. 125
6.20.055 Animals in vehicles. 250
6.20.060 Bees close to property line. 100
6.20.080 Permit required - livestock. 100
6.20.090 Maintaining birds, goats, pigs and rabbits. 100
6.20.110 Number of cats kept. 100
6.20.120 Permit required - breeding animals. 100
6.20.130 Cat or dog in heat. 100
6.20.140 Barking dogs. 100
6.20.150 Vaccination required - animals. 100
6.20.160 Sanitary enclosures. 100
6.20.170 Slaughter of animals. 500
6.24.020 Permit required - construction of stable. 250
6.24.050 Maintenance of stable. 250
6.28.040 Possession of dangerous or wild animals. 500
6.32.010 Keeping diseased animals. 500
6.32.020 Confining animals with rabies. 500
6.32.050 Dead animals in public. 500
6.36.010 Sales of certain animals. 250
8.04.020 Permit required - tree work. 500
8.04.080 Interference with tree enforcement. 500
8.08.010 Weeds as public nuisance. 250
8.10.050 Protected trees. 500
8.10.070 Care of protected trees. 500
8.10.080(b) Development conditions. 500
9.04.010 Open container in business district. 100
9.04.020 Open container in City parking lot. 100
9.04.030 Open container near liquor store. 100
9.04.040 Social host. First violation 250
Second violation 500
Third & subsequent violation 1000
9.08.010 Discharge of firearms/fireworks. 1000
9.09.010(a) Urinating/defecating on street or public place. 250
3
160831 sh 2016-08-30 (Reso) Admin Penalty Schedule Reso Update 2016
NOT YET APPROVED
9.09.010(b) Igniting or maintaining outdoor fire. 250
9.10.030 Residential property noise limits. 100
9.10.040 Commercial property noise limits. 100
9.10.050 Public property noise limits. 100
9.10.060(b) Construction noise signs. 250
9.10.060(c) Construction noise. 250
9.10.060(d) Construction equipment noise. 100
9.10.060(e) Residential power equipment noise. 100
9.10.060(f) Leaf blower noise- first violation. 100
Leaf blower noise- second violation 150
Leaf blower noise- third and subsequent violation 300
9.10.060(g) Street sweeping noise. 100
9.10.060(h) Refuse collection noise. 100
9.10.060(i) Safety device noise. 100
9.10.060(k) Public parking lot cleaning noise. 100
9.10.060(l) Business district street cleaning noise. 100
9.12.010 Loudspeakers. 150
9.14.020 Smoking prohibited - enclosed places. 250 (2nd violation in 1 year: $300;
3rd and subsequent violations
in 1 year: $500)
9.14.025 Smoking prohibited - unenclosed
areas. 250 (2nd violation in 1 year: $300;
3rd and subsequent violations
in 1 year: $500)
9.14.030 Smoking prohibited - city cars. 250 (2nd violation in 1 year: $300;
3rd and subsequent violations
in 1 year: $500)
9.14.035 Smoking prohibited – public parks and public events 250 (2nd violation in 1 year: $300;
3rd and subsequent violations
in 1 year: $500)
9.14.040 Smoking prohibited - child care facilities. 250 (2nd violation in 1 year: $300;
3rd and subsequent violations
in 1 year: $500)
9.14.050 Smoking prohibited – commercial areas
and public events. 250 (2nd violation in 1 year: $300;
3rd and subsequent violations
in 1 year: $500)
9.14.080 Location of tobacco vending machines. 1000
9.14.090 Display of tobacco products. 500
9.14.100 Failure to post “No Smoking” signs. 50
9.22.010 Impersonating public officials. 500
9.26.020 False representation as police officer. 250
9.28.010 Hotel guest register required. 250
9.28.020 Use of false name by hotel guest. 50
9.40.020 Landing aircraft at other than airport. 1000
9.44.010 Solicitation prohibited - public parking lot. 100
9.48.010 Displaying goods on sidewalk. 50
9.48.025 Sitting or lying on University Avenue sidewalks. 100
9.48.030 Operation of sidewalk elevator. 500
9.48.040 Throwing rubbish on streets. 250
9.48.050 Obligation to clean sidewalk. 200
9.50.010 Graffiti prohibited on public property. 500
9.56.030 Abatement of public nuisance. 500 unless otherwise specified
9.56.030(a)(5) Thirty-five foot site triangle. 200
4
160831 sh 2016-08-30 (Reso) Admin Penalty Schedule Reso Update 2016
NOT YET APPROVED
9.56.030(a)(8) Foliage/branch obstruction. 200
9.56.030(a)(10) Excessive planting strip vegetation height. 150
9.60.030 Blocking entrances to City Hall. 500
9.60.050 Placing signs or climbing on City Hall. 500
9.60.060 Bicycles and skateboards at City Hall. 50
9.60.070 Alcoholic beverages prohibited - City Hall. 100
9.64.010 Overnight use of community facilities 250
9.74.030 Discrimination in housing. 250
9.78.020 Mosquito breeding places. 500
9.79.100 News rack violations. 100
12.08.010 Permit required - public right of way. 500
12.08.100 Removal of City Engineer monuments. 500
12.12.010 Building on public easement without or in violation 1000
of encroachment permit
12.12.020 Failure to obtain or violation of commercial 500
sidewalk encroachment permit
12.16.030 Overhead wires in underground districts. 500
12.16.090 Property owner responsibility. 500
12.20.010 Utility rules and regulations 500 unless otherwise specified
12.20.010 Emergency water conservation regulations 100 (2nd violation in 1 year: $250;
(Reso. Nos. 9509, 9460, 9449) 3rd and subsequent violations
in 1 year: $500)
12.20.020 Providing false information to City Utilities. 500
12.32.010 Water use regulation. 100
15.04.110 Violations of Uniform Fire Code. 500 unless otherwise specified
15.04.012 Failure to abate a hazard. 1000
16.04.0510 Violations of California Building Code as amended. 500 unless otherwise specified
16.05.0410 Violations of California Mechanical Code as amended500
16.06.0510 Violations of California Residential Code as amended.500
16.08.0410 Violations of California Plumbing Code as amended. 500
16.09.030 Limitations on point of discharge. 1000
16.09.035 General Discharge Prohibitions. 1000
16.09.040 Specific Discharge Prohibition - Standards. 1000
16.09.045 Additional Copper Limitations for Industrial Waste. 1000
16.09.050 Grease Disposal Prohibited. 1000
16.09.055 Prohibited Discharge of Unpolluted Water. 1000
16.09.065 Best Management Practices (BMPs). 1000
16.09.070 Trucker's Discharge Permit. 1000
16.09.075 Food Service Establishment Requirements. 1000
16.09.080 Industrial Waste Discharge Permit Required. 1000
16.09.085 Modification, Suspension or Revocation of Industrial
Wastes Discharge. 1000
16.09.090 Requirements for Facilities Affected by National
Pretreatment Standards. 1000
16.09.105 Waste Sampling Locations. 1000
16.09.110 Discharger Monitoring. 1000
16.09.115 Prohibition against Dilution. 1000
16.09.120 Discharger Self-Monitoring. 1000
16.09.125 Maintenance and Operation of Pollution Control and
Monitoring Equipment. 1000
5
160831 sh 2016-08-30 (Reso) Admin Penalty Schedule Reso Update 2016
NOT YET APPROVED
16.09.130 Compliance with the Pretreatment Requirements. 1000
16.09.135 Reporting Requirements for all Permitted Dischargers.1000
16.09.140 Requirements for Reporting Noncompliance, Increased
Loading, Slug Discharges, Accidental Discharges. 1000
16.09.145 Certification of Reports. 1000
16.09.150 Falsification of Information. 1000
16.09.160 Retention of Records. 1000
16.09.165 Storm Drain System - Prohibited Discharges. 1000
16.09.170 Requirements for Construction Operations. 1000
16.09.175 General Prohibitions and Practices. 1000
16.09.180 Requirements for Newly Constructed, Remodeled or
Converted Multi-Residential, Commercial and
Industrial Facilities. 1000
16.09.185 Personnel Orientation. 1000
16.09.190 Accidental Discharges Prevention. 1000
16.09.195 Storage of Hazardous Materials Above Sinks. 1000
16.09.200 Zinc Containing Floor Finishes. 1000
16.09.205 Requirements for Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains,
Boilers and Heat Exchangers. 1000
16.09.210 Root and Pest Control Chemicals. 1000
16.09.215 Requirements for Photographic Materials Processing.1000
16.09.220 Requirements for Dental Facilities that Remove or
Place Amalgam Fillings. 1000
16.09.225 Requirements for Vehicle Service Facilities. 1000
16.09.230 Requirements for Machine Shops. 1000
16.09.260 Violations of Sewer Use Ordinance 1000
16.10.020 Construction of private sewer system. 750
16.10.050 Permit required - private sewage system. 500
16.14.040 Violations of California Green Building 500
Standards Code as amended
16.14.260 Failure to meet diversion requirements. $50150 per ton of waste not
diverted or $10003000, whichever is
greater
16.14.370 Failure to meet diversion requirements. $50150 per ton of waste not
diverted or $10003000, whichever is
greater
16.16.0610 Violations of California Electrical Code as amended. 500
16.17.0210 Violations of California Energy Code as amended. 500
16.18.020 Violations of International Pool and Spa Code as 500
amended
16.20.020 Design review required - signs. 500
16.20.090 Prohibited signs. 250
16.20.100 Prohibited locations - signs. 250
16.20.110 Fuel price signs required. 250
16.20.210 Non-compliance with sign ordinance. 250
16.20.230 Abandoned signs. 250
16.20.250 Parking of advertising vehicles. 250
16.24.080 Fence violation. 250
16.28.060 Permit required - excavation and grading. 500
16.28.330 Protection of adjacent property. 500
16.28.340 Deposits of earth, rock, etc. 500
16.32.010 Permit required - moving a building. 250
16.36.050 Curb painting without a permit. 100
16.36.060 House numbering required. 100
6
160831 sh 2016-08-30 (Reso) Admin Penalty Schedule Reso Update 2016
NOT YET APPROVED
16.38.020 Certificate of occupancy – community housing. 500
16.40.040 Dangerous and substandard buildings. 500
16.40.090 Non-compliance with order of building official. 500
16.40.180 Interference with repair or demolition work. 500
16.42.090 Failure to submit seismic report. 250
16.45.070 Failure to pay fee - Stanford Research Park. 250
16.46.060 Failure to pay fee - San Antonio - West Bayshore. 250
16.47.050 Failure to pay housing impact fee. 250
16.49.050 Exterior alteration of downtown structures or 2000
significant structure outside the downtown without
or in violation of permit
16.49.060 Demolition of a significant downtown building 2000
without or in violation of permit
16.49.070 Demolition of a contributing downtown structure 2000
or significant structure outside the downtown
without or in violation of permit
16.49.080 Maintenance of downtown historic structure. 5002000
16.49.090 Demolition of downtown historic structure. 10002000
16.52.070 Construction - flood hazards. 500
16.59.090 Failure to pay fee- Citywide Transportation Impact. 250
16.60.090 Failure to pay fee- Charleston/Arastradero. 250
16.62.020 Maintenance of expired building permit 200 for 31st through 60th day
400 for 61st through 120th day
800 for 121st day and thereafter
17.04.020 Violations of hazardous materials storage. 500, unless otherwise specified
17.04.030 Specific obligation - hazardous materials. 500
17.10.010 General obligation - underground storage tanks. 750 unless otherwise specified
17.10.040 Permit required - underground storage. 500
17.10.140 Financial responsibility - underground storage. 500
17.10.150 Monitoring underground storage tanks. 1000
17.10.170 Unlawful abandonment - underground storage tanks.1000
17.12.010 Permit required - hazardous materials storage. 750
17.12.020 New hazardous materials storage facilities. 750
17.12.060 Hazardous materials storage facilities. 750
17.16.010 Hazardous materials management plan. 250
17.20.010 Hazardous materials inventory statement. 250
17.24.010 Hazardous materials discharge report. 750
17.32.010 Permit required - storage of hazardous materials. 1000
18.01.080 Violation of zoning laws. 500
18.16.060(d)Hotel stay in excess of 30 days. 200
18.18.060(d)Hotel stay in excess of 30 days. 200
18.38.020 Planned Community zoning (unless otherwise 500
specified in PC ordinance) 2000 beginning the 181th day
following notice of violation
18.42.060(a)Incompatibility of home occupations. 200
18.42.060(b) Employees of home occupation. 200
18.42.060(c) On site advertising of home occupation. 200
18.42.060(d) Floor area of home occupation. 200
18.42.060(e) Traffic related to home occupation. 200
18.42.060(f) Home occupation as nuisance. 200
18.42.060(g) Outdoor storage related to home occupation. 200
18.42.070 Servicing vehicles in residential zone. 250
18.44.040 Green building requirements. 500
18.52.050 Transportation demand management conditions 500
7
160831 sh 2016-08-30 (Reso) Admin Penalty Schedule Reso Update 2016
NOT YET APPROVED
2000 beginning the 181th day
following notice of violation
18.84.200 Temporary uses. 250
22.04.030 Compliance with park rules. 250
22.04.040 Failure to obtain use permit. 300
22.04.150(a) Resident and guests only - Foothills Park. 50
22.04.150(b) Entrance to park - Foothills Park. 50
22.04.150(c) Person in park after hours - Foothills Park. 250
22.04.150(d) Speed limit 20MPH - Foothills Park. 250
22.04.150(e) Vehicles in Foothills Park after hours. 100
22.04.150(f) Skateboards and motorcycles - Foothills Park. 250
22.04.150(g) Smoking on trails - Foothills Park. 1000
22.04.150(h) Fires in Foothills Park. 1000
22.04.150(i) Use of trails - Foothills Park. 100
22.04.150(l) Unleashed dog - Foothills Park. 250
22.04.155 Restraint of dogs in City parks. 250
22.04.160 Permit required - sales in parks. 250
22.04.170 Violation of park use permit. 250
22.04.180 Sound in parks. 250
22.04.190 Unauthorized golf and other games in parks. 250
22.04.200 Unauthorized models and kites in parks. 100
22.04.210 Parking in parks. 100
22.04.215 Launch and takeout from ramp or dock. 250
22.04.220 Bicycle not permitted on trails. 250
22.04.230 Dumping in park. 1000
22.04.240 Interference with park use permit. 250
22.04.250 Park regulations . 250 unless otherwise specified
22.04.260 Discharge of weapons in park. 500
22.04.270 Removal of flora or fauna. 500
22.04.280 Removal of turf or soil. 500
22.04.290(a) Damaging, defacing, etc., property. 1000
22.04.290(b) Marking, writing or printing on property. 1000
22.04.290(c) Attaching sign, etc., without permit. 500
22.04.290(d) Entering, etc., structure after posted hours. 250
22.04.290(e) Bringing portable tables without a permit. 100
22.04.300 Unlawful fire in city park. 1000
22.04.310 Enid Pearson Arastradero, Esther Park closure. 250
22.04.315 Byxbee Park and Baylands closed. 250
22.04.320 Parks closed. 250
22.04.321(a)Skateboarding in park after hours. 50
22.04.322 Trespass at Rinconada Park pool. 50
22.04.330 Alcohol in Cogswell Park. 250
22.04.331 Alcohol in Lytton Plaza. 250
22.04.332 Alcohol in Johnson Park. 250
22.04.333 Alcohol in Boulware Park. 250
22.04.334 Alcohol in Scott St. Minipark. 250
22.04.335 Alcohol in Greer Park. 250
22.04.336(a)Alcohol in Rinconada Park. 250
22.04.337 Alcohol in Mitchell Park. 250
22.04.338 Alcohol in Robles Park. 250
22.04.339 Alcohol in Hopkins Park. 250
22.04.340 Vehicles in park. 250
22.04.341 Alcohol in El Palo Alto Park. 250
22.04.342 Alcohol in Heritage Park. 250
8
160831 sh 2016-08-30 (Reso) Admin Penalty Schedule Reso Update 2016
NOT YET APPROVED
22.04.343 Alcohol in Pardee Park. 250
22.04.350 Consumption of alcoholic beverage in vehicles. 250
22.04.360 Open container in park - alcoholic beverage. 250
22.04.370 Reckless driving in park. 250
22.04.380 Unlawful riding and towing in parks. 250
22.04.390 Duck pond. 100
SECTION 2. Municipal Code Civil Penalties. The civil penalty schedule for violations of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code established by Resolution No. 9554 is hereby amended and
restated to read as follows*:
Standard penalty unless otherwise indicated below. $46
10.36.020 No parking in parkways. 46
10.36.030(a)Storage on the street (72 hours). 86
10.36.040(a)(1)Vehicle for sale on street. 46
10.36.040(a)(2)Repairing vehicle on street. 46
10.36.050 Not w/in 18” of left curb--One-way street. 46
10.36.090 Removal of chalk markings. 111
10.40.020(a)(1)Parking violation – red curb. 46
10.40.020(a)(4)Parking violation – green curb. 46
10.40.020(a)(5)Parking violation – blue curb. 308
10.40.020(b)Parking in violation of sign (except blue curb). 46
10.40.020(b)Unlawful disabled parking - signs (blue curb). 308
10.40.040(b)Commercial vehicle double parking. 46
10.40.050 Unlawful parking in yellow loading zone. 46
10.40.060 Unlawful parking in passenger loading zone. 46
10.40.070 Unlawful alley parking. 46
10.40.100(g)Parking in a bus zone. 46
10.44.010(b)Overtime parking (limited time zone). 41
10.44.010(c)Additional violation of time limited or no 44
parking zones.
10.44.020(a)Oversized vehicle parking in residential or 46
public facilities zones 2am-6am.
10.44.040(b)Not in space marking. 46
10.44.050(b)Parking violation--temporary sign. 46
10.44.060 Dealers--parking for sale or repair. 46
10.44.070(b)Parking in violation of posted sign. 46
10.44.080 Vehicle obstruction of roadway or lot. 46
10.44.090 Unattended vehicle, engine running. 111
10.45.110 Parking in on-street valet parking space. 46
10.46.110 Overtime residential parking permit (CT) 53
10.48.030 Truck route violation. 211
10.50.100(a)Violation of posted RPP permit sign 53
10.60.070(c)Permit not properly displayed. 41
10.60.070(d)Overtime permit parking in City lot. 41
10.60.070(e)Parking without permit in permit area. 46
22.04.150(e)In Foothills Park after hours. 111
22.04.210 Parking in parks. 111
Late payment penalty. 35
Collection cost penalty. 35% of listed penalty
9
160831 sh 2016-08-30 (Reso) Admin Penalty Schedule Reso Update 2016
NOT YET APPROVED
*All penalties include state-mandated assessments pursuant to Gov’t. Code 76000, S.B 1407(2008), and
Government Code 76000.3 (S.B. 857, 2008) totaling $12.50.
SECTION 3. Vehicle Code Civil Penalties. The civil penalty schedule for violations of the
California Vehicle Code established by Resolution No. 9554 is hereby amended and restated to
read as follows*:
5200 No front license plate. $78
(If corrected within 31 days) 10 (state mandated)
5204(a) No registration tabs on license plate. 78
(If corrected within 31 days) 10 (state mandated)
21113(a) Parking on public grounds. 46
22500(a) Parking in an intersection. 46
22500(b) Parking in a crosswalk. 46
22500(d) Parking w/in 15 feet--fire station driveway. 46
22500(e) Blocking driveway. 46
22500(f) Parking on sidewalk. 46
22500(g) Parking or stopping--excavation site, etc. 46
22500(h) Double parking on roadway. 46
22500(i) Parking in a bus zone. 261
22500(l) Parking in front of accessible curb. 303
22500.1 Parking in a fire lane (public or private). 46
22502 Right hand wheels not w/in 18” of rt. curb. 46
22505(b) Parking on state highway violation. 46
22507.8(a-b)Unlawful parking in handicapped space. 303
22507.8(c)(1-2)Straddling Lines/Cross hatched, disabled. 303
22511.57(a) Parking/standing of vehicle in disabled parking $753
stall or space with invalid license/placard.
22511.57(b) Unauthorized use of license/placard for vehicle $753
parking/standing in disabled parking stall or space.
22511.57(c) Parking/standing of vehicle in disabled parking $753
stall or space with counterfeit, forged, altered or
mutilated license/placard for disabled.
22514 Parking within 15 feet of fire hydrant. 46
22515 Unattended vehicle, engine running. 111
22516 Person locked in vehicle. 111
22521 Parking within 7 1/2 feet of railroad tracks. 46
22522 Parking near sidewalk access ramp. 303
22523(a) Unlawful abandonment of vehicle on highway. 131
22523(b) Abandoned vehicle--public/private property. 131
22526 Entering/blocking intersection – anti-gridlock. 131
22951 No street, alley parking--patron vehicles. 46
*All penalties include state-mandated assessments pursuant to Gov’t. Code 76000, S.B 1407(2008), and
Government Code 76000.3 (S.B. 857, 2008) totaling $12.50.
//
//
//
10
160831 sh 2016-08-30 (Reso) Admin Penalty Schedule Reso Update 2016
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 4. 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:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
__________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________
City Manager
__________________________ ____________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney Police Chief
11
160831 sh 2016-08-30 (Reso) Admin Penalty Schedule Reso Update 2016
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7209)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/7/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Review Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Pedestrian Overcrossing
Project Design Concept Approval
Title: Review and Potential Direction to Add Optional Enhancements and
Associated Costs for the Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Pedestrian Overcrossing
Project, Capital Improvements Program Project PE-11011
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1) Review the 15% design and estimated costs of optional enhancements for
the Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Pedestrian Overcrossing Project; and
2) Determine whether any optional enhancements should be added to the
project, and accordingly direct staff to amend the contract with Biggs
Cardosa Associates, Inc. and increase the budget for the Adobe
Creek/Highway 101 Pedestrian Overcrossing Project, Capital Improvements
Program (CIP) Project PE-11011.
Executive Summary
This report provides an update on the design of the baseline bridge with core
additional elements, and a review of the potential optional enhancements to the
project and their associated costs. The design team, Biggs Cardosa Associates,
(BCA) has developed a 15% design for a 12-foot wide baseline bridge, which
consists of: a bowstring steel truss principal span, concrete approaches, an
eastern approach overlook platform, western approach alternative access
(originally anticipated to be a stairway), enhanced lighting, Adobe Creek Reach
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Trail head improvements, and educational signage. The baseline bridge is
expected to meet the project’s $13 million budget. The optional enhancements
that could be added to the project by Council include an eastern approach ramp
plaza, enhanced railings and fencing, enhanced amenities, modification of
principal span and approach structures to provide a 16-foot clear width, and five
alternative principal span steel truss structure types. Staff will return to Council
with a design services contract amendment and budget adjustment in December
should optional enhancements be selected. The anticipated Google contribution
of $1 million is not yet included in the $13 million budget and could be used to
fund optional enhancements, or act as a contingency to offset any increased
project costs (such as higher than anticipated construction cost escalation), or
reduce the City’s general fund contribution of $4.65 million to the project. If
County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors is amenable, the $4.5 million funds in
County Trail Funds relinquished by Stanford University may be an additional
source of project funding.
Background
Council approved the design contract with Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. (BCA) on
May 23, 2016 (Staff Report ID# 6578). The contract includes Phase 1, 65% design
development services for a bird-friendly, 12-foot wide, prefabricated bowstring,
standard steel truss bridge that spans Highway 101 with concrete approaches and
meets the $13 million total project budget. The design intent is to combine a basic
bridge with core additional elements (western stair, signage, Adobe Creek Reach
Trail, enhanced lighting and overlook), with the potential to add optional
enhancements identified during the design competition that would increase the
bridge cost beyond the $13 million budget. Council directed staff to return at the
15% design level, prior to commencing the environmental assessment, to review
the design concepts, graphics and estimated costs for optional enhancements.
Staff received positive feedback in August and September on the 15% design
bridge alignment, access and maintenance from Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory
Committee (PABAC) and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)
representatives.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Discussion
Baseline and Core Additional Project Elements
The baseline bridge is a 12-foot clear width (14 feet total width), bowstring steel
truss principal span, with additional steel truss spans over East and West
Bayshore Roads, and concrete approach ramp structures. The core additional
elements include an eastern approach overlook platform, western approach
alternative access (originally anticipated to be a stairway), enhanced lighting,
Adobe Creek Reach Trail head improvements, and educational signage. The
baseline and core additional project elements are configured to meet the $10
million construction budget and $13 million total project budget. Attachment A
provides the 15% concept plans and design renderings. The core additional
elements are also described in Attachment A, and are briefly summarized below.
Eastern Approach Overlook Platform
The eastern approach overlook offers sweeping views of the Baylands and Adobe
Creek setting. The overlook provides an opportunity for additional amenities.
West Bayshore Road Improvements and new Adobe Creek Reach Trail
The bridge geometry and sidewalk bike path and roadway interface is an
opportunity to improve access for pedestrians and cyclists. Integrating the
existing sidewalk into the bridge approach ramp removes the need for a stairway
and provides cyclists with a dedicated bike lane over Adobe Creek Bridge on West
Bayshore Road.
Best practices in bikeway design support a one-way separated bikeway on each
side of West Bayshore Road. The new Adobe Creek Reach Trail will connect West
Bayshore Road to East Meadow Drive with a new west plaza and trailheads. The
new trailheads, sidewalk and bike lane details will be further developed and
presented to the community.
Enhanced Lighting
Ground-mounted and handrail lighting provides low-impact direct pathway
lighting and reduces light spilling beyond the bridge and pathways. Lighting poles
along the western approach will limit light pollution by incorporating shields to
push light away from the Barron/Adobe confluence. Interactive lighting offers an
artistic element and will be explored further. Lighting levels will dim using an
City of Palo Alto Page 4
astronomical clock to reduce light output while meeting photometric
requirements.
Optional Enhancements
Optional enhancements to the project include a plaza at the eastern approach
ramp entrance, enhanced railings and fence mesh, enhanced amenities, a 16-foot
(rather than 12-foot) span and approach width, and five alternative principal span
steel truss types. Some of the principal span truss alternatives utilize the same
truss types, with a distinction of whether the structure clear-spans only Highway
101 and uses additional spans to clear East and West Bayshore Roads, or clear-
spans Highway 101 and one or both of the frontage roads. Attachment B provides
the 15% concept plans and design renderings for the optional enhancements. The
optional enhancements are described in Attachment B, and are briefly
summarized below.
Plaza at Eastern Approach Ramp
Walkway and cyclist access to the San Francisco Bay Trail and proposed bridge is
an opportunity to create a trailhead and improved interface with the current
roadway, and bike and pedestrian paths.
Enhanced Railings and Fence Mesh
Railings integral with fencing and fence density, and patterns of mesh can avoid
impacts to wildlife while providing an aesthetic alternative.
Enhanced Amenities
Benches, interpretive signage and drinking fountains will improve user comfort
and education opportunities. Salvaged wood from the Baylands boardwalk
decking could be repurposed for benches, deck elements and informational
signage.
Structure Width Increase to 16 feet
12 feet of continuous clear width is consistent with the design guidelines in the
City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan for shared-use paths
and is greater than the minimum standard. California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) minimum guidelines use an 8-foot minimum width
including shoulders. However, a 16-foot deck width would allow for separation of
bicyclists and pedestrians. A structure width of 16 feet is expected to be feasible
City of Palo Alto Page 5
only for the baseline bowstring truss structure type and the three other principal
span steel truss alternatives (as described below) that utilize three spans rather
than a single, longer span. For reference, the existing Highway 101 crossing at
Palo Alto’s Embarcadero pedestrian/bike bridge is 6.5 feet wide, while the
Highway 101 Mountain View bike bridge is 10 feet wide.
Principal Span Steel Truss Alternatives
Bridge spans vary in span length, width, aesthetic treatments, cost and
complexity. A three-span bridge consists of one 165-foot long prefabricated steel
structure spanning Highway 101 with two concrete or steel structure spans at
East and West Bayshore Road. A single span bridge consists of one 200-foot to
240-foot long prefabricated steel structure spanning Highway 101 and East
and/or West Bayshore Roads.
Costs of Optional Enhancements
Table 1 provides the estimated additional cost for each optional enhancement. If
Council determines that any optional enhancements should be included in the
project, the contract with BCA will require an amendment to cover the additional
design work and increase the CIP project budget. As noted in the Public and
Private Funding Possibilities section below, the anticipated Google contribution of
$1 million could be used to fund optional enhancements, act as contingency to
offset any increased project costs (such as higher than anticipated construction
cost escalation) or reduce the City’s general fund contribution to the project. A
portion of the County of Santa Clara $4.5 million recreation grant may be a
possible funding source.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Table 1: Summary of Optional Enhancements and Additional Costs
Optional Enhancements Additional Cost*
Plaza at eastern approach ramp $0.42 million
Enhanced railings and fence mesh $0.47 million
Enhanced amenities $0.13 million
Increase span and approach widths to 16 feet $2.4-3.5 million
Truss type alternative 1: Bowstring (1 span, self-
weathering)
$2.12 million
Truss type alternative 2: Closed (3 spans, self-
weathering)
$2.9 million
Truss type alternative 3: Closed (1 span, painted) $1.93 million
Truss type alternative 4: Sloped Open (3 spans, self-
weathering)
$0.71 million
Truss type alternative 5: Inclined U-frame (3 spans,
painted)
$2.25 million
*These figures represent the total of planning-level construction estimates and
design fees, 3 years at 3% per year inflation to mid-point of construction, 10%
mobilization and a 20% contingency.
Maintenance Considerations
Painting or Galvanizing Steel
A painted or galvanized steel bridge can have a life over 50 years, but regular and
proper maintenance can typically extend the life to 75 to 100 years. Painted and
galvanized structures require periodic inspection, repair, repainting over the life
of the structure and sometimes blasting and re-coating.
Self-Weathering Steel
Self-weathering steel can have a life over 50 to 75 years. The chemical
composition of the steel eliminates the need for painting as the steel forms a
protective layer on its surface under the influence of the weather. However, the
regular and prolonged exposure to moist environments, such as regular coastal
fogs and wetlands can negatively affect the life as the protective layer may not
stabilize but instead continue to corrode. The bridge span over Highway 101
combined with wind is in a relatively dry environment and is not a significant
concern.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Project Coordination
The City’s Public Art Program is currently compiling a pool of prequalified artists
with previous experience working on similar transportation projects. After
completing a selection process and early in the bridge design phase, the City plans
to have the artist join the design team to identify opportunities to incorporate
artwork in the design. Due to the limited budget, the design team will work with
the artist to leverage existing budgeted bridge design elements to maximize the
impact of the artwork.
Coordination with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and with SCVWD will ensure the
approach structures do not compromise existing utility and creek access. The
touchdown on the west side of the Adobe/Barron Creek channel and the new
Adobe Creek Reach Trail requires coordination and approval from SCVWD. A Joint
Use Agreement with SCVWD will be negotiated before final design begins and
finalized before the undercrossing closes permanently when construction begins.
Caltrans coordination is underway with a November project team meeting to
share the 15% design and geotechnical soil boring program information. A
Cooperative Agreement with Caltrans will be required before construction begins.
Staff will return to the community, boards, commissions, PABAC, SCVWD, Caltrans
and private/public utilities during the design phase once Council directs staff on
the optional enhancements.
Public and Private Funding Possibilities
County/Stanford Trails Funds
Stanford University and the City submitted a joint $8.5 million grant application in
2012 and Stanford was awarded $4.5 million from the Santa Clara County
Recreation Fund established by the County/Stanford Trails Agreement. Since that
time Stanford University has relinquished the $4.5 million grant funding and built
the Stanford Perimeter Trail with its own funds. If the county is amenable, the
relinquished $4.5 million in grant funds could be allocated to the project.
Currently, County of Santa Clara staff asked City staff to refrain from making a
formal request while internal discussions are occurring. Any use of the funds is
subject to the approval of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Google Contribution
A contribution of $1 million from Google is planned to supplement the current
$13 million project budget or to offset the City’s current funding allocation. If the
Google contribution is used to supplement the current $13 million budget, it
could be used to fund optional enhancements at Council’s direction, or could be
maintained as a contingency fund to offset any increases in project costs.
OBAG Cycle 2 Funds
Staff anticipates approval of the request for $4.35 million in OBAG Cycle 2
construction funds pending Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s
selection process this fall. The OBAG funds could not be coupled with BEP funds
for Category 1 projects described below.
Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) and Future County Sales Tax Funds
The 2040 Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) and the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority Bicycle Expenditure Plan identify the $9.5 million
overcrossing project for Category 1, BEP funds. The project also appears in the
draft list of bicycle and pedestrian projects that may be eligible for future county
sales tax funding. The unpredictability in sales tax revenue makes planning for
long‐term future funds uncertain.
Resource Impact
Funding for this project is included in Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project
(PE-11011) - Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Project. If Council directs
staff to add any optional enhancements, the project budget will need to be
increased.
The current project funding is as follows:
Funding Source Funding Amount
Santa Clara County Recreation Fund $4.0 million
OBAG Cycle 2* $4.35 million
General Fund $4.65 million
Sum: $13.0 million
City of Palo Alto Page 9
*Approval of the OBAG Cycle 2 funds, which replace Surface Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) funds deleted by the California Transportation
Commission due to a funding shortfall, is expected in fall 2016.
Policy Implications
The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and
programs.
Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote
walking and bicycling.
Goal T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local
destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open
space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-
model transit stations.
Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of
the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles,
transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Timeline
Schedule and milestones:
Phase 1:
Begin environmental assessment and 35% design – November 2016
Potential BCA contract amendment for optional enhancements
based on Council direction – December 2016
Complete 35% design and public review meeting – Fall 2017
Complete environmental assessment – Winter 2017
Complete 65% design – Winter 2017
Phase 2:
Authorize Phase 2 and Phase 3 services – Fall 2017
OBAG Cycle 2 access to funding – October 2018
Phase 3:
Begin construction, construction administration – early 2019
Complete construction – early spring 2020
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Environmental Review
Selection of the optional enhancements does not constitute approval of the
project. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration analyzing the proposed project, including the
selected optional enhancements, will be prepared for public review and for
consideration by advisory and decision-making bodies prior to project approval.
Because the project may include federal funding, the City will file for a categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Attachments:
Attachment A: 15% Project Concept Plan and Graphics (PDF)
Attachment B: Optional Enhancements Conceptual Renderings (PDF)
City of Palo Alto
15% PS&E Concept Plan and Graphics
Baseline + Core Additional Elements
PATTACHMENT A
Eastern Approach
Overlook
PRINCIPAL SPAN
STRUCTURE
Enhanced Pathway Lighting
Informational /
Educational
Signage
Alternative Principal Span Study
Structure Clear Width Study
Enhanced Railing Design
Enhanced
Amenities
Package
Western Approach
Access
WESTERN APPROACH
STRUCTURE
PROJECT PLAN VIEW
BASELINE + CORE + OPTIONAL ENHANCEMENTS
Eastern Plaza
EASTERN APPROACH
STRUCTURE
West Bayshore Rd
Improvements
Adobe Creek
Reach Trail
Trailhead at W. Bayshore Road
CORE
LEGEND:
OPTION
N
PRINCIPAL SPAN
STRUCTURE EASTERN APPROACH
STRUCTURE
WESTERN APPROACH
STRUCTURE
PROJECT OVERVIEW
LOOKING NORTH
N
EASTERN APPROACH OVERLOOK
This overlook will provide users the opportunity to pause, rest, view and appreciate the adjacent Baylands Nature Preserve. The architecture of the overlook
will compliment the main bridge structure elements, including railings and concrete facing textures and colors.
The overlook will be decked with a wood finish to make the area more distinguishable from the main pathway and to give it some warmth in texture and
color. The decking and the bench elements could be constructed from recycled and repurposed existing timber decking from the adjacent Baylands
Boardwalk Project.
Amenities such as benches and informational/educational signage will also be located on the overlook to further enhance the experience for the users.
WESTERN APPROACH ACCESS
An access structure will be incorporated into the baseline Western Approach Structure.
For northbound pedestrians along West Bayshore Road, the access structure can
reduce the length of travel by roughly 500 feet.
Three initial alternatives were considered: 1) Access Stair Option 1: Located near the
interface of the Principal Span and Western Approach Structure; 2) Access Stair Option
2: Located lower along the path where the overcrossing structure becomes supported
on fill; and 3) Access Ramp/Raised Sidewalk: Located between the existing parking lot
and the Adobe Creek Bridge.
The access ramp/raised sidewalk alternative is preferable since it creates equal access
to mobility impaired trail users and it provides a pedestrian bypass allowing the existing
bike lane along West Bayshore Road to be made continuous across the existing Adobe
Creek Bridge. It also provides a functional ADA compliant alternative access which can
be used as primary ingress/egress if and when the SCVWD closes the trail access area
for their channel sedimentation maintenance.
Access Ramp/Raised Sidewalk
(Looking SE)
WEST BAYSHORE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Currently the existing bicycle lane drops off at the Adobe Creek Bridge
at West Bayshore Road and the bike lane and sidewalk merge into an
approximately 5-foot wide single raised shared sidewalk. A feasible
and economical means to accommodate a separate bicycle and
pedestrian facility at West Bayshore Road at Adobe Creek was
investigated.
We reviewed widening the existing roadway structure to accommodate
the bicyclists and pedestrians but the multiple utilities carried by the
existing structure are problematic and would require considerable
retrofit of the existing structure. Based on conversations with the
SCVWD, it was preferable to limit the amount of intrusion into the creek
from both the bridge structure and its associated retaining structures.
The access ramp/raised sidewalk alternative allowed us the opportunity
to essentially accomplish the desired goal with one element.
Access Stair
Option 1
Access Stair
Option 2
Access Ramp/Raised
Sidewalk (Baseline)
WEST APPROACH
STRUCTURE
PRINCIPAL SPAN
Demolish Exist Sidewalk
for Bike Lane
City of Palo Alto
Enhanced Lighting
LIGHTING DESIGN CONCEPT
Lighting design will be provided for the pedestrian overcrossing at Adobe Creek that
contributes to the project goals of providing connectivity while addressing
environmental concerns. Paths are to be illuminated during night hours to support
pedestrian and bicycling activities, with lighting levels reflecting the transition from
higher illuminated urban areas on the western side to the lower lighting of the
Baylands to the east.
The Western Approach will require higher lighting levels for better uniformity ratios to
the surrounding environment. Pole mounted luminaires provide uniform illumination
along the pathway and at landscaping leading to the Overcrossing. Lighting poles
with full cutoff above the 90° plane and no back lighting will be used in order to
limiting light pollution as well as light trespass along adjacent river.
As the pathway approaches the Principal Span, lighting is to be integrated into the
railing where possible to create a consistently illuminated pathway. Vertical
placement will allow for more forward throw, pushing the lighting further towards the
center of the pathway. Direct view of any light source is to be shielded from adjacent
vehicular vantage points to reduce glare and distraction for drivers.
This type of installation would be located at key points at the Overcrossing focusing
on the user experience from the pathway in order to minimize visibility from vehicular
and the Baylands.
White luminaires, along with additional levels of lighting controls, allow the lighting
color and output to transform in response to environmental changes or pedestrian
and bicycle activity creating a reactive or interactive public art experience.
Lighting at the Eastern Approach and overlook is to be integrated into
urban infrastructure such as railings and benches. Illumination levels
should be minimal in order to reduce environmental impact on the
Baylands Nature Preserve. Lighting elements will be lowered in elevation
and light output.
Steplights will be integrated into railings where possible, providing low
levels of functional lighting along the pathway to meet photometric
requirements while minimizing environmental impact. Ground mounted
marker lights will also be used to define the edge of the overlook curb while
providing additional lighting at the pathway. Warm color temperatures
will be used to reduce impact to migratory birds and other wildlife.
Lighting controls will be utilized to reduce light output during hours with
limited activity. Light levels dim down on a set time schedule synced
with the astronomical clock. As people approach, sensors detect their
presence, allowing the lighting to change in response to pedestrian and
bicycle activity.
LIGHTING DESIGN CONCEPT
WESTERN APPROACH
AERIAL
VIEW
I LIGHTSWITCH®
WESTERN APPROACH
DAYTIME VIEW NIGHTTIME VIEW
NTS
PRINCIPAL SPAN
DAYTIME VIEW NIGHTTIME VIEW
NTS
EASTERN APPROACH
DAYTIME VIEW NIGHTTIME VIEW
NTS
City of Palo Alto
Adobe Creek Reach Trail
Highway 101 Multi-Use Path Overcrossing
Palo Alto, California PJ315 Palo Alto Highway 101 POC 2016 09-28.indd
September 30, 2016
WEST PLAZA 0 5’10’20’
TREE TO BE REMOVED
ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL LOOKING NORTH
TRAILHEAD LOOKING SOUTH
LOCA Tl ON MAP
NO SCALE
ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL
PALO AL TO, CA
INDEX OF DRAWINGS
DR AWING NO. SHEET
TS.1
2-3 L.1, L.2
DESCRIPTION
TITLE SHEET
LAYOUT PLAN
alta -PLANNING + DESIGN
www.altaplanning.com
100 Webster Street, Ste. 300
Oakland, California 94607
p:510.540.5008 f:510.540.5039
ffl ·c
I...
0 ~-:E
a, ·-ffl a, ,a u L.. L.. 0 u I-.....
a, .J::. <( .a u .9 0 ,a ffl
" a, a.. <( 0:::: ..... 0
>, ..... u
REVISIONS
NO DATE ITEM ----
REGISTRATION:
DESIGNED: KM
REVIEWED: RA
DRAWN: KM
12-131 12/19/14 PROJECT NO. DATE
Adobe Creek
Reach Trail
15% Design
TITLE SHEET
TS.1
SHEET NO.
mr 3: f £! 0 I ~ o« I
0 ;:::o
I I
I
I I ' I
' ~ :;o I (JO
I ...a. ...a. I m-f~£ REMOVE FENCE
AND GATE
40'
2.0' j' I ' '----+-------' REMOVABLE BOLLARD,
w > 0 Ill <(
w w
Cl)
w z
...J
I (.)
~ ~
TYP.
ADOBE CREEK
Tl
/
I /11 (E) RAMP
~/ @GATE
~ ·'f TEMPLATE FOR A 8.5'X30'
0<(a:i I SINGLE UNIT TRUCK
DESIGN VEHICLE WITH 42'
(/)tt1 I TURNING RA _ _91us-
~ -~ U----=====--------
4.0' I
s
ADOBE CREEK
j _, _______ ~........_ ____ ----L, ___ _
,,7
,I
1'
1'' "---------~ ...J w Ill
w w
Cl)
w z
...J I
(.)
~ ~
24
/
LEGE N D ALL DISTANCES AND DIMENSIONS ARE
SHOWN IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.
PROPOSED
~ AC PAVEMENT
1:::::::::::·I
E::::::J ....
•
EXISTING
DECOMPOSED GRANITE
PAVEMENT, SEE CIVIL PLANS
CONCRETE
SIGN
REMOVABLE / LOCKABLE BOLLARD
CHAINL/NK FENCE
TRUNCATED DOMES
PARCELL/NE
FENCE LINE AS NOTED
NOTE: DETAILS TO BE
DEVELOPED
alta -PLANNING + DESIGN
www.altaplanning.com
100 Webster Street, Ste. 300
Oakland, California 94607
p:510.540.5008 f:510.540.5039
ffl ·c
I...
0 ~-:E
a, ·-ffl a, ,a u L.. L.. 0 u I-.....
a, .J::. <( .a u .9 0 ,a
" a,
ffl a.. <( 0:::: ..... 0
>, ..... u
REVISIONS
NO DATE ITEM ----
REGISTRATION:
DESIGNED: KM
REVIEWED: RA
DRAWN: KM
12-131 12/19/14 PROJECT NO. DATE
Adobe Creek
Reach Trail
15% Design
Layout Plan
L.1
SHEET NO.
~ I i
============~~-
~ ._, '----' Lr-, r--.....J
~~-c-, TRANSVERSE CROSSWALK TYP. _ l..!=:;7
\\_
=========~"'--~
~ 11NCH u ~o ~a=1==s=-·J ,--I •
I I I I 1-~~~~~~~~-~~~'--~----I I I I I
-----1: .. JTl. __ -r= i I •4 ··1 • I I • I • •
~ r
z :$ cc Lf
SHARROW TYP.
alta -PLANNING + DESIGN
www.altaplanning.com
100 Webster Street, Ste. 300
Oakland, California 94607
p:510.540.5008 f:510.540.5039
ffl ·c
I...
0 ~-:E
a, ·-ffl a, ,a u L.. L.. 0 u I-.....
a, .J::. <( .a u .9 0 ,a ffl
" a, a.. <( 0:::: ..... 0
>, ..... u
REVISIONS
NO DATE ITEM ----
REGISTRATION:
DESIGNED: KM
REVIEWED: RA
DRAWN: KM
12-131 12/19/14 PROJECT NO. DATE
Adobe Creek
Reach Trail
15% Design
Layout Plan
L.2
SHEET NO.
City of Palo Alto
Optional Enhancements
ATTACHMENT B
City of Palo Alto
Alternative Principal Span Study
Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
Principal Span Type
Prefabricated Steel Bowstring Pratt Truss X X
Prefabricated Steel Closed Box Truss X X
Prefabricated Steel Open Warren Truss X
Prefabricated Steel Inclined Warren Truss X
Principal Span Length
3 Span (60' / 165' / 70')X X X X
1 Span (240')X X
Principal Span Width
12' Clear X X X X
Varies (12' Min / 14' Max)X X
Principal Span Finish
Self Weathering Steel X X
Painted Steel X X X X
Cast-in-Place Concrete Side Spans X
Principal Span Advantages / Disadvantages
Low Profile Structure (Top of Deck to Soffit) Which Keeps Approach Structure Length to
a Minimum X X X X X X
Open Structure Type Provides High Visibility to Trail Users Contributing to Public Safety
and Discourages Graffiti X X X X X X
Prefabricated Superstructure Eliminates the Need for Falsework over Highway 101 X X X X X X
Prefabricated Superstructure Eliminates the Need for Falsework over Bayshore Rd X X X X X
Sructure Clear Spans Highway 101
(No Foundation Work Required in Hwy 101 Median)X X X X
Structure Clear Spans Highway 101 and East and West Bayshore Road
(No Foundation Work Required in Hwy 101 or Hwy 101/Bayshore Rd Medians)X X
Structural Form Provides a Unique Aesthetic to the Bay Area and Provides Visual
Interest to both the Trail Users and Traveling Public X X X
Top of Principal Span Structure is Located Below the Top of Tree Canopy Height
(Roughly 35 feet or Less Above Highway 101)X X X X
Structural System can Support Widening the Pathway to 16 foot Clear Width
(16' Clear Width Allows Separation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians)X X X X
Truss Elements are Inclined Away from the Pathway Providing Architectural Interest
and a Wider Functional Pathway for Trail Users X
Fabrication Facilities are Readily Available to Prefabricate the Principal Span Elements
(Several Prefabricators can Product this Structure Type and Span Length)X X
Span Length or Superstructure Complexity will Likely Require Fabrication at a Specialty
Fabrication Facility X X X X
Significant and/or Complicated Field Splicing will be Required to Transport due to the
Height, Width or Complexity of the Main Span Structure X X X
Description
ALTERNATIVE PRINCIPAL SPAN STUDY
STRUCTURE FEATURES AND ADVANTAGES / DISADVANTAGES COMPARISON
70’
(BASELINE)BASELINE: PREFAB BOWSTRING TRUSS (THREE SPANS)
ARCHITECTS
MESH
SCALE: 1"= 40'-0"
r HANiRAIL
H
SECTION A-A SCALE: 1•= 10'-o•
18
1 . PREFAB BOWSTRING TRUSS (ONE SPAN)
ARCHITECTS
.. -_;:·: .... -~-----.. ..
SCALE: 1"= 40'-0"
'MIN
70
2 . STEEL CLOSED TRUSS (THREE SPANS)
ARCHIT ECTS
--------
SCA E: 1"= 40'-0"
--
18' MAX 18' MAX 18' MAX
3 . STEEL CLOSED TRUSS (ONE SPAN) : I
ARCHITECTS
EXAMPLES
'
CALE: 1"= 40'-0"
·-----
SLOPED OPEN TRUSS (THREE SPANS)
15
70’
10
4
70
5 . INCLINED U-F'RAMED TRUSS (THREE SPANS) : I
ARCHIT ECTS
SECTION A-A
City of Palo Alto
Structure Clear Width Study
NOTES:
1. Typical baseline ramp structure shown.
2. Widened cross section not suitable for all principal
span study options based on difficulties associated with
transportation and on-site fabrication.
3. Widened cross section will impact SCVWD
maintenance and debris removal operations at
Adobe/Barron Creeks.
4. West approach structure cross section must be
tapered to 12' max clear at trailhead to avoid impacts to
the existing SCVWD maintenance ramp.
5. The widening of the path may not be able to be
accommodated through the entire length for certain
options. The cost impacts for this alternative will vary
from approximately $2,000,000 to $3,000,000.
City of Palo Alto
Eastern Plaza
Highway 101 Multi-Use Path Overcrossing
Palo Alto, California PJ315 Palo Alto Highway 101 POC 2016 09-28.indd
September 30, 2016
EAST PLAZA 0 5’10’20’
Highway 101 Multi-Use Path Overcrossing
Palo Alto, California PJ315 Palo Alto Highway 101 POC 2016 09-28.indd
September 30, 2016
CHARACTER IMAGES
Planting Bands
Drinking Fountain/Bottle Filler
Public Art at Trailhead Concrete Seatwall and Railing
Decorative Concrete Bay Restoration PlantingBoardwalk Pavement
Bike Racks Interpretive SignageTrash/Recycling Receptacles
City of Palo Alto
Enhanced Railing Design
BASELINE: TOP MOUTED GALVANIZED POST
WITH METAL CHAIN LINK
RAILING ENLARGED VIEW EAST APPROACH
CHAIN LINK
HANDRAI
-----
ARCHITECTS
WEST APPROACH
ENHANCED RAILING OPTIONS
OPTION 1: 2 X 4 METAL MESH INFILL RAILING
MESH
E MEMBERS
OPTION 2: CABLE RAILING
....._
OPTION 3: DECORATIVE MESH INFILL RAILING
I'-.
OPTION 4: 2 X 2 METAL MESH INFILL RAt~G
ARCHITECTS
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7336)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/7/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Public Hearing: Impact Fee Muni Code Update
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Finance Committee Recommends That the Council
Adopt an Ordinance Updating the Procedure for Collection of Impact Fees by
Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 16 (Building Regulations),
Chapters 16.45 (Transportation Impact Fee for new Nonresidential
Development in the Stanford Research Park/El Camino CS Zone), 16.46
(Approval of Projects With Impacts on Traffic in the San Antonio/West
Bayshore Area), 16.47 (Approval of Projects With Impacts on Housing), 16.57
(In-Lieu Parking Fee for new Nonresidential Development in the Commercial
Downtown (CD) Zoning District), 16.58 (Development Impact Fees), 16.59
(Citywide Transportation Impact Fee), 16.60 (Charleston Arastradero Corridor
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee), 16.61 (Public Art for Private
Developments), 16.64 (Development Fee and In-Lieu Payment
Administration), and Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land),
Chapter 21.50 (Parkland Dedication or Fee In-Lieu Thereof), and Finding the
Action Exempt from Review under the California Environmental Quality Act
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the unanimous recommendation of the Finance
Committee and:
1. Adopt the attached draft ordinance which implements 2015 Parking Funds Audit
recommendations and updates and standardizes collection of impact fees by amending
Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Titles 16, 18 and 21 (Attachment A), and
2. Make a finding that the ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Executive Summary:
This report transmits a draft ordinance containing proposed amendments to the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Titles 16, 18 and 21. These changes represent an effort to update the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
code to:
• Provide consistency for impact fees rate calculations and inflationary adjustments
• Improve administration
• Create uniform payment timing
• Clarify ambiguous code language
• Implement uniform protest procedures
Historically, as each impact fee was approved, new sections of the municipal code were
adopted. This has resulted in an overly complicated impact fee calculation and update process.
The proposed ordinance strives to simply the process and to align the calculation and annual
inflationary adjustments for as many impact fees as possible. The actual fees being charged
would not change, although some fees would be collected at a different point in the application
process, so the amount due could be affected by separately enacted changes to the fee
schedule.
Background:
Impact fees are designed to offset the impact of new development and resulting additional
residents on the City's infrastructure and services. The City has four transportation impact fees:
Citywide Transportation Impact Fee, Stanford Research Park/El Camino Real impact fee, San
Antonio/West Bayshore Area impact fee, and the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Pedestrian
and Bicycle Safety impact fee. Other development impact fees include: Parks or Parkland,
Community Centers, Libraries, Public Safety Facilities, and General Government Facilities. The
City also has in-lieu fees when required parking, housing, or public art are not provided as part
of a development project.
As impact and in-lieu fees were considered and approved by Council, new municipal codes were
adopted. Each code has specific, but separate instructions for calculation rates, annual
adjustments, and requirements for when and where fees were to be paid. This has resulted in
overly complicated impact fee calculation, administration, and update processes.
The action recommended by the Finance Committee will standardize the collection of impact
and in lieu fees and simplify the process for determining and adjusting fees. The attached
ordinance (Attachment A) reflects recommended changes.
Discussion:
The attached ordinance includes several modifications to the Municipal Code. Although a few
of the amendments are administrative in nature, meaning they correct typographical errors,
correct cross section references, or omit staff titles no longer in existence, the majority of the
changes bring uniformity to the procedures for collecting our impact fees.
Fee Calculation Date
The calculation date which determines the fee rate to be used in the fee calculation is currently
City of Palo Alto Page 3
inconsistent. Although the rates are set in the Municipal Code, the date the fees are calculated
needs clarification. Depending on the impact fee, current code sets the calculation date at
entitlement, building permit application, or is silent to the date to be used. Given the number
of impact fees, uniformity of calculation date is important to reduce the possibility of errors,
reduce confusion, and make it easier to program the impact fees into the automated permitting
system. Staff recommends a calculation date at the time of fee payment. (See new Section
16.64.020.)
Due Date
Current code requires that some fees are to be paid at building permit issuance, some are to be
paid prior to building permit issuance and the code is silent as to time of payment for others.
Staff recomends the payment of fees on or before first building permit issuance, whenever
possible. If there is no building permit for the project, the fee will be based upon issuance of
the first city permit or change in use. In accordance with State law, the Code allows payment of
residential development impact fees to be deferred until the date of the final builiding
inspection. (See new Section 16.64.030.)
Location of Payment
Utilizing our Accela permitting system, fees are paid at the Development Center. When funds
are taken in to cover items not included in the Accela system, those payments are made at
Revenue Collections in the lobby. Current code requires some payments to be made in the
Transportation Division. Since Transportation is not set up to receive payments, staff requests
the removal of that requirement from the Municipal Code. This change will allow these fees to
be collected across the counter, in the same manner as other impact fees.
Rate Adjustments
Current rate adjustment procedures are inconsistent amongst fees. Some fees are to be
adjusted by the change in the San Francisco Construction Cost Index from the prior year. Others
are to be adjusted by the change in the San Francisco Construction Cost Index from the year the
fee was enacted. Still others are to be adjusted by the change in the Consumer Price Index from
the prior year. The Municipal Code for a few impact fees is silent on the method for annual
adjustment. Staff recommends uniformly changing the code to adjust fees by the change in the
San Francisco Construction Cost Index from the prior year, wherever possible. (See new Section
16.64.110.)
Responsibility
The Municipal Code section for the Parking In Lieu fee currently requires the Chief
Transportation Official (CTO) to annually adjust the fee. Staff recommends changing the code so
that fee adjustment is consistent with other impact and in-lieu fees. This corrects a problem
identified during the 2015 Parking Funds Audit.
Citations
Three of the Transportation impact fees authorize certain City officials to issue citations. The
City of Palo Alto Page 4
listed position titles are outdated. Since staff positions change over time, the Finance
Committee recommends broadening this language to give authority to the Directors of Planning
and Community Environment and Development Services, or their designees.
Exemption Clarification
Residential Subdivision developments are subject to Quimby Act parkland dedication fees
rather than park impact fees. Accordingly, residential subdivisions are exempt from park impact
fees. The new ordinance clarifies that this exemption only applies to park impact fees and not
to other impact fees. (See Section 16.58.030.)
Reporting
The Parking In Lieu fee currently requires the Chief Transportation Official (CTO) to annually
review the estimated cost of parking, the continued need for parking, and the reasonable
relationship between need and pending or anticipated development. Staff recommends
removing this language so the process is similar to other impact fee reporting, which is included
as part of the City Manager’s annual review of impact fees. This also addresses a problem
identifed in the 2015 Parking Funds Audit.
Protest Rights
This section is an addition to the code and covers the rights and processes for protest. The
Mitigation Fee Act, the State law governing impact fees, requires the City to provide a protest
procedure. In the past, this has been handled on an ad hoc basis. The new ordinance provides a
multi-step appeal process designed to address any mis-calculation errors at the Director or City
Manager level without the need for unnecessary litigation. (See new Sections 16.64.070 and
16.64.080.)
Calculation of Parking In Lieu Fee
The parking in lieu fee is based on the design and construction costs of the most recent parking
structure. In the event a new parking garage is constructed, the new ordinance allows the
eligible design and construction costs to also include bond financing costs, if applicable. (See
Section 16.57.030.)
Resource Impact:
Budget implications will be minimal. Revenues may increase slightly if impact fees at building
permit issuance are higher than they would be at entitlement due to separately adopted
changes to the fee schedule. There would be no impact on expenses.
Environmental
This ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, because
it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility of significant environmental effects
occurring as a result of the adoption of this ordinance.
Attachments:
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Attachment A: Ordinance Amending Impact Fee Procedures (PDF)
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 1 Sept. 20, 2016
Ordinance No. ____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC) Title 16 (Building Regulations), Chapters 16.45 (Transportation
Impact Fee for New Nonresidential Development in the Stanford Research Park/El
Camino Real CS Zone), 16.46 (Approval of Projects with Impacts on Traffic in the
San Antonio/West Bayshore Area), 16.47 (Approval of Projects with Impacts on
Housing), 16.57 (In-Lieu Parking Fee For New Nonresidential Development in the
Commercial Downtown (CD) Zoning District), 16.58 (Development Impact Fees),
16.59 (Citywide Transportation Impact Fee), 16.60 (Charleston Arastradero
Corridor Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee), 16.61 (Public Art for Private
Developments), and Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land), Chapter
21.50 (Parkland Dedication or Fees In-Lieu Thereof) and Adding 16.64
(Development Fee and In-Lieu Payment Administration),
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Subdivision (c) and (d) of Section 16.45.060 Calculation of
Transportation Impact Fee of Chapter 16.45 (Transportation Impact Fee for New Nonresidential
Development in the Stanford Research Park/El Camino Real CS Zone) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
16.45.060 Calculation of Transportation Impact Fee.
***
(c) Calculation of Fee. In order for new nonresidential development in the area to bear
proportionately the cost of the identified capacity improvements, such new development shall
pay a fee of $8.20 per gross square foot of development, determined by dividing the total
estimated cost of $14,690,773.00 by the total permitted new development of 1,794,000 square
feet. The rate of the fee shall be subject to annual adjustment for inflation pursuant to Section
16.64.110. This fee shall be adjusted annually on July 1 by an amount equal to the change in the
construction cost index for the preceding year, as determined by the Engineering News Record,
the McGraw Hill Construction Weekly.
(d) Payment. The fee shall be paid as set forth in Chapter 16.64 of this Codein full to the city
building inspection division prior to issuance of the building permit for the development. If no
building permit is required for a change of use, the fee shall be paid in full prior to issuance of a
certificate of use and occupancy.
***
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 2 Sept. 20, 2016
SECTION 2. Subdivision (e) of Section 16.45.070 Penalties of Chapter 16.45
(Transportation Impact Fee for New Nonresidential Development in the Stanford Research
Park/El Camino Real CS Zone) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
16.45.070 Penalties
***
(e) Persons employed in the following designated employee positions are authorized to
exercise the authority provided in the California Penal Code Section 836.5 and are authorized to
issue citations for violations of this chapter: development services director, director of planning
and community environment and their designees.chief building official, assistant chief building
official, and ordinance compliance inspector.
SECTION 3. Subdivision (d) of Section 16.46.040 Calculation of Transportation
Impact Fee of Chapter 16.46 (Approval of Projects with Impacts on Traffic in the San
Antonio/West Bayshore Area) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
16.46.040 Calculation of Transportation Impact Fee.
***
(d) Payment. The traffic impact fee shall be paid as set forth in Chapter 16.64 of this Codein
full to the city of Palo Alto before the first grading or building permit for a project is issued. If no
grading or building permit is required for a conversion of use, the fee shall be paid in full before
a certificate of use and occupancy permit is issued.
***
SECTION 4. Subdivision (e) of Section 16.46.060 Penalties of Chapter 16.46
(Approval of Projects with Impacts on Traffic in the San Antonio/West Bayshore Area) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
16.46.060 Penalties
***
(e) Persons employed in the following designated employee positions are authorized to
exercise the authority provided in the California Penal Code Section 836.5 and are authorized to
issue citation for violations of this chapter: development services director, director of planning
and community environment and their designeeschief building official, assistant chief building
official and ordinance compliance inspector.
SECTION 5. Subdivision (e) of Section 16.47.040 Housing Requirements of Chapter
16.47 (Approval of Projects with Impacts on Housing) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 3 Sept. 20, 2016
amended to read as follows: [Note: This section will be deleted if Council adopts a pending
ordinance consolidating the housing fees into a new Chapter.]
16.47.040 Housing Requirements.
***
(e) The in-lieu payment shallmust be paid as set forth in Chapter 16.64 of this Codeprior to
issuance of the first grading or building permit for a project. Any permit issued prior to payment
shall be null and void. For a phased project, payments may be made for each portion of a
phased project prior to issuance of the first grading or building permit for that phase.
***
SECTION 6. Subdivision (e) of Section 16.47.050 Penalties of Chapter 16.47
(Approval of Projects with Impacts on Housing) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to
read as follows:
16.47.050 Penalties
***
(e) Persons employed in the following designated employee positions are authorized to
exercise the authority provided in the California Penal Code Section 836.5 and are authorized to
issue citation for violations of this chapter: development services director, director of planning
and community environment and their designeeschief building official, assistant chief building
official, and ordinance compliance inspector.
SECTION 7. Section 16.57.030 Calculation of In-Lieu Payment, 16.57.040 Timing of
Payments and Section 16.57.070 Fee Review of Chapter 16.57 (In-Lieu Parking Fee For New
Nonresidential Development in the Commercial Downtown (CD) Zoning District) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code are amended to read as follows:
16.57.030 Calculation of in-lieu payment.
(a) Initial Fee. The fee for each two hundred fifty square feet of gross floor area in a
development shall equal the sum of the construction, land acquisition, if any, and
administrative costs attributable to the provision of one new parking space, as established by
the city council on the basis of calculations made under this chapterby the chief transportation
official. The fee shall be $30,250.00 per two hundred fifty square feet of gross floor area, and
has been calculated based upon the feasibility study.
(b) Recalculated Fee. In the event the city council approves the construction of a public
parking structure or structures, the citychief transportation official shall adjust the fee as
follows:
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 4 Sept. 20, 2016
(i) At the time the construction contract is awarded, the fee shall be adjusted to reflect the
actual "design costs" incurred by the city for the construction project as of the date the
construction contract is awarded, plus "construction costs" based on the construction contract
award.
(ii) At the time the final payment is made upon completion of the construction project, the
fee shall be adjusted to reflect the actual "design costs" and "construction costs" incurred by
the city for the construction project.
(iii) The fee as recalculated pursuant to subsection (b)(i) or (b)(ii) may be higher or lower
than the initial fee.
(iv) In the event that a construction project involves the construction of more than one
parking structure, the recalculation of the fee shall be based on the structure with the highest
cost per net new parking space.
(c) The rate of the fee shall be subject to annual adjustment for inflation pursuant to Section
16.64.110.
The fee, whether calculated in accordance with subsection (a) or subsection (b) shall be
adjusted annually by the chief transportation official, by an amount equal to the change in the
construction cost index for the preceding year, as determined for the San Francisco Bay Area by
the "Engineering News Record," the McGraw Hill Construction Weekly.
If the fee is recalculated during the year, the next annual adjustment shall be prorated
based on the change in the construction cost index between the date the fee was recalculated
and the date of the annual adjustment.
(d) For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(i) "Construction costs" shall mean and include the construction costs, as bid, including any
authorized contingency or as paid, based upon actual construction. "Construction costs" shall
not include bond financing costs, if applicable.
(ii) "Design costs" shall mean and include architect fees, engineering fees and other
consultant fees, as proposed or as paid, based upon actual performance. "Design costs" shall
not include bond financing costs, if applicable.
(iii) "Feasibility study" shall mean and refer to the study entitled "Downtown Parking
Structure Feasibility Study, dated January 16, 1997.
(iviii) "Net new parking space" cost shall mean the cost to provide one new parking space in
a public parking structure, and shall equal the sum of the construction, land acquisition, if any,
and administrative costs of the structure attributable to each space in the structure.
16.57.040 Timing of Payments.
The fee shall be paid as set forth in Chapter 16.64 of this Code. In accordance with the
provisions of Section 16.57.010, the obligation to pay the fee established by this chapter shall
accrue as of the date the first discretionary approval is given for the development, or if no
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 5 Sept. 20, 2016
discretionary approval is required, as of the date a complete application is submitted for a
building permit for the development. Fees shall be due and payable to the City of Palo Alto at
the transportation division prior to issuance of a building permit for the development, and shall
be calculated at the rate of the fee in effect as of the date the obligation to pay the fee accrued.
Payment of the fee may be deferred to the date of final building inspection approval of the
development, provided the owner of the real property for which the fee has been required
enters into an agreement with the city prior to issuance of the building permit for the
development.
The agreement shall provide that the amount of the fee shall be calculated at the rate of the
fee in effect on the date the deferred payment is actually made. The agreement shall further
provide that final occupancy approval shall not be given until the fee is paid. The agreement
shall also provide that in any action to collect the fee or any portion thereof the city shall be
entitled to all of its costs of enforcement and collection, including reasonable attorneys fees.
The director of planning and community environment shall be authorized on behalf of the city
to execute the agreement described in this section, in a form acceptable to the city attorney
16.57.070 Fee review.
The uses proposed for expenditure of the moneys in the fund shall be reviewed annually by the
city council along with its review of the city's capital improvement program, and the moneys
from the fund shall be appropriated for such expenditure in the manner provided by the Palo
Alto City Charter and Municipal Code for adoption of the annual budget.
On an annual basis following the enactment of this chapter, the chief transportation official
shall review the estimated cost of the described parking, the continued need for that parking
and the reasonable relationship between such need and the impacts of pending or anticipated
nonresidential development within the assessment district. The chief transportation official
shall report his or her findings to the city council at a noticed public hearing and recommend
any adjustment to these requirements as may be needed.
SECTION 8. Section 16.58.030 Exemptions and 16.58.040 Timing of Payments of
Chapter 16.58 (Development Impact Fees) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read
as follows:
16.58.030 Exemptions.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following:
* * *
(g) Any residential subdivision for which land dedication or fees in lieu thereof are required
pursuant to Chapter 21.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This exemption shall only apply to
the park development fee described in Section 16.58.020(a).
16.58.040 Timing of Payments.
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 6 Sept. 20, 2016
The fee shall be paid as set forth in Chapter 16.64 of this Code. (a) The obligation to pay the
fees established by this chapter shall accrue as of the date the first discretionary approval is
given for the development, or if no discretionary approval is required, as of the date a complete
application is submitted for a building permit for the development. Fees shall be due and
payable as of the date a complete application is submitted for a building permit for the
development. Fees shall be due and payable to the City of Palo Alto prior to issuance of a
building permit for the development, and shall be calculated at the rate of the fees in effect as
of the date the obligation to pay the fees accrued.
(b) Payment of the fees may be deferred, for residential development only, to the date of
final building inspection approval of the development, provided the owner of the real property
for which the fees are required enters into a recordable agreement with the city prior to
issuance of the building permit for the development, which from the date of recordation, shall
constitute a lien on the property and shall be enforceable against successors in interest to the
property owner. The agreement shall provide that final occupancy approval shall not be given
until the fees are paid. The agreement shall also provide that in any action to collect the fees or
any portion thereof the city shall be entitled to all of its costs of enforcement and collection,
including reasonable attorneys fees. The director of planning and community environment shall
be authorized on behalf of the city to execute the agreement described in this section, in a form
acceptable to the city attorney.
SECTION 9. Section 16.58.090 Annual Rate Adjustment is added to Chapter 16.58
(Development Impact Fees) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows:
16.58.090 Annual Rate Adjustment.
The rate of the fee shall be subject to annual adjustment for inflation pursuant to Section
16.64.110.
SECTION 10. Section 16.59.050 Timing of Payments of Chapter 16.59 (Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
16.59.050 Timing of Payments.
(a) The fee shall be paid as set forth in Chapter 16.64 of this CodeExcept as otherwise
required by Government Code Section 66007, the fee shall accrue when the first discretionary
approval is given for a new development after the effective date of this section, or if no such
discretionary approval is required subsequent to the effective date of this section, when an
application is submitted for a building permit for that new development. In either case, the fee
shall be payable when an application is submitted for a building permit for the new
development. A fee shall be calculated at the rate in effect when the fee accrues.
(b) Payment of the fee may be deferred, for residential development only, to the date of
final building inspection approval of the development, provided the owner of the real property
for which the fees are required enters into a recordable agreement with the city prior to
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 7 Sept. 20, 2016
issuance of the building permit for the development, which from the date of recordation, shall
constitute a lien on the property and shall be enforceable against successors in interest to the
property owner. The agreement shall provide that final occupancy approval shall not be given
until the fees are paid. The agreement shall also provide that, in any action to collect the fees or
any portion thereof, the city shall be entitled to all of its costs of enforcement and collection,
including reasonable attorney's fees. The director of planning and community environment may
execute the agreement on behalf of the city in a form acceptable to the city attorney. Any
deferral granted pursuant to this paragraph (b) shall be consistent with the requirements of
Government Code Section 66007.
(cb) A credit against the fee may be given for dedications of eligible citywide transportation
capacity enhancements constructed or provided at private expense and for the value of land
dedicated to the city that is necessary or useful to an eligible citywide transportation capacity
enhancement. Such credit will be granted only if the city council determines that: (i) the city will
experience a substantial cost savings or service quality improvement as a result of private
construction or provision of the capacity enhancement or the dedication of land, (ii) the
capacity enhancement can be expected to immediately and significantly relieve citywide traffic
congestion, and (iii) the grant of the credit, in lieu of the fee, will not cause the city to delay the
implementation of elements of the city's transportation plan that are of higher priority, in the
judgment of the city council, than the land or capacity enhancement that will be dedicated. The
credit shall be applied at the time the city accepts the land or capacity enhancement. Where
the city council has made the determinations required by this subdivision, payment of a portion
of the fee equal to the amount of an expected credit against the fee may be deferred to the
date of final building inspection approval of the development, provided the owner of the real
property for which the fees are required enters into a recordable agreement with the city prior
to issuance of the building permit for the development, which from the date of recordation,
shall constitute a lien on the property and shall be enforceable against successors in interest to
the property owner. The agreement shall provide that final occupancy approval shall not be
given until the fees are paid or the credit issued. The agreement shall also provide that, in any
action to collect the fees or any portion thereof, the city shall be entitled to all of its costs of
enforcement and collection, including reasonable attorney's fees. The director of planning and
community environment may execute the agreement on behalf of the city in a form acceptable
to the city attorney. Any deferral granted pursuant to this paragraph (b) shall be consistent with
the requirements of Government Code Section 66007. Where a credit is given for the provision
of a service that is an eligible capacity enhancement, the deferral of the fee, and the application
of the credit, may be according to a schedule set forth in the recorded agreement, which
schedule shall be designed to ensure that no credit is applied in advance of the provision of
services for which the credit is made.
SECTION 11. Section 16.59.060(f) Calculation of Fee of Chapter 16.59 (Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
16.59.060 Calculation of Fee.
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 8 Sept. 20, 2016
***
(f ) The rate of the fee shall be subject to annual adjustment for inflation pursuant to Section
16.64.110. Beginning July 1, 2005, and on each July 1 thereafter, the rate of the fee shall be
automatically adjusted according to the following formula:
Council-Approved Rate = Most Recent ENR / ENR at Council-Approval
Where the "Council-Approved Rate" is the rate most recently set by resolution or ordinance
of the city council, "Most Recent ENR" is the most recently published construction cost index
when the calculation is made and "ENR at Council-Approval" is the construction cost index
published for the month in which the council approved the "Council-Approved Rate."
***
SECTION 12. Section 16.59.090(e) Penalties of Chapter 16.59 (Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
16.59.090 Penalties
***
(e) Persons employed in the following designated employee positions are authorized to
exercise the authority provided in the California Penal Code Section 836.5 and are authorized to
issue citation for violations of this chapter: development services director, director of planning
and community environment and their designeeschief building official, assistant chief building
official, and ordinance compliance inspector.
SECTION 13. Section 16.60.050 Timing of Payments of Chapter 16.60 (Charleston
Arastradero Corridor Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
16.60.050 Timing of Payments.
(a) The fee shall be paid as set forth in Chapter 16.64 of this CodeExcept as otherwise
required by Government Code Section 66007, the fee shall accrue when the first discretionary
approval is given for a new development after the effective date of this section, or, if no such
discretionary approval is required subsequent to the effective date of this section, when an
application is submitted for a building permit for that new development. In either case, the fee
shall be payable when an application is submitted for a building permit for the new
development. A fee shall be calculated at the rate in effect when the fee accrues.
(b) Payment of the fee may be deferred, for residential development only, to the date of final
building inspection approval of the development, provided the owner of the real property for
which the fees are required enters into a recordable agreement with the city prior to issuance
of the building permit for the development, which from the date of recordation, shall constitute
a lien on the property and shall be enforceable against successors in interest to the property
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 9 Sept. 20, 2016
owner. The agreement shall provide that final occupancy approval shall not be given until the
fees are paid. The agreement shall also provide that, in any action to collect the fees or any
portion thereof, the city shall be entitled to all of its costs of enforcement and collection,
including reasonable attorney's fees. The director of planning and community environment may
execute the agreement on behalf of the city in a form acceptable to the city attorney. Any
deferral granted pursuant to this paragraph (b) shall be consistent with the requirements of
Government Code Section 66007.
(c) A credit against the fee may be given for dedications of eligible safety enhancements
constructed or provided at private expense and for the value of land dedicated to the city that
is necessary or useful to an eligible safety enhancements. Such credit will be granted only if the
city council determines that: (i) the city will experience a substantial cost savings or service
quality improvement as a result of private construction or provision of the eligible safety
enhancements or the dedication of land, (ii) the eligible safety enhancements can be expected
to immediately and significantly improve bicyclist or pedestrian safety, and (iii) the grant of the
credit, in lieu of the fee, will not cause the city to delay the implementation of elements of the
Program that are of higher priority, in the judgment of the city council, than the land or eligible
safety enhancement that will be dedicated. The credit shall be applied at the time the city
accepts the land or eligible safety enhancement. Where the city council has made the
determinations required by this subdivision, payment of a portion of the fee equal to the
amount of an expected credit against the fee may be deferred to the date of final building
inspection approval of the development, provided the owner of the real property for which the
fees are required enters into a recordable agreement with the city prior to issuance of the
building permit for the development, which from the date of recordation, shall constitute a lien
on the property and shall be enforceable against successors in interest to the property owner.
The agreement shall provide that final occupancy approval shall not be given until the fees are
paid or the credit issued. The agreement shall also provide that, in any action to collect the fees
or any portion thereof, the city shall be entitled to all of its costs of enforcement and collection,
including reasonable attorney's fees. The director of planning and community environment may
execute the agreement on behalf of the city in a form acceptable to the city attorney. Any
deferral granted pursuant to this paragraph (b) shall be consistent with the requirements of
Government Code Section 66007. Where a credit is given for the provision of a service that is an
eligible safety enhancement, the deferral of the fee, and the application of the credit, may be
according to a schedule set forth in the recorded agreement, which schedule shall be designed
to ensure that no credit is applied in advance of the provision of services for which the credit is
made.
SECTION 14. Section 6.60.060(e) Calculation of Fee of Chapter 16.60 (Charleston
Arastradero Corridor Pedestrian And Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
16.60.060 Calculation of Fee.
***
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 10 Sept. 20, 2016
(e) The rate of the fee shall be subject to annual adjustment for inflation pursuant to Section
16.64.110. Beginning July 1, 2006, and on each July 1 thereafter, the rate of the fee shall be
automatically adjusted according to the following formula:
Council-Approved Rate = Most Recent ENR / ENR at Council-Approval
Where the "Council-Approved Rate" is the rate most recently set by resolution or ordinance of
the city council, "Most Recent ENR" is the most recently published construction cost index
when the calculation is made and "ENR at Council-Approval" is the construction cost index
published for the month in which the council approved the "Council-Approved Rate."
***
SECTION 15. Section 16.60.090(e) Penalties of 16.60 (Charleston Arastradero
Corridor Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended
to read as follows:
16.60.090 Penalties
***
(e) Persons employed in the following designated employee positions are authorized to
exercise the authority provided in the California Penal Code Section 836.5 and are authorized to
issue citation for violations of this chapter: development services director,chief building
inspector, chief transportation official, and director of, planning and community environment
director and their designeeschief building official, assistant chief building official, and ordinance
compliance inspector.
SECTION 16. Section 16.61.090 Developer’s Option to Pay Fees to Public Art Fund
In-Lieu of Providing On-Site Art of Chapter 16.61 (Public Art for Private Developments) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
16.61.090 Developer’s option to pay fees to public art fund in-lieu of providing on-site art.
In lieu of installation of on-site public art, the developer may elect to make a monetary
contribution to the Palo Alto Public Arts Fund. The amount of the contribution shall be the cost
of the public art required by Section 16.61.040. A developer who elects to satisfy the
requirements of this chapter through a contribution to the Fund must complete the payment
in-lieu prior to the issuance of any building permit for the development project. The payment
shall be made as set forth in Chapter 16.64 of this Code.
SECTION 17. Chapter 16.64 (Development Fee and In-Lieu Payment Administration)
is added to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows:
CHAPTER 16.64 DEVELOPMENT FEE AND IN-LIEU PAYMENT ADMINISTRATION
Sections:
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 11 Sept. 20, 2016
16.64.010 Applicability
16.64.020 Due Date
16.64.030 Deferred Payment
16.64.040 Calculation of Fees
16.64.050 Adoption of Fee Schedule
16.64.060 Notice of Protest Rights
16.64.070 Informal Hearing
16.64.080 Appeal of Director’s Determination
16.64.090 Cost of Protest
16.64.100 Administration
16.64.110 Inflation Adjustment
Section 16.64.010 Applicability
This Chapter 16.64 applies to any fee or in-lieu payment imposed under any provision of this
code that states that that payment of the fee or in-lieu payment shall be made pursuant to this
Chapter 16.64. For purposes of this chapter the term “fee” shall be used to refer to any such
fee or in-lieu payment, regardless of how denominated elsewhere in this code.
Section 16.64.020 Due Date
A fee shall be paid on or before the issuance of the first building permit for the project. For a
phased project, payments may be made for each portion of a phased project prior to issuance
of the first building permit for that phase. If there is no building permit for the project, the fee
shall be paid upon issuance of the first city permit or other approval. If no city permit or other
approval is required, and the obligation to pay the fee is triggered by a change in use, payment
of the fee must be made before the change in use occurs.
Section 16.64.030 Deferred Payment
For residential development only, payment of a fee may be deferred to the date of final
building inspection approval of the development, provided the owner of the real property for
which the fees are required enters into a recordable agreement with the city prior to issuance
of the building permit for the development, which from the date of recordation, shall constitute
a lien on the property and shall be enforceable against successors in interest to the property
owner. The agreement shall provide that final occupancy approval shall not be given until the
fees are paid. The director of planning and community environment may execute the
agreement on behalf of the city in a form acceptable to the city attorney.
Section 16.64.040 Calculation of Fee
A fee shall be payable at the rate specified in the council-adopted Municipal Fee Schedule in
effect on the date the fees are paid, except that the applicant for a vesting tentative map for a
development project shall pay the fees in effect on the date the application for the vesting
tentative map is deemed complete.
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 12 Sept. 20, 2016
Section 16.64.050 Adoption of Fee Schedule
The City Council can revise the rate of any fee by amending, by ordinance or resolution, the rate
set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule. Any inflation-adjustment provided in this code with
respect to a fee shall go into effect upon approval by the city council of a change to the
Municipal Fee Schedule reflecting the adjusted amount of the fee.
Section 16.64.060 Notice of Protest Rights
(a) Each applicant is hereby notified that, in order to protest the imposition of any impact fee
required by this chapter, the protest must be filed in accordance with the requirements of this
chapter and the Mitigation Fee Act. Failure of any person to comply with the protest
requirements of this chapter or the Mitigation Fee Act shall bar that person from any action or
proceeding or any defense of invalidity or unreasonableness of the imposition.
(b) On or before the date on which payment of the fee is due, the applicant shall pay the full
amount required by the city and serve a written notice to the director of planning and
community environment with all of the following information: (1) a statement that the required
payment is tendered, or will be tendered when due, under protest; and (2) a statement
informing the city of the factual elements of the dispute and the legal theory forming the basis
for the protest.
(c) The applicant shall bear the burden of proving, to the satisfaction of the director,
entitlement to a fee adjustment.
Section 16.64.070 Informal Hearing
(a) The director shall schedule an informal hearing regarding the protest, to be held no later
than 60 days after the imposition of the impact fees upon the development project, and with at
least 10 days’ prior notice to the applicant (unless either dates are otherwise agreed by the
director and the applicant).
(b) During the informal hearing, the director shall consider the applicant’s protest, relevant
evidence assembled as a result of the protest, and any additional relevant evidence provided
during the informal hearing by the applicant and the city. The director shall provide an
opportunity for the applicant to present additional evidence at the hearing in support of the
protest.
(c) The Director shall issue a written determination regarding the protest. The director’s
determination shall support the fee imposed upon the development project unless the
applicant establishes, to the satisfaction of the director, entitlement to an adjustment to the
fee.
Section 16.64.080 Appeal of Director’s Determination
(a) Any applicant who desires to appeal a determination issued by the director shall submit a
written appeal to the director and the city manager. A complete written appeal shall include a
complete description of the factual elements of the dispute and the legal theory forming the
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 13 Sept. 20, 2016
basis for the appeal of the director’s determination. An appeal received by the city manager
more than 10 calendar days after the director’s determination may be rejected as late. Upon
receipt of a complete and timely appeal, the city manager shall appoint an independent hearing
officer to consider and rule on the appeal.
(b) The independent hearing officer shall, in coordination with the applicant and the director,
set the time and place for the appeal hearing, and provide written notice thereof. The
independent hearing officer shall consider relevant evidence, provide an opportunity for the
applicant and the city to present additional noncumulative evidence at the hearing, and
preserve the complete administrative record of the proceeding.
(c) Within 30 days after the independent hearing officer closes the hearing and receives post-
hearing briefs (if any), the independent hearing officer shall issue a written decision on the
appeal hearing which shall include a statement of findings of fact in support of the decision. The
independent hearing officer’s discretion shall be limited to a determination that either supports
the director’s determination or orders the city to refund all or a portion of the impact fees to
the applicant. The applicant shall bear the burden of proving entitlement to a fee adjustment.
The decision of the hearing officer is final and conclusive, and is subject to judicial review.
Section 16.64.090 Cost of Protest
The applicant shall pay all city costs related to any protest or appeal pursuant to this chapter, in
accordance with the fee schedule adopted by the city. At the time of the applicant’s protest,
and at the time of the applicant’s appeal, the applicant shall pay a deposit in an amount
established by the city to cover the estimated reasonable cost of processing the protest and
appeal. If the deposit is not adequate to cover all city costs, the applicant shall pay the
difference within 20 days after receipt of written notice from the director.
Section 16.64.100 Administration
The City Manager, or her/his designee, is authorized to adopt administrative regulations or
guidelines that are consistent with and that further the terms and requirements set forth in this
Code. All such administrative regulations or guidelines must be in writing. Such regulations or
guidelines may interpret any provision of this chapter, as well as any provision of this code
relating to the calculation of a fee.
Section 16.64.110 Inflation Adjustment
Where it is indicated in this code that a fee is subject to inflation adjustment pursuant to this
section, on each July 1, the amount of the fee shall be recalculated according to the following
formula:
Adjusted Rate = Prior Rate * Most Recent ENR / ENR for Prior Rate
Where the "Prior Rate" is the rate in effect prior at the time this adjustment is calculated,
"Most Recent ENR" is the most recently published construction cost index when the adjustment
is calculated and "ENR at Council-Approval" is the construction cost index (i) used to calculated
the Prior Rate when it was set pursuant to this section or (ii) published for the month in which
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 14 Sept. 20, 2016
the council approved the "Prior Rate." "Construction cost index" means the construction cost
index for the San Francisco Bay Area set forth in the Engineering News Record published by
McGraw Hill and Associates. In the event the Engineering News Record ceases to calculate and
publish this index, then the city manager may designate a comparable, alternative index to
serve as the construction cost index.
The existing rate for a fee shall remain in effect until the recalculated rate is made adopted and
effective pursuant to Section 16.64.050.
SECTION 18. Sections 21.50.060 Procedure and 21.50.070 Calculation of fair
market value of Chapter 21.50 (Parkland Dedication or Fees In-Lieu Thereof) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code are added to read as follows:
21.50.060 Procedure.
(a) Payment of fees: Any fee due under this Chapter shall be paid as set forth in Chapter
16.64 of this Code.
(b) Land dedications. At the time of the filing of the final or parcel map, the subdivider
shall dedicate the land to the City by a grant deed or other form acceptable to the City
Attorney.The director of public works, director of planning and community environment or city
council as appropriate, shall, upon approving a subdivision map, determine the conditions
necessary to comply with the requirements for parkland dedication or fees in lieu thereof as set
forth in this chapter, and said conditions shall be attached as conditions of approval.
21.50.070 Calculation of fair market value.
. . .
(c) The rate of the fee shall be subject to annual adjustment for inflation pursuant to
Section 16.64.110. Beginning July 1, 2009, and on each July 1 thereafter, the dollar amount set
forth in this section shall increase without further action by the city according to the following
formula:
Most Recent ENR
Council-Approved Rate*
ENR at Council Approval
*Where the "Council-Approved Rate" is the rate set forth in subsection (b).
SECTION 19. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
word of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a 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 and adopted this Ordinance, and each and all
provisions hereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more provisions may be declared invalid.
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 15 Sept. 20, 2016
SECTION 20. The City Council finds that this ordinance is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility of significant environmental effects occurring as a result of the adoption
of this ordinance.
SECTION 21. This ordinance shall become effective upon the commencement of
the sixtieth day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
_____________________________
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7310)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 11/7/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: CAPER for the CDBG Program for FY 2016
Title: Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) for
the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for Fiscal Year
2016
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
This is an informational report and no Council action is required.
Background
The preparation and submittal of a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report
(CAPER) is a requirement of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for
the receipt of Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The attached
document, Attachment A, was submitted to HUD on September 29, 2016, following the
required 15-day public review period. It is being provided to the Council for informational
purposes only.
Discussion
This CAPER represents the final year of the City’s Five-Year Consolidated plan covering the
period 2015-2020 and summarizes the accomplishments under the CDBG program for the
period July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. As required, the CAPER consists of specific program
narratives, an assessment of annual performance, and an assessment of progress toward
meeting goals and objectives contained in the Consolidated Plan.
Finally, this CAPER summary report is intended to inform the public on how the CDBG funds
administered by the City of Palo Alto during the 2016 Fiscal Year have been expended and
describes the extent to which the purposes of the grant program have been carried out. The
amount funded to specific activities is reported the year they are funded. However, due to the
nature of certain projects, it is common for projects to overlap program years and
accomplishments are reported when the project has been completed and in some cases when
the units become occupied.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Summary of Accomplishments
CDBG funds were used for public services and economic development activities. Palo Alto has
five primary CDBG program activity areas in which to allocate funds: Public Services, Planning
and Administration, Economic Development, Housing, and Public Facilities. Funds were
allocated in accordance with the goals and objectives set forth in the 2015-2020 Consolidated
Plan. The major accomplishments include the following:
Continued implementation of the Workforce Development Program which led to 36
previously unemployed individuals reentering the workforce;
Assisted 17 individuals in investigating their fair housing complaints; and
Continued successful partnerships with five public service providers.
The CAPER, Attachment A, provides a detailed description of the various programs and project
accomplishments within the fiscal year.
Resource Impact
The total investment of CDBG funds in Palo Alto approved for Fiscal Year 2016 was $881,673.
Of this amount, $82,880 was directed to public service activities, $290,723 for Economic
Development, $392,368 for housing rehabilitation, $32,016 for Fair Housing Services, and
$83,686 was allocated for administration activities.
Environmental Review
For purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), this action itself is not a project; therefore, no environmental impact
assessment is necessary.
Attachments:
FY 2015/16 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) (PDF)
FY 2015/16
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE
AND EVALUATION REPORT
July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016
Public Review and Comment Period: August 29, 2016 – September 13, 2016
Submitted to HUD September 29, 2016
Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650-329-2561 E: eloiza.murillogarcia@cityofpaloalto.org
CAPER 1
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table of Contents
CR-05 - Goals and Outcomes ..............................................................................................................3
Progress made in carrying out strategic plan and action plan. 91.520(a) ........................................... 3
Comparison of the proposed versus actual outcomes for each outcome measure submitted with
the consolidated plan 91.520(g) ................................................................................................... 3
Assess how the jurisdiction’s use of funds addresses the priorities and specific objectives identified
in the plan...................................................................................................................................... 5
CR-10 - Racial and Ethnic composition of families assisted...................................................................6
Describe the families assisted (including the racial and ethnic status of families assisted). 91.520(a) 6
CR-15 - Resources and Investments 91.520(a) .....................................................................................7
Identify the resources made available .................................................................................................. 7
Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments ....................................................... 7
Leveraging ............................................................................................................................................. 8
CR-20 - Affordable Housing 91.520(b) ............................................................................................... 10
Evaluation of the jurisdiction's progress in providing affordable housing. ........................................ 10
Discuss the difference between goals and outcomes and problems encountered in meeting these
goals. ........................................................................................................................................... 11
Discuss how these outcomes will impact future annual action plans. ............................................... 11
Include the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income persons served
by each activity. ........................................................................................................................... 11
CR-25 - Homeless and Other Special Needs 91.220(d, e); 91.320(d, e); 91.520(c) ................................ 12
Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing needs .............. 12
Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons ................. 13
Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless ........................................... 13
Helping homeless persons .................................................................................................................. 13
CR-30 - Public Housing 91.220(h); 91.320(j) ....................................................................................... 15
Actions taken to address the needs of public housing ....................................................................... 15
Actions taken to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in .......................... 15
Actions taken to provide assistance to troubled PHAs ....................................................................... 15
CR-35 - Other Actions 91.220(j)-(k); 91.320(i)-(j) ................................................................................ 16
Actions taken to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers
to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances,
building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on
residential investment. 91.220 (j); 91.320 (i) .............................................................................. 16
Actions taken to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)................ 17
Actions taken to reduce lead-based paint hazards. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) ........................................... 17
Actions taken to reduce the number of poverty-level families. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) ........................ 18
Actions taken to develop institutional structure. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)............................................... 20
Actions taken to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service
agencies. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) ..................................................................................................... 19
Identify actions taken to overcome the effects of any impediments identified in the jurisdictions
analysis of impediments to fair housing choice. 91.520(a) ........................................................ 20
CR-40 - Monitoring 91.220 and 91.230 .............................................................................................. 21
CAPER 2
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Describe the standards and procedures used to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the
plan and used to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs involved,
including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements ............ 21
Citizen Participation Plan 91.105(d); 91.115(d) .................................................................................. 21
Describe the efforts to provide citizens with reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment on
performance reports. .................................................................................................................. 21
CR-45 - CDBG 91.520(c) .................................................................................................................... 22
Specify the nature of, and reasons for, any changes in the jurisdiction’s program objectives and
indications of how the jurisdiction would change its programs as a result of its experiences... 22
Brownfields Economic Development Initiative grants ........................................................................ 22
[BEDI grantees] Describe accomplishments and program outcomes during the last year. .............. 22
Table of Figures
Table 1 – Accomplishments – Program Year & Strategic Plan to Date ......................................................... 3
Table 2 – Table of assistance to racial and ethnic populations by source of funds ...................................... 6
Table 3 – Resources Made Available ............................................................................................................ 7
Table 4 – Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments ................................................ 7
Table 6 – Number of Households ............................................................................................................... 10
Table 7 – Number of Households Supported.............................................................................................. 10
Table 8 – Number of Persons Served .......................................................................................................... 11
APPENDIX
A: Public Hearing Notice
B: IDIS Reports
C: Public Comments
D: Section 3 Report
|
CAPER 3
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
CR-05 - Goals and Outcomes
Progress the jurisdiction has made in carrying out its strategic plan and its action plan. 91.520(a)
This could be an overview that includes major initiatives and highlights that were proposed and executed throughout the program year.
Comparison of the proposed versus actual outcomes for each outcome measure submitted with the consolidated plan and
explain, if applicable, why progress was not made toward meeting goals and objectives. 91.520(g)
Categories, priority levels, funding sources and amounts, outcomes/objectives, goal outcome indicators, units of measure, targets, actual
outcomes/outputs, and percentage completed for each of the grantee’s program year goals.
Table 1 – Accomplishments – Program Year & Strategic Plan to Date
Goal Category Source /
Amount
Indicator Unit of
Measure
Expected
–
Strategic
Plan
Actual –
Strategic
Plan
Percent
Complete
Expected
–
Program
Year
Actual –
Program
Year
Percent
Complete
Affordable
Housing
Affordable
Housing
CDBG:
$392,368
Rental units
rehabilitated
Household
Housing
Unit
300 60 0.00% 156 0 0.00%
Economic
Development
Non-Housing
Community
Development
CDBG:
$ 290,723
Jobs
created/retained Jobs 125 37 29.60% 30 37 123.33%
Fair Housing
Non-Housing
Community
Development
CDBG:
$32,016
Public service
activities other than
Low/Moderate
Income Housing
Benefit
Persons
Assisted 100 17 17.00% 30 17 56.67%
|
CAPER 4
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Homelessness Homeless CDBG:
$24,861
Public service
activities other than
Low/Moderate
Income Housing
Benefit
Persons
Assisted 0 148 0.00% 531 460 86.63%
Homelessness Homeless CDBG:
$38,499.00
Public service
activities for
Low/Moderate
Income Housing
Benefit
Households
Assisted 2500 312 12.48% 500 312 62.4%
Strengthen
Neighborhoods
Non-Homeless
Special Needs
Non-Housing
Community
Development
CDBG: $
Public Facility or
Infrastructure
Activities other than
Low/Moderate
Income Housing
Benefit
Persons
Assisted 500 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
Strengthen
Neighborhoods
Non-Homeless
Special Needs
Non-Housing
Community
Development
CDBG:
$19,540
Public service
activities other than
Low/Moderate
Income Housing
Benefit
Persons
Assisted 2500 478
19.12% 305 478
156.72%
|
CAPER 5
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Assess how the jurisdiction’s use of funds, particularly CDBG, addresses the priorities and specific objectives identified in the plan,
giving special attention to the highest priority activities identified.
The City of Palo Alto was able to achieve many of its goals outlined in the 2015 Action Plan and 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan. In
total, the City’s CDBG program assisted 921 persons access needed services. Of these persons, seven hundred and thirty-four (734)
were extremely low-income, forty-five (45) were very low-income, one hundred and fifteen (115) were low-income and ninety-eight
(98) were moderate income.
The City did not meet its goal of providing 156 rehabilitated rental affordable housing units. As discussed later in this report, the
City’s subrecipient (Mid-Peninsula Housing Corporation) who was awarded a CDBG loan for $392,368 to rehabilitate 156 affordable
rental units at Palo Alto Gardens for low income households encountered unexpected issues involving the approvals needed to enter
into a loan agreement with the City of Palo Alto. As a result, the project has been delayed. The City has worked diligently with Mid
Pen to ensure that the project moves forward in a timely fashion. Rehabilitation work is expected to begin in November 2016.
CAPER 6
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
CR-10 - Racial and Ethnic composition of families assisted
Describe the families assisted (including the racial and ethnic status of families assisted).
91.520(a)
Table 2 – Table of assistance to racial and ethnic populations by source of funds
CDBG
Total 991
Hispanic 146
Not Hispanic 845
Narrative
The City of Palo Alto’s CDBG funded programs and services served a diverse population and
provided needed resources to those residents most in need. Sixty three percent (63%) were
White, sixteen percent (16%) were African America, and twelve percent (12%) were Asian.
Fifteen percent (15%) of all the clients served were Hispanic.
White 628
Black or African American 163
Asian 122
American Indian or American Native 24
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 11
American Indian and Black 2
Black and White 7
American Indian and White 12
Asian and White 2
Other, multi-racial 20
CAPER 7
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
CR-15 - Resources and Investments 91.520(a)
Identify the resources made available
Table 3 – Resources Made Available
Source of Funds Source Resources Made
Available
Amount Expended
During Program Year
CDBG HUD 2,103,594 478,192
Narrative
See discussion below.
Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments
Table 4 – Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments
Target Area Planned Percentage
of Allocation
Actual Percentage of
Allocation
Narrative Description
N/A N/A N/A See below
Narrative
The City considers the provisions of all types of housing assistance on a citywide basis
consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Palo Alto does not have specific target
areas for housing activities; instead the City attempts to provide housing affordable to lower-
income persons throughout the City.
Minority concentration includes areas in the City where the concentration of racial and ethnic
minority population is 10% or higher than their total citywide representation. There are only a
few areas that are considered to have a concentration of minority populations or low-income
residents in Palo Alto. The CDBG Program defines low-income concentration as any census
block group where 51% or more residents earn 80% of MFI or less. An exception exists for a
jurisdiction that does not have any areas meeting this definition, such as Palo Alto, which
includes the highest quartile of all areas in the City in terms of degree of concentration, is used.
However, Palo Alto does not qualify activities under the LMI area benefit category.
CAPER 8
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Leveraging
Explain how federal funds leveraged additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements were satisfied, as well as how any publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that were used to address the needs identified in the plan.
Palo Alto leverages federal and private housing funds to the greatest extent feasible consistent
with the goals identified in the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan. Moreover, the City continues to
encourage non-profit organizations to seek other local, state, and federal funding for both
housing and non-housing community development activities.
HSRAP
The City of Palo Alto provided $1,099,347 in General Funds during fiscal year 2015/2016 to
address primary human service needs in the community. These funds include multi-year
agreements with others allocated by HSRAP and administered by the Office of Human Services
in the Community Services Department. Funded projects addressed the Human Relations
Commission’s priority needs in the following categories: early child care and education, youth
programs, senior nutrition and social services, homelessness, and basic needs such as health
care and mental health.
HOUSING IN-LIEU
The City of Palo Alto maintains a local housing fund consisting of two sub-funds: the
“Commercial Housing Fund” and the “Residential Housing Fund.” Palo Alto, under Chapter
16.47 of the Municipal Code, requires commercial and industrial development projects to pay a
housing mitigation fee. The fees are deposited in the “Commercial Housing Fund”, and the
accumulated fees and interest earned on the fund are made available for the creation of new
low and moderate-income housing units under the “Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines”
adopted by the City Council. As of June 30, 2016, the Commercial Housing Fund had an
available balance of approximately $1,856,000
Pursuant to Program H-3.1.2, the Below Market Rate Program of the City’s Housing Element,
Palo Alto collects housing in-lieu fees from residential development when it is infeasible to
provide below market rate units on-site. These fees, along with interest earnings of the Fund
and other miscellaneous revenues related to housing, are placed in a special fund; “the
Residential Housing Fund”. This fund is used to provide funding for acquisition or rehabilitation
of low and moderate-income housing, but may also be used for assistance to new housing
CAPER 9
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
construction projects. As of June 30, 2016, the Residential Housing fund had an available
balance of approximately $6,060,000.
These are the only local sources of funding and subsidies available for affordable housing within
the City. They are used to provide matching funds, pay for expenses which exceed HUD income
and cost limits, to fund the cost of features and amenities classified as ineligible under federal
housing programs, pre-development expenses, feasibility studies, site acquisition, and other
similar purposes.
CAPER 10
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
CR-20 - Affordable Housing 91.520(b)
Evaluation of the jurisdiction's progress in providing affordable housing, including the
number and types of families served, the number of extremely low-income, low-income,
moderate-income, and middle-income persons served.
Table 5 – Number of Households
One-Year Goal Actual
Number of homeless households to
be provided affordable housing units
0 0
Number of non-homeless
households to be provided
affordable housing units
0 0
Number of special-needs households
to be provided affordable housing
units
156 0
Total 156 0
Table 6 – Number of Households Supported
One-Year Goal Actual
Number of households
supported through rental
assistance
0 0
Number of households
supported through the
production of new units
0 0
Number of households
supported through the rehab of
existing units
156 0
Number of households
supported through the
acquisition of existing units
0 0
Total 156 0
CAPER 11
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Discuss the difference between goals and outcomes and problems encountered in meeting
these goals.
The City of Palo Alto provided a CDBG rehabilitation loan in the amount of $392,368 to Mid-
Peninsula Housing Corporation (Mid Pen) of the rehabilitation of Palo Alto Gardens. Due to a
number of factors outside of the City’s control involving subordination of the CDBG loan and
Mid Pen’s requirements to obtain investor approval, the project has been delayed. The City is
aware that it has not meet HUD’s timeliness requirements and is working in partnership with
Mid Pen to expedite the loan process so work can begin. Work on the project is expected to
begin in November 2016.
Discuss how these outcomes will impact future annual action plans.
The City anticipates that the Palo Alto Gardens rehabilitation project will begin in November
2016. As a result, future action plans will include 156 units from the rehabilitation project that
were detailed in the 2015 Annual Action Plan. The City anticipate meeting all of its goal
highlighted in the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan despite not meeting this year’s annual goal.
Include the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income persons
served by each activity where information on income by family size is required to determine
the eligibility of the activity.
Table 7 – Number of Persons Served
Number of Persons Served CDBG Actual HOME Actual
Extremely Low-income 733 0
Very Low-income 45 0
Low-income 115 0
Moderate-income 98 0
Total 991 0
Narrative Information
In total, the City’s CDBG program provided programs and services to 991 persons. Seven hundred and thirty-four (734) of these persons were extremely low-income, forty-five (45) were very low-income, one hundred and fifteen (115) were low-income, and ninety-eight (98) were moderate income.
CAPER 12
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
CR-25 - Homeless and Other Special Needs 91.220(d, e); 91.320(d, e); 91.520(c)
Evaluate the jurisdiction’s progress in meeting its specific objectives for reducing and ending
homelessness through:
Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their
individual needs
The City’s entitlement amount for FY 2015/2016 was $442,460. The City had $136,049 in
program income and $ 303,164 in uncommitted funds from previous years. In total, the City
provided $881,673 in direct CDBG funding and $1,099,347 in HSRAP funding. The following
details the accomplishments of the CDBG funded subrecipients targeted to benefit persons who
are low income, homeless, or at risk of homelessness.
Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons
LIFEMOVES
OPPORTUNITY CENTER
CDBG: $38,499
The Opportunity Services Center continued to provide services to homeless individuals and
those at-risk of becoming homeless. Services include drop-in services, showers and laundry
facilities, lockers, light snacks, information and referral, transportation assistance, a clothes
closet, medical and psychiatric screening and referral, inter-faith chaplaincy, and fellowship. In
addition, the Hotel de Zink program along with the Breaking Bread Program continued with the
operation. During the program year, the Opportunity Center served 312 unduplicated
individuals. 278 unduplicated individuals received 652 case management, housing/job search,
referral and mentoring services; and 5,567 shelter nights were provided.
PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION
DOWNTOWN SRO HOTEL COUNSELING
CDBG: $24,861.00
Palo Alto Housing Corporation provided one-on-one counseling, case management, and
educational activities at Alma Place and Barker Hotel. The one-on-one sessions provided by the
Resident Service Coordinator affords a systematic manner of addressing a diversity of issues
these residents face. During the program year there was an increase in demand for more in-
depth support counseling services to address mental health and emotional health issues. The
SRO Resident Services Coordinator works closely with residents with severe mental health
issues to ensure compliance with treatment guidelines and to reduce the risk of relapse. PAHC
continued to expand the health and wellness program by collaborating with other non-profit
organizations to host a health and resource fair. The goal of the event was to provide
CAPER 13
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
information and resources on topics of the areas of health care, counseling, transportation
programs, social services, and food programs. During the program year, nutrition and fitness
coaching services were initiated to provide residents with information, guidance and support as
to how to develop an exercise and plan programs in order to improve their health and quality
of life. Finally, Palo Alto Housing Corporation staff has continued to serve as a partner with the
City’s Pilot Microenterprise Assistance Program. Two of the MAP grantees currently live at
Alma Place.
Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely
low-income individuals and families and those who are: likely to become homeless after
being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care
facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections
programs and institutions); and, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that
address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs
CATHOLIC CHARITIES
LONG TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN
CDBG: $5,170.00
During the program year 444 unduplicated residents were contacted within the Palo Alto Long
term care residences in Lytton Gardens Health Care Center, Lytton Gardens Residential Care for
the Elderly and Palo Alto Nursing Center. A total of 62 complaints were received and
investigated.
DOWNTOWN STREETS INC.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
CDBG: $290,723.00
During the program year DST was able to continue their success rate and introduced a number
of new programs into the existing Workforce Development Program. A total of 36 participants
enrolled in the program and were placed in a variety of employment opportunities.
Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families
with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to
permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that
individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals
and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were
recently homeless from becoming homeless again
YWCA SILICON VALLEY
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SERVICES
CDBG: $8,403
CAPER 14
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
The YWCA Support Network Program provides domestic violence support services including
counseling, case management, crisis counseling, and legal assistance. During the program year
the Support Network Program provided 15 unduplicated clients with counseling, therapy
and/or legal advocacy services. Crisis Counselors provided crisis line assistance to 46 individuals
receiving crisis counseling services. Additionally, the Domestic Violence Program was able to
provide 1 unduplicated Palo Alto resident with emergency shelter, including basic needs
(food/clothing) and comprehensive case management services.
SILICON VALLEY INDEPENDENT LEARNING CENTER
HOUSING & EMERGENCY SERVICES
CDBG: $5,422
During the program year, Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (SVILC) conducted extensive
outreach in Palo Alto which resulted in 19 persons having improved accessibility to decent
affordable housing. In addition, SVILC provided 99 people with information and referral
services and 61 people with disabilities were given Housing Search training through a housing
workshop at the Palo Alto Opportunity Services Center. SVILC will continue to reach out to
other organizations, businesses and non-profits in Palo Alto to ensure the word continues to
spread that SVILC is a valuable resource for Palo Alto residents with disabilities.
PROJECT SENTINEL
FAIR HOUSING SERVICES
CDBG: $31,666
During the program year, Project Sentinel provided community education and outreach
regarding fair housing law and practices, investigation, counseling and legal referral for victims
of housing discrimination, and analyses for City staff and officials regarding fair housing
practices. In total, seventeen fair housing complaints were investigated by Project Sentinel.
Sixteen residents were provided individual consultation relating to specific fair housing
questions and two hundred and seventy one individuals were assisted through outreach and
presentations.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PILOT MAP
CDBG: $6,708
The Microenterprise Assistance Program provided access to new opportunities to improve the
economic self-sufficiency of LMI families and individuals. The program built on the foundation
of entrepreneurship and empowered clients by increasing their economic literacy, business
skills, self-esteem, and personal behavior appropriate to the workplace. In total, three MAP
participants were assisted in FY 15/16.
CAPER 15
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
CR-30 - Public Housing 91.220(h); 91.320(j)
Actions taken to address the needs of public housing
Not applicable. The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) owns and manages
four public housing units, which are all located in the City of Santa Clara.
Actions taken to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in
management and participate in homeownership
While the majority of their units have been converted to affordable housing stock, HACSC is
proactive in incorporating resident input into the agency’s policy-making process. An equitable
and transparent policy-making process that includes the opinions of residents is achieved
through the involvement of two tenant commissioners, one being a senior citizen, on the
HACSC board.
HACSC has been a MTW agency since 2008. In this time the agency has developed 31 MTW
activities. The vast majority of its successful initiatives have been aimed at reducing
administrative inefficiencies, which in turn opens up more resources for programs aimed at LMI
families.
As mentioned previously, there are no public housing facilities in the City of Palo Alto.
Actions taken to provide assistance to troubled PHAs
Not applicable.
CAPER 16
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
CR-35 - Other Actions 91.220(j)-(k); 91.320(i)-(j)
Actions taken to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as
barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning
ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the
return on residential investment. 91.220 (j); 91.320 (i)
The City of Palo Alto has undertaken a number of actions to eliminate barriers to the
development of affordable housing including participation in a county-wide effort to provide
additional affordable housing units; programs in the 2014-2023 Housing Element Update to
increase the supply of affordable housing; and the development impact fees for housing.
Housing Trust Silicon Valley (Housing Trust)
The Housing Trust, formerly the Housing Trust Fund of Santa Clara County (HTSCC), was created
to provide additional financial resources to address the County’s affordable housing deficit.
The Housing Trust’s mission is to make Silicon Valley a more affordable place to live. Loans and
grants are issued to increase the supply of affordable housing, assist first-time home buyers,
prevent homelessness and stabilize neighborhoods. Palo Alto was among the contributors
during its founding and has continued to allocate funding. A provision was added to ensure the
City’s funds be used exclusively for qualifying affordable housing projects within the City of Palo
Alto. The most recent included $200,000 from the City’s Residential Housing Fund for Fiscal
Year 2014/2015.
Participation in the Housing Trust has increased the available housing funding for a number of
Palo Alto Projects as summarized in the table below. In addition, the Housing Trust has
invested over $100,000 assisting 16 households to purchase homes in Palo Alto through its first-
time homebuyer program.
Project Name Number of Units HTSCC Loan Amount Leveraged Amount
Opportunity Center 89 $650,000 $20,050,000
Oak Court
Apartments
53 $400,000 $19,700,000
Alta Torre 56 $689,439 $18,110,561
Tree House 35 $500,000 $11,016,525
Alma Street 50 $500,000 $28,536,801
801 Alma 50 $500,000 $30,000,000*
Total 333 $2,739,439 $127,413,887
*Estimated Amount
CAPER 17
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Adjustments or Improvements to Affordable Housing Strategies
2015-2023 Housing Element Update: The Palo Alto Housing Element, which is part of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan is the chief policy document describing the City’s housing needs and the
policies and programs the City will use to meet those needs. The 2015-2023 Housing Element
Update has been certified by the California State Department of Housing and Community
Development.
Development Impact Fees for Housing: The City’s impact fees are comprised of four categories:
Housing, traffic, community facilities, and Parkland dedication. The housing fee to non-
residential development increased from $19.85 to $20.37 per square foot, effective May 8,
2016. The fee rate applies to all net new commercial square footage on a site. Full payment is
required at building permit issuance with some exemptions including hospitals and
convalescent facilities, private education facilities, public facilities and private clubs, lodges and
fraternal organizations.
Actions taken to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)
The City’s CDBG program diligently works with other purveyors of funding to provide the most
value per dollar. This is actualized by partnering with other City resources such as HSRAP and
leveraging dollars invested in site acquisition for low-income housing with a multitude of other
funding sources. However, Palo Alto is at a disadvantage in removing or eliminating obstacles
to meeting underserved needs due to the consistently shrinking amount of CDBG funds
available in recent years. To address this, the City supplements its CDBG funding with other
resources and funds, such as:
CAPER 18
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
• The City’s Human Service Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) provides approximately
$1,099,347 million dollars from the General Fund in support of human services. The HSRAP
funds, in conjunction with the CDBG public service funds, are distributed to local non-profit
agencies.
• The Palo Alto Commercial Housing Fund is used primarily to increase the number of new
affordable housing units for Palo Alto’s work force. It is funded with mitigation fees required
from developers of commercial and industrial projects.
• The Palo Alto Residential Housing Fund is funded with mitigation fees provided under Palo
Alto’s BMR housing program from residential developers and money from other
miscellaneous sources, such as proceeds from the sale or lease of City property.
• The City’s Below Market Rate Emergency Fund was authorized in 2002 to provide funding
on an ongoing basis for loans to BMR owners for special assessment loans and for
rehabilitation and preservation of the City’s stock of BMR ownership units.
• HOME Program funds are available on an annual competitive basis through the State of
California HOME program, and the County’s HOME Consortium.
Actions taken to reduce lead-based paint hazards. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)
Lead poisoning can cause permanent damage to the brain and many other organs, and can
result in reduced intelligence and behavioral problems in young children. More than 80,000
children younger than 6 years old living in the United States have lead in their blood that is
above the level of concern set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). A
significant number of these children are in families of low income and are living in old homes
with heavy concentration of lead-based paint and lead-contaminated dust and soil in the
environment.
The City’s housing and CDBG staff provide information and referral to property owners,
developers, and non-profit organizations rehabilitating older housing about lead-based paint
hazards. There is no information that indicates lower income households are more likely to be
exposed to lead paint hazards in Palo Alto than are families in the general population. The
City’s 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan has a more detailed discussion of lead based paint in the
City. Any house to be rehabilitated with City financial assistance is required to be inspected for
the existence of lead paint and lead paint hazards. The City will provide financial assistance for
the abatement of such hazards in units rehabilitated with City funding.
Actions taken to reduce the number of poverty-level families. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)
The City, in its continuing effort to reduce poverty, prioritized funding agencies that provide
direct assistance to the homeless and those in danger of becoming homeless. In FY 2015-2016,
these programs included the following:
- The Microenterprise Assistance Program provided access to new opportunities to improve the
economic self-sufficiency of LMI families and individuals. The program built on the foundation
of entrepreneurship and empowered clients by increasing their economic literacy, business
CAPER 19
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
skills, self-esteem, and personal behavior appropriate to the workplace.
-The Workforce Development Program provided a transition from unemployment and
homelessness to regular employment and housing through case management, job training,
mentoring, housing, and transportation assistance.
-Downtown Streets Team is a nonprofit in the City that works to reduce homelessness through
a “work first” model. Downtown Streets Team utilized their community connections to provide
training and job opportunities to homeless people, specifically in the downtown area. The
Downtown Streets Team has helped over 282 people find housing and 291 find jobs since its
inception in 2005. The Downtown Streets Team has initiatives in Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, San Jose,
and San Rafael.
Actions taken to develop institutional structure. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)
The City is striving to improve intergovernmental and private sector cooperation to synergize
efforts and resources and develop new revenues for community service needs and the
production of affordable housing. Collaborative efforts include:
• Regular quarterly meetings between entitlement jurisdictions at the CDBG Coordinators
Meeting and Regional Housing Working Group
• Joint jurisdiction Request for Proposals and project review committees
• Coordination on project management for projects funded by multiple jurisdictions
• HOME Consortium between member jurisdictions for affordable housing projects
Recent examples include the effort by the County to create a regional affordable housing fund,
using former redevelopment funds that could be returned to the County to use for affordable
housing.
Another effort underway involves the possible use of former redevelopment funds to create a
Countywide pool for homeless shelters and transitional housing. These interactions among
agencies generate cohesive discussion and forums for bridging funding and service gaps on a
regional scale.
Actions taken to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service
agencies. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)
The City benefits from a strong jurisdiction and region-wide network of housing and community
development partners, such as the County and the CoC. To improve intergovernmental and
private sector cooperation, the City will continue to participate with other local jurisdictions
and developers in sharing information and resources.
In addition to the actions listed above, the City will continue to coordinate with the City’s
human services funding efforts to comprehensively address community needs.
CAPER 20
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Identify actions taken to overcome the effects of any impediments identified in the
jurisdictions analysis of impediments to fair housing choice. 91.520(a)
The City makes every effort to affirmatively further fair housing in compliance with the adopted
Analysis of Impediments. During Fiscal Year 2015/2016, the City continued to support actions
to affirmatively further fair housing through a subrecipient agreement with Project Sentinel, a
non-profit organization dedicated to assisting individuals with housing problems discussed in
detail below. The following is a list of actions taken to affirmatively further fair housing:
• HCD has certified the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element update
• The City targeted the majority of its CDBG and local housing funds to increasing and
preserving the supply of affordable housing
• The Office of Human Services regularly met with the County of Santa Clara Housing
Authority to place homeless individuals with section 8 vouchers
• Affordable housing information and referral services were provided by the Office of
Human Services
During Fiscal Year 2015/2016, the City continued to support actions to affirmatively further fair
housing choice through a subrecipient agreement with Project Sentinel, a non-profit
organization dedicated to assisting individuals with housing problems. Project Sentinel
responded to and investigated 17 cases of housing discrimination in Palo Alto during the fiscal
year.
CAPER 21
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
CR-40 - Monitoring 91.220 and 91.230
Describe the standards and procedures used to monitor activities carried out in furtherance
of the plan and used to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs
involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning
requirements
Under the CDBG Program, the City conducts desk reviews and on-site monitoring of
subrecipients. Last year the City completed on-site monitoring of two non-profit organizations.
Since the City operates under a two-year funding cycle there are some subrecipients that
receive funding for two years and are only required to have one on-site monitoring during this
time. Typically, subrecipients who have had trouble implementing projects or have been
identified as having compliance issues in a previous monitoring are selected for the annual
monitoring. There were no major deficiencies identified during the previous monitoring. The
City will be conducting on-site monitoring of four subrecipients in the next two to three months
consistent with the Subrecipient Monitoring Plan.
Citizen Participation Plan 91.105(d); 91.115(d)
Describe the efforts to provide citizens with reasonable notice and an opportunity to
comment on performance reports.
A notice regarding the availability of the draft CAPER was emailed to interested organization
and persons. In addition, a notice informing the public of the availability of the CAPER was
published in the Palo Alto Weekly on August 19, 2016. The notice was also displayed on the
City’s website during the public review period.
The draft CAPER was available for public review and comment for a 15-day period, beginning
August 29, 2016 and concluding on September 13, 2016. Copies of the draft report were
available at the City’s Planning Department reception desk, the Development Center, and on
the CDBG website. Finally, the Human Relations Commission held a public hearing on Thursday,
September 8, 2016 to take public comment and discuss the CAPER. The City Council will receive
a copy of the final CAPER along with any public comments received in mid-October.
CAPER 22
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
CR-45 - CDBG 91.520(c)
Specify the nature of, and reasons for, any changes in the jurisdiction’s program objectives
and indications of how the jurisdiction would change its programs as a result of its
experiences.
Not applicable.
Does this Jurisdiction have any open Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI)
grants?
Not applicable.
[BEDI grantees] Describe accomplishments and program outcomes during the last year.
Not applicable.
CAPER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
APPENDIX
CAPER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
This page intentionally left blank
CAPER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
A: PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT PERIOD FOR
PALO ALTO’S CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND
EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE PERIOD
JULY 1, 2015 TO JUNE 30, 2016
Notice is hereby given that the City of Palo Alto has completed a draft performance report for the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for Fiscal Year 2016. The Draft Consolidated
Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) is available for public review and comment prior to
its submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The CAPER represents the first year of the City’s Five-Year Consolidated plan covering the period 2015-
2020, and covers the accomplishments under the CDBG program for the period July 1, 2015 to June 30,
2016. It consists of specific program narratives, an assessment of annual performance, and an
assessment of progress toward meeting goals and objectives contained in the Consolidated Plan.
Public Review and Comment Period: The draft CAPER will be available for public review and comment
for a 15-day period, beginning on Monday, August 29, 2016 and concluding at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
September 13, 2016. Written comments may be submitted during the review period and should be sent
to the City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment, Attention: Eloiza Murillo-
Garcia, Senior Planner 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments can also be
submitted via e-mail to eloiza.murillogarcia@cityofpaloalto.org.
Public Hearing: The Human Relations Commission will hold a public hearing to take public comment on
the draft CAPER on Thursday, September 8, 2016. The Public Hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m., or as
soon as possible thereafter, in the Palo Alto City Hall Community Meeting Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue,
Palo Alto.
To Obtain a Copy of the CAPER: Copies are available at the Planning Department reception desk, City
Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor, the Development Center located at 285 Hamilton Avenue during
regular business hours, by calling (650) 329-2561, or visiting the City’s CDBG website:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg.asp .
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:
ADA Coordinator, City of Palo Alto,
650-329-2550 (Voice)
ada@cityofpaloalto.org
CAPER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
B: IDIS Reports
CAPER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
This page intentionally left blank
CAPER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
IDIS REPORTS
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES (CO4PR03)
PROGRAM YEAR 2015
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
1
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 1 of 27
256 - City of Palo Alto Planning DepartmentIDIS Activity:
Project:0006 - Microenterprise Assistance Program
PGM Year:2013
Description:
Micro-Enterprise Assistance (18C)Matrix Code:
Availability/accessibility
Create economic opportunitiesObjective:
Outcome:
Open
250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301-2531
National Objective:LMCMC
Status:
Location:
The Pilot Microenterprise Assistance Program (MAP) is a new Palo Alto based community program that offers seed grants to assist individuals in starting their own business andor grantfunds to grow an existing business as a means of increasing participant's economic self-sufficiency.
12/05/2013Initial Funding Date:
Financing
Fund Type Grant Year Grant Funded Amount Drawn In Program Year Drawn Thru Program Year
Total
CDBG EN
PI
Total
Pre-2015
2012
2013
B12MC060020
B13MC060020
$111,594.84 $0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $25,454.22
$0.00 $20,357.12
$205.16 $0.00 $205.16
$111,800.00 $0.00 $46,016.50
Proposed Accomplishments
People (General) : 5
Number assisted:
Actual Accomplishments
Person
Hispanic
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0White:
Black/African American:
Asian:
American Indian/Alaskan Native:
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & White:
Asian White:
Black/African American & White:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & Black/African American:
Other multi-racial:
Asian/Pacific Islander:
Hispanic:
Owner
Total Hispanic
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Renter
Total Hispanic
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Total
Total Hispanic Total
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
2
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 2 of 27
0Total:0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Female-headed Households:0 0 0
Income Category:
Low Mod
Moderate
Extremely Low
Non Low Moderate
Total
Percent Low/Mod
Owner
0
0
0
0
0
Renter
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
Person
5
0
0
0
5
100.0%
Annual Accomplishments
Years Accomplishment Narrative # Benefitting
2013
2014
In order to be eligible for MAP funds applicants were required to submit a pre-application by January 15, 2014. The City received twenty-six(26) pre-applications from MAP Cohort members and the general public. Planning Staff and the MAP Grant Review subcommittee reviewed allapplications and established an eligibility list. Only those placed on the eligibility list qualified to apply for MAP funds. Of these twenty-six (26)applications, eleven (11) were placed on the eligibility list and were provided with a formal application for MAP funds. Staff has received seven(7) formal applications for funding ranging from $1,000 to $15,000 from those placed on the eligibility list. The applications have beenreviewed by the MAP Grant Review subcommittee and staff. Preliminary funding recommendations have been made and we anticipate theformal announcement will take place the first week of April 2014.
The City continues with this program and began to disburse funds in August 2014.
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
3
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 3 of 27
267 - Kathy WuIDIS Activity:
Project:0006 - Microenterprise Assistance Program
PGM Year:2013
Description:
Micro-Enterprise Assistance (18C)Matrix Code:
Availability/accessibility
Create economic opportunitiesObjective:
Outcome:
Open
Address Suppressed
National Objective:LMC
Status:
Location:
10/03/2014Initial Funding Date:
Financing
Fund Type Grant Year Grant Funded Amount Drawn In Program Year Drawn Thru Program Year
Total
CDBG EN
Total
Pre-2015
2013 B13MC060020
$7,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
$1,207.00 $5,514.86
$7,000.00 $1,207.00 $5,514.86
Proposed Accomplishments
People (General) : 1
Number assisted:
Actual Accomplishments
Person
Hispanic
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
White:
Black/African American:
Total:
Asian:
American Indian/Alaskan Native:
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & White:
Asian White:
Black/African American & White:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & Black/African American:
Other multi-racial:
Asian/Pacific Islander:
Hispanic:
Owner
Total Hispanic
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Renter
Total Hispanic
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
Total
Total Hispanic Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
Female-headed Households:0 0 0
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
4
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 4 of 27
Income Category:
Low Mod
Moderate
Extremely Low
Non Low Moderate
Total
Percent Low/Mod
Owner
0
0
0
0
0
Renter
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
Person
0
0
0
0
0
Annual Accomplishments
No data returned for this view. This might be because the applied filter excludes all data.
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
5
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 5 of 27
268 - Paul Christopher MurphyIDIS Activity:
Project:0006 - Microenterprise Assistance Program
PGM Year:2013
Description:
Micro-Enterprise Assistance (18C)Matrix Code:
Availability/accessibility
Create economic opportunitiesObjective:
Outcome:
Open
Address Suppressed
National Objective:LMC
Status:
Location:
10/03/2014Initial Funding Date:
Financing
Fund Type Grant Year Grant Funded Amount Drawn In Program Year Drawn Thru Program Year
Total
CDBG EN
Total
Pre-2015
2013 B13MC060020
$9,200.00 $0.00 $0.00
$3,313.34 $9,200.00
$9,200.00 $3,313.34 $9,200.00
Proposed Accomplishments
Businesses : 1
Number assisted:
Actual Accomplishments
Person
Hispanic
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
White:
Black/African American:
Total:
Asian:
American Indian/Alaskan Native:
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & White:
Asian White:
Black/African American & White:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & Black/African American:
Other multi-racial:
Asian/Pacific Islander:
Hispanic:
Owner
Total Hispanic
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Renter
Total Hispanic
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
Total
Total Hispanic Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
Female-headed Households:0 0 0
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
6
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 6 of 27
Income Category:
Low Mod
Moderate
Extremely Low
Non Low Moderate
Total
Percent Low/Mod
Owner
0
0
0
0
0
Renter
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
Person
0
0
0
0
0
Annual Accomplishments
No data returned for this view. This might be because the applied filter excludes all data.
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
7
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 7 of 27
270 - Robin AngstadtIDIS Activity:
Project:0006 - Microenterprise Assistance Program
PGM Year:2013
Description:
Micro-Enterprise Assistance (18C)Matrix Code:
Availability/accessibility
Create economic opportunitiesObjective:
Outcome:
Open
Address Suppressed
National Objective:LMC
Status:
Location:
10/03/2014Initial Funding Date:
Financing
Fund Type Grant Year Grant Funded Amount Drawn In Program Year Drawn Thru Program Year
Total
CDBG EN
Total
Pre-2015
2013 B13MC060020
$4,500.00 $0.00 $0.00
$2,187.88 $3,811.98
$4,500.00 $2,187.88 $3,811.98
Proposed Accomplishments
Businesses : 1
Number assisted:
Actual Accomplishments
Person
Hispanic
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
White:
Black/African American:
Total:
Asian:
American Indian/Alaskan Native:
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & White:
Asian White:
Black/African American & White:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & Black/African American:
Other multi-racial:
Asian/Pacific Islander:
Hispanic:
Owner
Total Hispanic
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Renter
Total Hispanic
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
Total
Total Hispanic Total
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 1
Female-headed Households:0 0 0
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
8
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 8 of 27
Income Category:
Low Mod
Moderate
Extremely Low
Non Low Moderate
Total
Percent Low/Mod
Owner
0
0
0
0
0
Renter
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
Person
1
0
0
0
1
100.0%
Annual Accomplishments
Years Accomplishment Narrative # Benefitting
2014 Robin Angstadt was 1 of 6 individuals that were awarded a Pilot Microenterprise Assistance Program grant in April 2014. During Program Year2014 City Staff worked with Robin to register her business and executive a number of objectives outlined in her grant agreement.
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
9
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 9 of 27
271 - Walter Lee BarnesIDIS Activity:
Project:0006 - Microenterprise Assistance Program
PGM Year:2013
Description:
Micro-Enterprise Assistance (18C)Matrix Code:
Availability/accessibility
Create economic opportunitiesObjective:
Outcome:
Canceled 3/30/2016 5:30:54 PM
Address Suppressed
National Objective:LMC
Status:
Location:
10/03/2014Initial Funding Date:
Financing
No data returned for this view. This might be because the applied filter excludes all data.
Proposed Accomplishments
Businesses : 1
Number assisted:
Actual Accomplishments
Person
Hispanic
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0White:
Black/African American:
Asian:
American Indian/Alaskan Native:
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & White:
Asian White:
Black/African American & White:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & Black/African American:
Other multi-racial:
Asian/Pacific Islander:
Hispanic:
Owner
Total Hispanic
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Renter
Total Hispanic
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Total
Total Hispanic Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
10
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 10 of 27
0Total:0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Female-headed Households:0 0 0
Income Category:
Low Mod
Moderate
Extremely Low
Non Low Moderate
Total
Percent Low/Mod
Owner
0
0
0
0
0
Renter
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
Person
0
0
0
0
0
Annual Accomplishments
No data returned for this view. This might be because the applied filter excludes all data.
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
11
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 11 of 27
272 - Long-Term Care Ombudsman ProgramIDIS Activity:
Project:0001 - Catholic Charities
PGM Year:2015
Description:
Public Services (General) (05)Matrix Code:
Availability/accessibility
Create suitable living environmentsObjective:
Outcome:
Completed 6/30/2016 12:00:00 AM
2625 Zanker Rd Ste 200 San Jose, CA 95134-2130
National Objective:LMC
Status:
Location:
12/16/2015Initial Funding Date:
Financing
Fund Type Grant Year Grant Funded Amount Drawn In Program Year Drawn Thru Program Year
Total
CDBG EN
PI
Total
Pre-2015
2013 B13MC060020
$2,509.31 $0.00 $0.00
$2,509.31 $2,509.31
$2,660.69 $2,660.69 $2,660.69
$5,170.00 $5,170.00 $5,170.00
Proposed Accomplishments
People (General) : 260
Number assisted:
Actual Accomplishments
Person
Hispanic
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
30
White:
Black/African American:
Total:
Asian:
American Indian/Alaskan Native:
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & White:
Asian White:
Black/African American & White:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & Black/African American:
Other multi-racial:
Asian/Pacific Islander:
Hispanic:
Owner
Total Hispanic
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Renter
Total Hispanic
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
Total
Total Hispanic Total
331
29
81
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 444
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
12
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 12 of 27
Female-headed Households:0 0 0
Income Category:
Low Mod
Moderate
Extremely Low
Non Low Moderate
Total
Percent Low/Mod
Owner
0
0
0
0
0
Renter
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
Person
231
118
95
0
444
100.0%
Annual Accomplishments
Years Accomplishment Narrative # Benefitting
2015 444 elderly residents were visited at one of three Palo Alto long-term facilities that serve low-income residents: Lytton Gardens, Palo AltoNursing Center and Lytton Gardens Community Care. The program investigated 62 complaints on behalf of low-income residents.
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
13
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 13 of 27
273 - Housing and Emergency Services for Persons with DisabilitiesIDIS Activity:
Project:0004 - Silicon Valley Independent Living Center
PGM Year:2015
Description:
Handicapped Services (05B)Matrix Code:
Availability/accessibility
Create suitable living environmentsObjective:
Outcome:
Completed 6/30/2016 12:00:00 AM
2202 N 1st St San Jose, CA 95131-2007
National Objective:LMC
Status:
Location:
Silicon Valley Independent Living Center provides assistance for individuals with disabilities and their families to transition from homelessness, health care facilities, unstable ortemporary housing to permanent affordable, accessible, integrated housing with emergency assistance, security deposits, rent, information & referral, and other basic essentials.
12/16/2015Initial Funding Date:
Financing
Fund Type Grant Year Grant Funded Amount Drawn In Program Year Drawn Thru Program Year
Total
CDBG EN
PI
Total
Pre-2015
2013 B13MC060020
$2,717.00 $0.00 $0.00
$2,717.00 $2,717.00
$2,705.00 $2,705.00 $2,705.00
$5,422.00 $5,422.00 $5,422.00
Proposed Accomplishments
People (General) : 20
Number assisted:
Actual Accomplishments
Person
Hispanic
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
White:
Black/African American:
Total:
Asian:
American Indian/Alaskan Native:
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & White:
Asian White:
Black/African American & White:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & Black/African American:
Other multi-racial:
Asian/Pacific Islander:
Hispanic:
Owner
Total Hispanic
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Renter
Total Hispanic
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
Total
Total Hispanic Total
13
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 19
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
14
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 14 of 27
Female-headed Households:0 0 0
Income Category:
Low Mod
Moderate
Extremely Low
Non Low Moderate
Total
Percent Low/Mod
Owner
0
0
0
0
0
Renter
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
Person
19
0
0
0
19
100.0%
Annual Accomplishments
Years Accomplishment Narrative # Benefitting
2015 SVILC provided 99 Palo Alto residents with disabilities housing assistance services, either one on one or through a housing searchworkshop.101 Palo Alto residents were provided with Information and Referral Assistance.
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
15
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 15 of 27
274 - City of Palo AltoIDIS Activity:
Project:0007 - City of Palo Alto
PGM Year:2015
Description:
General Program Administration (21A)Matrix Code:
Objective:
Outcome:
Completed 6/30/2016 12:00:00 AM
,
National Objective:
Status:
Location:
Administer the Administrative costs for the overall management, coordination, and evaluation of the CDBG program, and the project delivery costs associated with bringing projects tocompletion.
12/16/2015Initial Funding Date:
Financing
Fund Type Grant Year Grant Funded Amount Drawn In Program Year Drawn Thru Program Year
Total
CDBG EN
PI
Total
Pre-2015
2013
2014
B13MC060020
B14MC060020
$37,461.72 $0.00 $0.00
$30,012.38 $30,012.38
$7,449.34 $7,449.34
$29,278.60 $29,278.60 $29,278.60
$66,740.32 $66,740.32 $66,740.32
Proposed Accomplishments
Number assisted:
Actual Accomplishments
Person
Hispanic
0
White:
Black/African American:
Total:
Asian:
American Indian/Alaskan Native:
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & White:
Asian White:
Black/African American & White:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & Black/African American:
Other multi-racial:
Asian/Pacific Islander:
Hispanic:
Owner
Total Hispanic
0 0
Renter
Total Hispanic
0 0
Total
Total Hispanic Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
16
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 16 of 27
Female-headed Households:0
Income Category:
Low Mod
Moderate
Extremely Low
Non Low Moderate
Total
Percent Low/Mod
Owner
0
Renter
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
Person
0
Annual Accomplishments
No data returned for this view. This might be because the applied filter excludes all data.
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
17
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 17 of 27
275 - Workforce Development ProgramIDIS Activity:
Project:0009 - Downtown Streets Inc.
PGM Year:2015
Description:
Employment Training (05H)Matrix Code:
Availability/accessibility
Create economic opportunitiesObjective:
Outcome:
Completed 6/30/2016 12:00:00 AM
1671 The Alameda Ste 306 San Jose, CA 95126-2222
National Objective:LMC
Status:
Location:
The Workforce Development Program will provide a transition from unemployment and homelessness to regular employment and housing through case management, job training,mentoring, housing, and transportation assistance. Downtown Streets Team will screen and prepare applicants and will use their community connections to provide training and job opportunities.
12/16/2015Initial Funding Date:
Financing
Fund Type Grant Year Grant Funded Amount Drawn In Program Year Drawn Thru Program Year
Total
CDBG EN
PI
Total
Pre-2015
2013
2014
B13MC060020
B14MC060020
$125,612.39 $0.00 $0.00
$76,199.63 $76,199.63
$49,412.76 $49,412.76
$165,110.61 $165,110.61 $165,110.61
$290,723.00 $290,723.00 $290,723.00
Proposed Accomplishments
People (General) : 30
Number assisted:
Actual Accomplishments
Person
Hispanic
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4White:
Black/African American:
Asian:
American Indian/Alaskan Native:
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & White:
Asian White:
Black/African American & White:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & Black/African American:
Other multi-racial:
Asian/Pacific Islander:
Owner
Total Hispanic
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Renter
Total Hispanic
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Total
Total Hispanic Total
24
10
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
18
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 18 of 27
0 0
4Total:
Hispanic:
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0 37
Female-headed Households:0 0 0
Income Category:
Low Mod
Moderate
Extremely Low
Non Low Moderate
Total
Percent Low/Mod
Owner
0
0
0
0
0
Renter
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
Person
36
1
0
0
37
100.0%
Annual Accomplishments
Years Accomplishment Narrative # Benefitting
2015 The program placed 37 individuals into regular employment with six individuals securing two or more jobs in the fiscal year. Have outreached to55 business sites, leading toward increased awareness, employment opportunities, and perception change for team members.
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
19
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 19 of 27
276 - Domestic Violence Services ProgramIDIS Activity:
Project:0005 - YWCA of Silicon Valley
PGM Year:2015
Description:
Battered and Abused Spouses (05G)Matrix Code:
Availability/accessibility
Create suitable living environmentsObjective:
Outcome:
Completed 6/30/2016 12:00:00 AM
375 S 3rd St San Jose, CA 95112-3649
National Objective:LMC
Status:
Location:
Support Network for Battered Women, a Division of YWCA will provide individuals and families experiencing domestic violence, the program provides a bilingual domestic violencehotline, an emergency shelter, crisis counseling, legal assistance, court accompaniment, individual and group therapy, support groups, childrens therapy groups, preventative education,safety planning and community referrals.
12/16/2015Initial Funding Date:
Financing
Fund Type Grant Year Grant Funded Amount Drawn In Program Year Drawn Thru Program Year
Total
CDBG EN
PI
Total
Pre-2015
2013 B13MC060020
$4,608.41 $0.00 $0.00
$4,608.41 $4,608.41
$3,794.57 $3,794.57 $3,794.57
$8,402.98 $8,402.98 $8,402.98
Proposed Accomplishments
People (General) : 40
Number assisted:
Actual Accomplishments
Person
Hispanic
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5White:
Black/African American:
Asian:
American Indian/Alaskan Native:
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & White:
Asian White:
Black/African American & White:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & Black/African American:
Other multi-racial:
Asian/Pacific Islander:
Hispanic:
Owner
Total Hispanic
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Renter
Total Hispanic
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Total
Total Hispanic Total
12
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
20
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 20 of 27
5Total:0 0 0 0 0 0 15
Female-headed Households:0 0 0
Income Category:
Low Mod
Moderate
Extremely Low
Non Low Moderate
Total
Percent Low/Mod
Owner
0
0
0
0
0
Renter
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
Person
12
3
0
0
15
100.0%
Annual Accomplishments
Years Accomplishment Narrative # Benefitting
2015 The Domestic Violence Program provided 15 clients with vital support services, including counseling/therapy and/or legal advocacy services (76sessions total). Crisis advocates provided 45 Palo Alto residents with crisis line assistance, including crisis counseling, safety planning andinformation and referrals.
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
21
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 21 of 27
277 - Fair Housing ServicesIDIS Activity:
Project:0006 - Project Sentinel
PGM Year:2015
Description:
Fair Housing Activities (subject to20% Admin Cap) (21D)Matrix Code:
Objective:
Outcome:
Completed 6/30/2016 12:00:00 AM
,
National Objective:
Status:
Location:
Project Sentinel will provide community education and outreach regarding fair housing law and practices, investigation, counseling and legal referral for victims of housing discrimination,and analyses for City staff and officials regarding fair housing practices. California and federal fair housing laws assure specific protected classes the right to be treated in terms of their individual merits and qualifications in seeking housing. Unfortunately, some people are not aware of the law or their rights.
12/29/2015Initial Funding Date:
Financing
Fund Type Grant Year Grant Funded Amount Drawn In Program Year Drawn Thru Program Year
Total
CDBG EN
PI
Total
Pre-2015
2013
2014
B13MC060020
B14MC060020
$9,930.03 $0.00 $0.00
$4,255.23 $4,255.23
$5,674.80 $5,674.80
$21,736.38 $21,736.38 $21,736.38
$31,666.41 $31,666.41 $31,666.41
Proposed Accomplishments
Number assisted:
Actual Accomplishments
Person
Hispanic
White:
Black/African American:
Asian:
American Indian/Alaskan Native:
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & White:
Asian White:
Black/African American & White:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & Black/African American:
Other multi-racial:
Asian/Pacific Islander:
Owner
Total Hispanic
Renter
Total Hispanic
Total
Total Hispanic Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
22
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 22 of 27
0Total:
Hispanic:
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
Female-headed Households:0
Income Category:
Low Mod
Moderate
Extremely Low
Non Low Moderate
Total
Percent Low/Mod
Owner
0
Renter
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
Person
0
Annual Accomplishments
No data returned for this view. This might be because the applied filter excludes all data.
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
23
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 23 of 27
278 - Opportunity Services CenterIDIS Activity:
Project:0002 - InnVision Shelter Network
PGM Year:2015
Description:
Public Services (General) (05)Matrix Code:
Availability/accessibility
Create suitable living environmentsObjective:
Outcome:
Completed 6/30/2016 12:00:00 AM
33 Encina Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301-2300
National Objective:LMC
Status:
Location:
InnVision Shelter Network provides basic necessities for persons who are homeless or at-risk of becoming homeless. The Opportunity Services Center is a comprehensive, one-stop, multi-service, day drop-in center that provides critical services for homeless Palo Alto residents. Specifically, the facility provides showers, laundry, clothing, snacks, case management, and shelterhousing referral services.
12/16/2015Initial Funding Date:
Financing
Fund Type Grant Year Grant Funded Amount Drawn In Program Year Drawn Thru Program Year
Total
CDBG EN
Total
Pre-2015
2013
2014
B13MC060020
B14MC060020
$38,499.00 $0.00 $0.00
$19,296.73 $19,296.73
$19,202.27 $19,202.27
$38,499.00 $38,499.00 $38,499.00
Proposed Accomplishments
People (General) : 400
Number assisted:
Actual Accomplishments
Person
Hispanic
0
5
0
17
6
0
0
0
0
0
1
9
44White:
Black/African American:
Asian:
American Indian/Alaskan Native:
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & White:
Asian White:
Black/African American & White:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & Black/African American:
Other multi-racial:
Asian/Pacific Islander:
Hispanic:
Owner
Total Hispanic
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Renter
Total Hispanic
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Total
Total Hispanic Total
150
81
24
23
8
12
1
3
1
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
24
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 24 of 27
82Total:0 0 0 0 0 0 312
Female-headed Households:0 0 0
Income Category:
Low Mod
Moderate
Extremely Low
Non Low Moderate
Total
Percent Low/Mod
Owner
0
0
0
0
0
Renter
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
Person
312
0
0
0
312
100.0%
Annual Accomplishments
Years Accomplishment Narrative # Benefitting
2015 The Opportunity Services Center served a total of 312 unduplicated individuals and provided 5,567 shelter nights to homeless persons. Inaddition, 278 unduplicated individuals received 652 case management, housing/job search, referral and mentoring services.
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
25
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 25 of 27
279 - SRO Resident Support ServicesIDIS Activity:
Project:0003 - PAHC Management & Services Corporation
PGM Year:2015
Description:
Public Services (General) (05)Matrix Code:
Availability/accessibility
Create suitable living environmentsObjective:
Outcome:
Completed 6/30/2016 12:00:00 AM
725 Alma St Palo Alto, CA 94301-2403
National Objective:LMC
Status:
Location:
PAHC Management & Services Corporation will provide counseling and supportive case management services for low-income residents of single room occupancy facilities in order tohelp them maintain housing stability. Activities include financial counseling, health maintenance, information and referral, problem solving, employment assistance, crisis intervention and case management.
12/16/2015Initial Funding Date:
Financing
Fund Type Grant Year Grant Funded Amount Drawn In Program Year Drawn Thru Program Year
Total
CDBG EN
PI
Total
Pre-2015
2013 B13MC060020
$12,430.50 $0.00 $0.00
$12,430.50 $12,430.50
$12,430.50 $12,430.50 $12,430.50
$24,861.00 $24,861.00 $24,861.00
Proposed Accomplishments
People (General) : 131
Number assisted:
Actual Accomplishments
Person
Hispanic
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
15White:
Black/African American:
Asian:
American Indian/Alaskan Native:
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & White:
Asian White:
Black/African American & White:
American Indian/Alaskan Native & Black/African American:
Other multi-racial:
Asian/Pacific Islander:
Hispanic:
Owner
Total Hispanic
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Renter
Total Hispanic
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Total
Total Hispanic Total
91
34
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
26
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 26 of 27
18Total:0 0 0 0 0 0 148
Female-headed Households:0 0 0
Income Category:
Low Mod
Moderate
Extremely Low
Non Low Moderate
Total
Percent Low/Mod
Owner
0
0
0
0
0
Renter
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
Person
118
30
0
0
148
100.0%
Annual Accomplishments
Years Accomplishment Narrative # Benefitting
2015 148 individuals were served through the SRO Resident Support Program at both Alma Place and the Barker Hotel. A Resident ServiceCoordinator provided services for a total of 40 hours per week. Specific services provided include: support counseling, savings programs, jobcoaching and health and wellness programs.
29-Sep-2016U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
14:07
27
Date:
Time:
Page:
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Activity Summary Report (GPR) for Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO
Page:PR03 - PALO ALTO 27 of 27
$603,984.71
$478,192.93
$536,028.05
Total Funded Amount:
Total Drawn In Program Year:
Total Drawn Thru Program Year:
CAPER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
IDIS REPORTS
SUMMARY OF CONSOLIDATED PLAN PROJECTS (CO4PR06)
PROGRAM YEAR 2015
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
PR06 - Summary of Consolidated Plan Projects for Report
Year
DATE: 9/29/2016
TIME: 4:11:35 PM
PAGE: 1/1
IDIS
1/1
PlanYear IDISProject Project Title and Description Program Metrics Project
Estimate
Commited
Amount
Amount Drawn
Thru Report
Year
Amount
Available to
Draw
Amount
Drawn in
Report Year
2015 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Catholic Charities
InnVision Shelter Network
PAHC Management & Services Corporation
Silicon Valley Independent Living Center
YWCA of Silicon Valley
Project Sentinel
City of Palo Alto
MidPen Housing
Downtown Streets Inc.
Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program
Opportunity Services Center
SRO Resident Support Program
Housing and Emergency Housing Services
Domestic Violence Services
Fair Housing Services
Planning and Administration
Palo Alto Garden Housing Rehabilitation
Workforce Development Program
CDBG
CDBG
CDBG
CDBG
CDBG
CDBG
CDBG
CDBG
CDBG
$5,422.00 $5,170.00 $5,170.00 $0.00 $5,170.00
$38,499.00 $38,499.00 $38,499.00 $0.00 $38,499.00
$24,861.00 $24,861.00 $24,861.00 $0.00 $24,861.00
$5,422.00 $5,422.00 $5,422.00 $0.00 $5,422.00
$8,676.00 $8,402.98 $8,402.98 $0.00 $8,402.98
$32,016.00 $31,666.41 $31,666.41 $0.00 $31,666.41
$83,686.00 $66,740.32 $66,740.32 $0.00 $66,740.32
$392,368.00 $392,368.00 $0.00 $392,368.00 $0.00
$290,723.00 $290,723.00 $290,723.00 $0.00 $290,723.00
CAPER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
IDIS REPORTS
SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT (CO4PR23)
PROGRAM YEAR 2015
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
DATE:
TIME:
PAGE:1
14:35
09-29-16
CDBG Summary of Accomplishments
Program Year: 2015
PALO ALTO
Activity Group Activity Category f Metrics
Open Count
Open Activities
Disbursed
Completed
Count
Completed
Activities
Disbursed
Program Year
Count
Total Activities
Disbursed
Economic Development
Public Services
General Administration andPlanning
Grand Total
Micro-Enterprise Assistance (18C)
Total Economic Development
Public Services (General) (05)
Handicapped Services (05B)
Battered and Abused Spouses (05G)
Employment Training (05H)
Total Public Services
General Program Administration (21A)
Fair Housing Activities (subject to 20%
Admin Cap) (21D)
Total General Administration and
Planning
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4 $6,708.22 0 $0.00 4 $6,708.22
4 $6,708.22 0 $0.00 4 $6,708.22
0 $0.00 3 $68,530.00 3 $68,530.00
0 $0.00 1 $5,422.00 1 $5,422.00
0 $0.00 1 $8,402.98 1 $8,402.98
0 $0.00 1 $290,723.00 1 $290,723.00
0 $0.00 6 $373,077.98 6 $373,077.98
0 $0.00 1 $66,740.32 1 $66,740.32
0 $0.00 1 $31,666.41 1 $31,666.41
0 $0.00 2 $98,406.73 2 $98,406.73
4 $6,708.22 8 $471,484.71 12 $478,192.93
Count of CDBG Activities with Disbursements by Activity Group & Matrix Code
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
DATE:
TIME:
PAGE:2
14:35
09-29-16
CDBG Summary of Accomplishments
Program Year: 2015
PALO ALTO
Activity Group Matrix Code Accomplishment Type MetricsOpen Count Completed Count
Program Year
Totals
Economic Development
Public Services
Grand Total
Micro-Enterprise Assistance (18C)
Total Economic Development
Public Services (General) (05)
Handicapped Services (05B)
Battered and Abused Spouses (05G)
Employment Training (05H)
Total Public Services
Persons
Business
Persons
Persons
Persons
Persons
5 0 5
1 0 1
6 0 6
0 904 904
0 19 19
0 15 15
0 37 37
0 975 975
6 975 981
CDBG Sum of Actual Accomplishments by Activity Group and Accomplishment Type
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
DATE:
TIME:
PAGE:3
14:35
09-29-16
CDBG Summary of Accomplishments
Program Year: 2015
PALO ALTO
CDBG Beneficiaries by Racial / Ethnic Category
Housing-Non Housing Race
Source Type
(for Funding
Fact Source)
Metrics
Total Persons
Total Hispanic
Persons Total Households
Total Hispanic
Households
Non Housing
Grand Total
White
Black/African American
Asian
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaskan Native & White
Asian & White
Black/African American & White
Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native & Black/African
Amer.
Other multi-racial
Total Non Housing
White
Black/African American
Asian
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaskan Native & White
Asian & White
Black/African American & White
Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native & Black/AfricanAmer.
Other multi-racial
Total Grand Total
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
624 98 0 0
159 6 0 0
124 0 0 0
24 17 0 0
11 1 0 0
13 6 0 0
2 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
20 11 0 0
981 139 0 0
624 98 0 0
159 6 0 0
124 0 0 0
24 17 0 0
11 1 0 0
13 6 0 0
2 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
20 11 0 0
981 139 0 0
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
DATE:
TIME:
PAGE:4
14:35
09-29-16
CDBG Summary of Accomplishments
Program Year: 2015
PALO ALTO
Income Levels ST MetricsOwner Occupied Renter Occupied Persons
Non Housing Extremely Low (<=30%)
Low (>30% and <=50%)
Mod (>50% and <=80%)
Total Low-Mod
Non Low-Mod (>80%)
Total Beneficiaries
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
0 0 728
0 0 152
0 0 95
0 0 975
0 0 0
0 0 975
CDBG Beneficiaries by Income Category
CAPER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
This page intentionally left blank
CAPER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
IDIS REPORTS
FINANCIAL SUMMARY REPORT (CO4PR26)
PROGRAM YEAR 2015
PR26 - CDBG Financial Summary Report
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
DATE:
TIME:
PAGE:1
14:05
09-29-16
Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO , CA
Metrics
Grantee
Program Year
PART I: SUMMARY OF CDBG RESOURCES
01 UNEXPENDED CDBG FUNDS AT END OF PREVIOUS PROGRAM YEAR
02 ENTITLEMENT GRANT
03 SURPLUS URBAN RENEWAL
04 SECTION 108 GUARANTEED LOAN FUNDS
05 CURRENT YEAR PROGRAM INCOME
05a CURRENT YEAR SECTION 108 PROGRAM INCOME (FOR SI TYPE)
06 FUNDS RETURNED TO THE LINE-OF-CREDIT
06a FUNDS RETURNED TO THE LOCAL CDBG ACCOUNT
07 ADJUSTMENT TO COMPUTE TOTAL AVAILABLE
08 TOTAL AVAILABLE (SUM, LINES 01-07)
PART II: SUMMARY OF CDBG EXPENDITURES
09 DISBURSEMENTS OTHER THAN SECTION 108 REPAYMENTS AND PLANNING/ADMINISTRATION
10 ADJUSTMENT TO COMPUTE TOTAL AMOUNT SUBJECT TO LOW/MOD BENEFIT
11 AMOUNT SUBJECT TO LOW/MOD BENEFIT (LINE 09 + LINE 10)
12 DISBURSED IN IDIS FOR PLANNING/ADMINISTRATION
13 DISBURSED IN IDIS FOR SECTION 108 REPAYMENTS
14 ADJUSTMENT TO COMPUTE TOTAL EXPENDITURES
15 TOTAL EXPENDITURES (SUM, LINES 11-14)
16 UNEXPENDED BALANCE (LINE 08 - LINE 15)
PART III: LOWMOD BENEFIT THIS REPORTING PERIOD
17 EXPENDED FOR LOW/MOD HOUSING IN SPECIAL AREAS
18 EXPENDED FOR LOW/MOD MULTI-UNIT HOUSING
19 DISBURSED FOR OTHER LOW/MOD ACTIVITIES
20 ADJUSTMENT TO COMPUTE TOTAL LOW/MOD CREDIT
21 TOTAL LOW/MOD CREDIT (SUM, LINES 17-20)
22 PERCENT LOW/MOD CREDIT (LINE 21/LINE 11)
LOW/MOD BENEFIT FOR MULTI-YEAR CERTIFICATIONS
23 PROGRAM YEARS(PY) COVERED IN CERTIFICATION
24 CUMULATIVE NET EXPENDITURES SUBJECT TO LOW/MOD BENEFIT CALCULATION
25 CUMULATIVE EXPENDITURES BENEFITING LOW/MOD PERSONS
26 PERCENT BENEFIT TO LOW/MOD PERSONS (LINE 25/LINE 24)
PART IV: PUBLIC SERVICE (PS) CAP CALCULATIONS
27 DISBURSED IN IDIS FOR PUBLIC SERVICES
28 PS UNLIQUIDATED OBLIGATIONS AT END OF CURRENT PROGRAM YEAR
29 PS UNLIQUIDATED OBLIGATIONS AT END OF PREVIOUS PROGRAM YEAR
30 ADJUSTMENT TO COMPUTE TOTAL PS OBLIGATIONS
31 TOTAL PS OBLIGATIONS (LINE 27 + LINE 28 - LINE 29 + LINE 30)
32 ENTITLEMENT GRANT
33 PRIOR YEAR PROGRAM INCOME
34 ADJUSTMENT TO COMPUTE TOTAL SUBJECT TO PS CAP
35 TOTAL SUBJECT TO PS CAP (SUM, LINES 32-34)
36 PERCENT FUNDS OBLIGATED FOR PS ACTIVITIES (LINE 31/LINE 35)
PART V: PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION (PA) CAP
37 DISBURSED IN IDIS FOR PLANNING/ADMINISTRATION
38 PA UNLIQUIDATED OBLIGATIONS AT END OF CURRENT PROGRAM YEAR
39 PA UNLIQUIDATED OBLIGATIONS AT END OF PREVIOUS PROGRAM YEAR
40 ADJUSTMENT TO COMPUTE TOTAL PA OBLIGATIONS
41 TOTAL PA OBLIGATIONS (LINE 37 + LINE 38 - LINE 39 +LINE 40)
42 ENTITLEMENT GRANT
43 CURRENT YEAR PROGRAM INCOME
44 ADJUSTMENT TO COMPUTE TOTAL SUBJECT TO PA CAP
45 TOTAL SUBJECT TO PA CAP (SUM, LINES 42-44)
46 PERCENT FUNDS OBLIGATED FOR PA ACTIVITIES (LINE 41/LINE 45)
PALO ALTO , CA
2,015.00
592,730.41
442,460.00
0.00
0.00
381,346.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,416,537.00
379,786.20
0.00
379,786.20
98,406.73
0.00
0.00
478,192.93
938,344.07
0.00
0.00
379,786.20
0.00
379,786.20
100.00%
PY: 2015 PY: 2016 PY:
0.00
0.00
0.00%
373,077.98
0.00
0.00
(290,723.00)
82,354.98
442,460.00
183,995.16
0.00
626,455.16
13.15%
98,406.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
98,406.73
442,460.00
381,346.59
0.00
823,806.59
11.95%
PR26 - CDBG Financial Summary Report
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
DATE:
TIME:
PAGE:2
14:05
09-29-16
Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO , CA
LINE 17 DETAIL: ACTIVITIES TO CONSIDER IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT TO ENTER ON LINE 17
Report returned no data.
LINE 18 DETAIL: ACTIVITIES TO CONSIDER IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT TO ENTER ON LINE 18
Report returned no data.
LINE 19 DETAIL: ACTIVITIES INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION OF LINE 19
Plan Year IDIS Project IDIS Activity Voucher
Number Activity Name Matrix
Code
National
Objective Drawn Amount
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2013
2013
2013
2013
Total
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
9
9
9
9
6
6
6
6
272
272
272
278
278
278
279
279
279
273
273
273
276
276
276
275
275
275
275
267
268
270
270
5878191
5903070
5956474
5878191
5903070
5919663
5878191
5903070
5956474
5878191
5903070
5956474
5878191
5903070
5956474
5878191
5903070
5919663
5956474
5903070
5903070
5878191
5903070
Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program
Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program
Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program
Opportunity Services Center
Opportunity Services Center
Opportunity Services Center
SRO Resident Support Services
SRO Resident Support Services
SRO Resident Support Services
Housing and Emergency Services for Persons with
Disabilities
Housing and Emergency Services for Persons with
Disabilities
Housing and Emergency Services for Persons withDisabilities
Domestic Violence Services Program
Domestic Violence Services Program
Domestic Violence Services Program
Workforce Development Program
Workforce Development Program
Workforce Development Program
Workforce Development Program
Kathy Wu
Paul Christopher Murphy
Robin Angstadt
Robin Angstadt
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05B
05B
05B
05B
05G
05G
05G
05G
05H
05H
05H
05H
05H
18C
18C
18C
18C
18C
LMC
LMC
LMC
LMC
LMC
LMC
LMC
LMC
LMC
Matrix Code 05
LMC
LMC
LMC
Matrix Code 05B
LMC
LMC
LMC
Matrix Code 05G
LMC
LMC
LMC
LMC
Matrix Code 05H
LMC
LMC
LMC
LMC
Matrix Code 18C
$975.52
$1,533.79
$2,660.69
$13,683.90
$5,612.83
$19,202.27
$6,215.25
$6,215.25
$12,430.50
$68,530.00
$1,355.00
$1,362.00
$2,705.00
$5,422.00
$2,138.70
$2,469.71
$3,794.57
$8,402.98
$61,703.38
$76,199.63
$49,412.76
$103,407.23
$290,723.00
$1,207.00
$3,313.34
$1,703.11
$484.77
$6,708.22
$379,786.20
LINE 27 DETAIL: ACTIVITIES INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION OF LINE 27
Plan Year IDIS Project IDIS Activity Voucher
Number Activity Name Matrix
Code
National
Objective Drawn Amount
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
272
272
272
278
278
278
279
279
279
5878191
5903070
5956474
5878191
5903070
5919663
5878191
5903070
5956474
Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program
Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program
Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program
Opportunity Services Center
Opportunity Services Center
Opportunity Services Center
SRO Resident Support Services
SRO Resident Support Services
SRO Resident Support Services
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
LMC
LMC
LMC
LMC
LMC
LMC
LMC
LMC
LMC
Matrix Code 05
$975.52
$1,533.79
$2,660.69
$13,683.90
$5,612.83
$19,202.27
$6,215.25
$6,215.25
$12,430.50
$68,530.00
PR26 - CDBG Financial Summary Report
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Community Planning and Development
Integrated Disbursement and Information System
DATE:
TIME:
PAGE:3
14:05
09-29-16
Program Year 2015
PALO ALTO , CA
Plan Year IDIS Project IDIS Activity Voucher
Number Activity Name Matrix
Code
National
Objective Drawn Amount
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
Total
4
4
4
5
5
5
9
9
9
9
273
273
273
276
276
276
275
275
275
275
5878191
5903070
5956474
5878191
5903070
5956474
5878191
5903070
5919663
5956474
Housing and Emergency Services for Persons with
Disabilities
Housing and Emergency Services for Persons withDisabilities
Housing and Emergency Services for Persons with
Disabilities
Domestic Violence Services Program
Domestic Violence Services Program
Domestic Violence Services Program
Workforce Development Program
Workforce Development Program
Workforce Development Program
Workforce Development Program
05B
05B
05B
05B
05G
05G
05G
05G
05H
05H
05H
05H
05H
LMC
LMC
LMC
Matrix Code 05B
LMC
LMC
LMC
Matrix Code 05G
LMC
LMC
LMC
LMC
Matrix Code 05H
$1,355.00
$1,362.00
$2,705.00
$5,422.00
$2,138.70
$2,469.71
$3,794.57
$8,402.98
$61,703.38
$76,199.63
$49,412.76
$103,407.23
$290,723.00
$373,077.98
LINE 37 DETAIL: ACTIVITIES INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION OF LINE 37
Plan Year IDIS Project IDIS Activity Voucher
Number Activity Name Matrix
Code
National
Objective Drawn Amount
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
Total
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
274
274
274
274
277
277
277
5878191
5903070
5919663
5956474
5903070
5919663
5956474
City of Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto
Fair Housing Services
Fair Housing Services
Fair Housing Services
21A
21A
21A
21A
21A
21D
21D
21D
21D
Matrix Code 21A
Matrix Code 21D
$22,966.72
$11,730.39
$10,602.72
$21,440.49
$66,740.32
$4,255.23
$5,674.80
$21,736.38
$31,666.41
$98,406.73
CAPER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Adjustments Summary
Line Number Adjustment Detail
01. Unexpended CDBG funds at end of previous reporting period $592.730.41 Amount from PY2014
PR26 30. Adjustment to compute total subject to PS cap $290,723 This funding is related to
activity undertaken by a
CBDO and not subject to
the PS Cap
CAPER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
IDIS REPORTS
OUTCOME PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS REPORT (CO4PR83)
PROGRAM YEAR 2015
IDIS - PR83 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development DATE:09-29-16
TIME:14:37Office of Community Planning and Development
PAGE:1Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Performance Measures Report
Program Year PALO ALTO,CA
Public Facilities and Infrastructure
Create Suitable Living Provide Decent Housing Create Economic Opportunities Total
Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain
Number of Persons Assisted
with new access to a facility
with improved access to a facility
with access to a facility that is no longer substandard
Totals :
Number of Households Assisted
with new access to a facility
with improved access to a facility
with access to a facility that is no longer substandard
Totals :
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
Public Services
Create Suitable Living Provide Decent Housing Create Economic Opportunities Total
Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain
Number of Persons Assisted
with new (or continuing) access to a service
with improved (or continuing) access to a service
with new access to a service that is no longer substandard
Totals :
938 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 975
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
938 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 975
IDIS - PR83 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development DATE:09-29-16
TIME:14:37Office of Community Planning and Development
PAGE:2Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Performance Measures Report
Program Year PALO ALTO,CA
Number of Households Assisted
with new (or continuing) access to a service
with improved (or continuing) access to a service
with new access to a service that is no longer substandard
Totals :
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
Public Services (continued)
Create Suitable Living Provide Decent Housing Create Economic Opportunities Total
Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain
Economic Development
Create Suitable Living Provide Decent Housing Create Economic Opportunities Total
Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain
Total Number of Businesses Assisted
Of Total
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
New businesses assisted
Existing businesses assisted
Number of business facades/buildings rehabilitated
Assisted businesses that provide a good or service to service area/neighborhood/community
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Total Number of Jobs Created
Officials and Managers
Types of Jobs Created
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
IDIS - PR83 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development DATE:09-29-16
TIME:14:37Office of Community Planning and Development
PAGE:3Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Performance Measures Report
Program Year PALO ALTO,CA
Professional
Technicians
Sales
Office and Clerical
Craft Workers (skilled)
Operatives (semi-skilled)
Laborers (unskilled)
Service Workers
Of jobs created, number with employer sponsored health care benefits
Number unemployed prior to taking jobs
Total Number of Jobs Retained
Types of Jobs Retained
Officials and Managers
Professional
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Economic Development (continued)
Create Suitable Living Provide Decent Housing Create Economic Opportunities Total
Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain
IDIS - PR83 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development DATE:09-29-16
TIME:14:37Office of Community Planning and Development
PAGE:4Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Performance Measures Report
Program Year PALO ALTO,CA
Economic Development (continued)
Create Suitable Living Provide Decent Housing Create Economic Opportunities Total
Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain
Technicians
Sales
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
Office and Clerical
Craft Workers (skilled)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Operatives (semi-skilled)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
Laborers (unskilled)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
Service Workers
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
Of jobs retained, number with employer sponsored health care benefits
Acres of Brownfields Remediated
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
IDIS - PR83 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development DATE:09-29-16
TIME:14:39Office of Community Planning and Development
PAGE:1Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Performance Measures Report
Program Year PALO ALTO,CA
Rehabilitation of Rental Housing
Create Suitable Living Provide Decent Housing Create Economic Opportunities Total
Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain
Total LMH* units
Made 504 accessible
Of Total, Number of Units
Total SB*, URG units
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
0 0 0 0 0 00000
Brought from substandard to standard condition
Created through conversion of non-residential to residential buildings
Qualified as Energy Star
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
Brought to lead safety compliance
Affordable
Number subsidized by another federal, state, local program
Of Affordable Units
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Number occupied by elderly
Number of years of affordability
Average number of years of affordability per unit
Number designated for persons with HIV/AIDS
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 00
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 00000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
IDIS - PR83 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development DATE:09-29-16
TIME:14:39Office of Community Planning and Development
PAGE:2Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Performance Measures Report
Program Year PALO ALTO,CA
Of those, number for the chronically homeless
Number of permanent housing units for homeless persons and families
Of those, number for the chronically homeless
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Rehabilitation of Rental Housing (continued)
Create Suitable Living Provide Decent Housing Create Economic Opportunities Total
Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain
Construction of Rental Housing
Create Suitable Living Provide Decent Housing Create Economic Opportunities Total
Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain
Total LMH* units
504 accessible units
Of Total, Number of
Total SB*, URG units
Units qualified as Energy Star
Affordable units
Of Affordable Units
Number occupied by elderly
Years of affordability
Average number of years of affordability per unit
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
IDIS - PR83 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development DATE:09-29-16
TIME:14:39Office of Community Planning and Development
PAGE:3Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Performance Measures Report
Program Year PALO ALTO,CA
Construction of Rental Housing (continued)
Create Suitable Living Provide Decent Housing Create Economic Opportunities Total
Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain
Number subsidized with project based rental assistance by another federal, state, or local program
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
Number designated for persons with HIV/AIDS
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
Of those, the number for the chronically homeless
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
Number of permanent housing units for homeless persons and families
Of those, the number for the chronically homeless
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
IDIS - PR83 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development DATE:09-29-16
TIME:14:45Office of Community Planning and Development
PAGE:1Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Performance Measures Report
Program Year PALO ALTO,CA
Owner Occupied Housing Rehabilitation
Create Suitable Living Provide Decent Housing Create Economic Opportunities Total
Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain
Total LMH* units
Total SB*, URG units
Of Total, Number of Units
Occupied by elderly
Brought from substandard to standard condition
Qualified as Energy Star
Brought to lead safety compliance
Made accessible
Homebuyer Assistance
Total Households Assisted
Of Total:
Number of first-time homebuyers
Of those, number receiving housing counseling
Number of households receiving downpayment/closing costs assistance
Create Suitable Living Provide Decent Housing Create Economic Opportunities Total
Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
IDIS - PR83 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development DATE:09-29-16
TIME:14:45Office of Community Planning and Development
PAGE:2Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Performance Measures Report
Program Year PALO ALTO,CA
Development of Homeowner Housing
Create Suitable Living Provide Decent Housing Create Economic Opportunities Total
Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain
Total LMH* units
Affordable units
Of Total, Number of
Total SB*, URG units
Years of affordability
Average number of years of affordability per unit
Units qualified as Energy Star
504 accessible units
Units occupied by households previously living in subsidized housing
Of Affordable Units
Number designated for persons with HIV/AIDS
Of those, number for the chronically homeless
Number of housing units for homeless persons and families
Of those, number for the chronically homeless
Number occupied by elderly
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
IDIS - PR83 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development DATE:09-29-16
TIME:14:45Office of Community Planning and Development
PAGE:3Integrated Disbursement and Information System
CDBG Performance Measures Report
Program Year PALO ALTO,CA
Housing Subsidies
Total Number of Households
Of Total:
Number of households receiving short-term rental assistance (< = 3 months)
Number of households assisted that were previously homeless
Of those, number of chronically homeless households
Create Suitable Living Provide Decent Housing Create Economic Opportunities Total
Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain
Shelter for Homeless Persons
Number of beds created in overnight shelter/other emergency housing
Number of homeless persons given overnight shelter
Create Suitable Living Provide Decent Housing Create Economic Opportunities Total
Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain
Homeless Prevention
Number of Persons Assisted
that received emergency financial assistance to prevent homelessness
that received emergency legal assistance to prevent homelessness
Create Suitable Living Provide Decent Housing Create Economic Opportunities Total
Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain Access Afford Sustain
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
CAPER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
This page intentionally left blank
CAPER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
C: Public Comments
|
There were no public comments received on the FY 15/16 CAPER.
CAPER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
D: Section 3 Report
Section 3 Summary Report
Economic Opportunities for Low- and Very Low-Income Persons
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
OMB Approval No. 2529-0043
(exp. 11/30/2018)
Disbursement Agency
CITY OF PALO ALTO
250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA 94303
94-6000389
Reporting Entity
CITY OF PALO ALTO
250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA 94301
Dollar Amount:$293,244.57
Contact Person:Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Date Report Submitted:09/20/2016
Reporting Period
Program Area Code Program Area Name
From To
07/01/2015 06/30/2016 CDB1 Community Devel Block Grants
The expenditure of these funds did not result in any covered contracts or new hires during
the 12-month period selected.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7359)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 11/7/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Utilities Quarterly Report
Title: City of Palo Alto Utilities Update for the Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year
2016
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
This update, on water, gas, electric, wastewater collection and fiber utilities, efficiency
programs, legislative/regulatory issues, utility-related capital improvement programs,
operations reliability impact measures and a utility financial summary, is for the Council and
Utilities Advisory Commission’s (UAC’s) information. This update has been prepared to keep the
UAC and Council apprised of the major issues that are facing the water, gas, electric,
wastewater collection and fiber utilities.
Items of interest this quarter, the final quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2016, include:
a description of an amendment to the layoff agreement for the California Oregon
Transmission Project that allows the asset to return to Palo Alto at the end of the layoff
debt-free (page 3)
an accounting of the costs to achieve the carbon neutral electric portfolio since 2013
(page 4 and Table 1 on page 5)
charts showing the historic annual use of electricity (Figure 4 on page 5), gas (Figure 8
on page 11), and water (Figure 19 on page 19) through FY 2016.
a chart showing that the gas commodity rates have been rising from their lows in the
spring (Figure 9 on page 12)
an update of the water supplies and water storage in the Hetch Hetchy system as of the
end of Water Year 2016 (page 16)
the number of water waste reports received via various tools (Figure 20 on page 20)
a discussion of the pilot Demand Response Program (page 24)
a summary of state legislation of interest to Palo Alto —what passed, what failed, and
what has been signed into law—as of the end of the 2016 legislative session, including
those that are new in 2016 and those that continue from 2015 (page 32)
a discussion of the State’s cap-and-trade auction and the historical prices for the
allowances in the quarterly auctions (page 36)
the unaudited end of financial projections for all Utilities funds (Table 6 on page 40)
City of Palo Alto Page 2
the financial reserves as of the end of the FY 2016 for all Utilities funds (Table 12 on
page 42)
operational impact measures for FY 2016 for electric, gas and water (Figures 27-35)
Attachments:
Attachment A: Utilities Fiscal Year 2016 Fourth Quarter Report (PDF)
Utilities
Quarterly
Update
Fourth Quarter of
Fiscal Year 2016
November 2016
ATTACHMENT A
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
i
Utilities Quarterly Update
Table of Contents
I. Electricity ................................................................................................................... 1
Electric Supplies ............................................................................................................................................ 1
Electric Use History ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Electric Budget and Portfolio Performance Measures ................................................................................. 6
II. Natural Gas............................................................................................................... 10
Market Price History and Projections ......................................................................................................... 10
Gas Use History ........................................................................................................................................... 11
Gas Supply Retail Rates ............................................................................................................................... 12
Gas Budget and Portfolio Performance Measures ..................................................................................... 12
III. Water ....................................................................................................................... 16
Water Year 2016 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 16
Water Use Compared to Targets ................................................................................................................ 18
Water Use History ....................................................................................................................................... 19
Recycled Water Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 20
Water Budget Performance Measures ....................................................................................................... 21
IV. Fiber Optics .............................................................................................................. 23
Commercial Dark Fiber Service ................................................................................................................... 23
Google Fiber ................................................................................................................................................ 23
Fiber and Wireless Telecommunications Project Manager ........................................................................ 24
Citizen Advisory Committee ........................................................................................................................ 24
V. Public Benefit, Demand Side Management Programs and Communications ............... 24
Energy Efficiency Program Achievements .................................................................................................. 24
Water Conservation .................................................................................................................................... 29
Local Renewable Energy Programs ............................................................................................................. 29
Communications Activities ......................................................................................................................... 30
VI. Research and Development and Innovation .............................................................. 31
Program for Emerging Technologies ........................................................................................................... 31
Customer Connect Pilot Program ............................................................................................................... 31
Use of Funds from LCFS Credits Sale ........................................................................................................... 32
Heat Pump Water Heater Pilot ................................................................................................................... 32
VII. Legislative and Regulatory Issues .............................................................................. 32
Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 32
State Legislative Issues ................................................................................................................................ 32
Federal Legislative Issues ............................................................................................................................ 35
State Regulatory Proceedings ..................................................................................................................... 36
VIII. Utility Financial Summary ......................................................................................... 37
Electric Utility Overview .............................................................................................................................. 37
Gas Utility Overview.................................................................................................................................... 38
Wastewater Collection Utility Overview ..................................................................................................... 38
Water Utility Overview ............................................................................................................................... 38
Fiber Optic Utility Overview ........................................................................................................................ 39
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
ii
Financial Projections and Operations Reserve Balances ............................................................................ 39
CIP Reserves (Reappropriations and Commitments) Summary ................................................................. 41
Residential Bill Comparisons (based on 30 day bills) .................................................................................. 43
Non-Residential Bill Comparisons ............................................................................................................... 44
CIP Project Detail ........................................................................................................................................ 44
IX. Operations ............................................................................................................... 51
Reliability Impact Measures ........................................................................................................................ 51
List of Figures
Figure 1: Electric Supply Resource Actual and Projection, 2015 to 2017 (as of Sept. 15, 2016) .................. 2
Figure 2: CY 2017 Monthly Electric Supply Resource Projection .................................................................. 2
Figure 3: Northern California Peak Electric Prices (as of September 13, 2016) ........................................... 4
Figure 4: Palo Alto’s Historic Electric Use ..................................................................................................... 5
Figure 5: FY 2016 Electric Load and Resource Balance ................................................................................. 8
Figure 6: FY 2016 Electric Market Purchase Costs and Market Prices .......................................................... 9
Figure 7: Natural Gas Prices – Historical and Projected as of September 7, 2016 ..................................... 10
Figure 8: Palo Alto’s Historic Gas Use ......................................................................................................... 11
Figure 9: CPAU’s Gas Commodity Rates—July 2012 through October 2016 .............................................. 12
Figure 10: Cumulative Redwood Pipeline Cost vs. Market Benchmarks .................................................... 13
Figure 11: Natural Gas Consumption – Budget vs. Actual .......................................................................... 14
Figure 12: Natural Gas Supply Cost – Budget vs. Actual ............................................................................. 14
Figure 13: FY 2016 Natural Gas Prices ($/MMBtu) – Expected vs. Actual .................................................. 15
Figure 14: Precipitation at Hetch Hetchy .................................................................................................... 16
Figure 15: Up Country Water Available to SFPUC for Water Year 2016 ..................................................... 17
Figure 16: Water Available to SFPUC from WY 2009-WY 2016 .................................................................. 17
Figure 17: Annual Rainfall at Hetch Hetchy and Regional Water System Storage as of the End of the
Water Year (from WY 2000 to WY 2016) .................................................................................................... 18
Figure 18: Water Use Compared to Voluntary Target ................................................................................ 19
Figure 19: Palo Alto’s Historic Water Use ................................................................................................... 19
Figure 20: Number of Water Waste Reports per Month by Reporting Tool .............................................. 20
Figure 21: Water Consumption – Budget vs. Actual ................................................................................... 22
Figure 22: Water Cost – Budget vs. Actual.................................................................................................. 22
Figure 23: Illustration of Citywide Hourly Load – With an Annual Peak of 164MW ................................... 25
Figure 24: Aggregated DR Performance of Participating Customers on 6/3/2016 .................................... 26
Figure 25: PaloAltoGreen Gas Program Performance ................................................................................ 28
Figure 26: California Greenhouse Gas Allowance Prices ............................................................................ 37
Figure 27: Electric Distribution System Service Reliability Indices and Definitions .................................... 52
Figure 28: Electric Service Reliability Interruption Frequency Indices........................................................ 54
Figure 29: Electric Service Reliability Interruption Duration Indices .......................................................... 55
Figure 30: Gas Main Leaks By Type of Pipe ................................................................................................. 56
Figure 31: Gas System O&M Mainline Break Repairs ................................................................................. 57
Figure 32: Gas Main Shutdowns and Customers Affected ......................................................................... 58
Figure 33: Gas Service Disruptions by Cause .............................................................................................. 59
Figure 34: Water Main Leaks by Type of Pipe ............................................................................................ 60
Figure 35: Unplanned Water Service Disruption ........................................................................................ 61
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
iii
List of Tables
Table 1: REC Purchases for Carbon Neutrality CY 2013-2016 ....................................................................... 5
Table 2: FY 2016 Electric Utility Supply Cost Summary ................................................................................ 6
Table 3: FY 2016 Electric Load and Generation Compared to Budget Projections ....................................... 7
Table 4: Summer FY 2016 Events and Workshops ...................................................................................... 30
Table 5: Status to date of all applications to the Program for Emerging Technologies ............................. 31
Table 6: Financial Projections, FY 2016 ....................................................................................................... 40
Table 7: FY 2016 Operations Reserves ($000) ............................................................................................ 40
Table 8: Electric CIP Reappropriations and Commitments ......................................................................... 41
Table 9: Gas CIP Reappropriations and Commitments ............................................................................... 41
Table 10: Wastewater Collection Utility CIP Reappropriations and Commitments ................................... 41
Table 11: Water Utility CIP Reappropriations and Commitments .............................................................. 41
Table 12: FY 2016 Q4 Reserve Report from the City’s Financial System .................................................... 42
Table 13: Residential Electric Bill Comparison ($/month) .......................................................................... 43
Table 14: Residential Natural Gas Bill Comparison ($/month) ................................................................... 43
Table 15: Residential Water Bill Comparison ($/month) ............................................................................ 43
Table 16: Residential Wastewater Collection (Sewer) Bill Comparison ($/month) .................................... 43
Table 17: Median Residential Overall Bill Comparison ($/month) ............................................................. 44
Table 18: Non-Residential Electric Bill Comparison ($/month) .................................................................. 44
Table 19: Non-Residential Natural Gas Bill Comparison ($/month) ........................................................... 44
Table 20: Electric Utility CIP Project Detail (pg 1/2) ................................................................................... 45
Table 21: Gas Utility CIP Project Detail (pg 1/2) ......................................................................................... 47
Table 22: Water Utility CIP Project Detail ................................................................................................... 49
Table 23: Wastewater Collection Utility CIP Projects ................................................................................. 50
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
1
I. Electricity
Electric Supplies
Western Area Power Administration (Western) Issues
Unfortunately the ongoing drought continues to keep projected Western Base Resource
generation levels well below long-term average levels (399 gigawatt-hours, or GWh). For the
fourth quarter of FY 2016, Western supply delivered 109 GWh (35 GWh below long-term
average levels, but 27 GWh higher than in FY 2015). For all of FY 2016, Western supplied only
257 GWh (36% below long-term average levels) and cost $13.1M (1% lower than the FY 2016
Adjusted Budget).
Calaveras Hydroelectric Project Issues
Drought conditions are lessening their impact on Calaveras, as the reservoir has benefited from
average precipitation during the El Niño winter. For the fourth quarter of FY 2016 Palo Alto’s
share of this project’s generation was 39.1 GWh (15% below the long-term average level, and
296% higher than in FY 2015). For all of FY 2016, Calaveras delivered only 110 GWh (16% below
long-term average levels).
Renewable Energy Contract Summary
On July 20, 2016 the Frontier Solar project officially achieved commercial operations and has
been operating smoothly ever since. The 20 megawatt (MW) facility in Stanislaus County
became the third of the City’s five utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) projects to begin
operating. Meanwhile, the remaining three solar PV projects that are in the development
process continue to make good progress toward completion, with the Elevation Solar C and
Western Antelope Blue Sky Ranch B projects expected to come online in November 2016.
Electric Load and Resource Balance
The size of the committed and planned market purchases over the last and current calendar
years (CY) (shown in Figure 1 below) reflects a below average level of hydroelectric output, as
discussed above. For CYs 2015 and 2016 combined, net committed fixed-price forward market
purchases currently account for approximately 543 GWh, which represents 28% of the City’s
total load for the two-year period. For CY 2017, near normal hydro output is projected along
with a surge in long-term renewable resources (landfill gas, wind, and solar), which are
projected to provide 54% of the City’s total CY 2017 load. Overall electric supply resources are
expected to be surplus to load by about 6% for CY 2017; however, some periods will see
significantly higher surplus positions while other periods will be deficit (see Figure 2 below).
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
2
Figure 1: Electric Supply Resource Actual and Projection, 2015 to 2017 (as of Sept. 15, 2016)
Figure 2: CY 2017 Monthly Electric Supply Resource Projection
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
3
Transmission
In 2009, as facilitated by Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC), the Cities of Palo
Alto and Roseville laid off their full share and obligations in the California Oregon Transmission
Project (COTP) to Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), Turlock Irrigation District (TID),
and Modesto Irrigation District (MID) (“layoff recipients”) under the 2009 Long-term Layoff
Agreement. The term of the layoff agreement is through 2024 coinciding with the term of the
COTP debt at the time of the layoff. The expectation at the time of the layoff was that when
Palo Alto’s share of COTP was returned in 2024, it would be returned “debt-free”.
TANC and the layoff recipients began the process to refinance and extend the term of the COTP
debt to the end of 2039. The layoff agreement did not include an explicit provision to protect
Palo Alto in the event the debt was extended, therefore exposing Palo Alto to the costs of
potential new debt upon the asset’s return. Palo Alto staff worked diligently with the City
Attorney’s Office to press TANC and the layoff recipients to amend the layoff agreement so as
to not unduly burden Palo Alto’s ratepayers.
On March 9, 2016, TANC sold its existing bonds and issued the COTP Revenue Refunding Bonds,
2016 Series A. TANC was able to secure favorable rates, resulting in an overall positive net
present value for all of the project owners. Earlier this month, Amendment No. 2 to the
Agreement was fully executed by TANC, Palo Alto, Roseville and the layoff recipients. Through
Amendment No. 2, Palo Alto ratepayers will avoid paying approximately $9 million in new COTP
debt between 2025 and 2039.
Electric Market Price History and Projections
As of September 13, 2016, the price for on-peak energy for October 2016 in Northern California
was $39.03 per megawatt-hour (MWh)1, while the prices for November 2016 and December
2016 were $38.60/MWh and $42.60/MWh, respectively. These values are all approximately
$2.39/MWh higher than they were at the time of the last quarterly report.2 On-peak prices for
calendar year strips are in the range of $36 to $40/MWh for 2016 through 2018. These prices
are approximately $2.22/MWh higher than they were at the time of the last quarterly report.
Figure 3: Northern California Peak Electric Prices (as of September 13, 2016) below illustrates
historical monthly on-peak prices and projected monthly forward prices for Northern California
from 2005 through 2023.
1 Note that $30 per megawatt-hour is equal to 3 cents per kilowatt-hour.
2 Market prices for the previous quarterly report were from May 3, 2016.
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
4
Figure 3: Northern California Peak Electric Prices (as of September 13, 2016)
Carbon Neutral Electric Portfolio
Recently, The Climate Registry (TCR) approved Palo Alto’s positive third-party verification
statement for the City’s CY 2014 greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory and Carbon Neutral electric
supply portfolio. This is the second year in a row our electric portfolio has been successfully
verified as carbon neutral, as defined in the Carbon Neutral Plan (Resolution 9322).
The City purchased 515,000 renewable energy certificates (RECs) to cover the City’s non-
renewable power transactions for CY 2014. Earlier this year, the City purchased 479,000 RECs to
achieve carbon neutrality for CY 2015; the CY 2015 inventory is still under review by the third-
party verifier. For CY 2016, staff currently estimates that around 212,000 RECs will be needed to
achieve carbon neutrality. It is important to note that the increased hydroelectric output in
recent months is not the only main driver for the decrease in REC purchases. Increased solar
generation that has come online over the last two years reduces the amount of "brown power"
market purchases the City needs to make. Table 1 provides the City’s upcoming and previous
REC purchases for the last four years. Note that the cost to achieve carbon neutrality has been
well below the rate impact limit of 0.15 cents per kWh.
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
5
Table 1: REC Purchases for Carbon Neutrality CY 2013-2016
Year RECs Purchased Total Cost Average Price
per REC
Rate Impact
(¢/kWh)
CY 2013 392,556 $434,088 $1.11/REC 0.044
CY 2014 515,000 $373,794 $0.73/REC 0.038
CY 2015 479,000 $606,631 $1.27/REC 0.063
CY 2016 (estimated) 212,000 $477,000 $2.25/REC 0.049
Electric Use History
Figure 4 below shows the City of Palo Alto’s historic electric use from FY 1986 through FY 2016.
Note that electric usage has stayed relatively flat, but that electric usage in FY 2016 was 17%
less than usage in FY 1998.
Figure 4: Palo Alto’s Historic Electric Use
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
6
Electric Budget and Portfolio Performance Measures
Electric Supply Cost Summary Compared to Budget Estimates
Table 2 below shows the City of Palo Alto Utilities’ (CPAU’s) supply cost by cost category
through the fourth quarter of FY 2016. Supply costs were $1.3 million (1.6%) over budget
primarily due to higher than expected transmission costs.
Table 2: FY 2016 Electric Utility Supply Cost Summary
Electric Usage and Generation Summary Compared to Budget Estimates
Table 3 and Figure 5 below summarize the City’s electric supply sources through the fourth
quarter of FY 2016. Load was 2% lower than budget. Calaveras generation was substantially
above budget (+50%) due to increased required flow and precipitation. Spot market purchases
were significantly below budget due to a combination of the above reasons. As a result, total
supply was below budget.
Supply Cost
Category
Actuals,
Year To-Date
Month by Month Budget Variance
July through June
TOTAL 79.2 million
0.6 million +0.3
million
+1.3
million
Amount Over (+) /
Under(-) Budget
Market Purchases $12.2 million -0.2
million
Calaveras Hydro 12.1 million +0.1
million
Renewable Sources 20.7 million -0.2
million
Western Hydro 13.1 million -0.1
million
Transmission 17.1 million +2.9
million
NCPA Services 2.4 million -0.1
million
Capacity 1.0 million -0.1
million
Carbon Neutral Costs
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
7
Table 3: FY 2016 Electric Load and Generation Compared to Budget Projections
Year To-Date
Month by Month Budget Variance
July through June
Generation Source Generation
Year To-Date
% of
Portfolio
Month by Month Budget Variance
July through June
27%
11%
10%
10%
9%
31%
2%
TOTAL SUPPLY 964 GWh 100%
Spot Market 17 GWh -36 GWh
-21 GWh
Landfill Gas 96 GWh -9 GWh
Wind 100 GWh -14 GWh
Forward Market 300 GWh +10 GWh
Solar 84 GWh +1 GWh
Calaveras Hydro 110 GWh +37 GWh
Amount Over (+) /
Under(-) Budget Projection
Load 964 GWh -19 GWh
Amount Over (+) /
Under(-) Budget Projection
Western Hydro 257 GWh -9 GWh
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
8
Figure 5: FY 2016 Electric Load and Resource Balance
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
9
Electric Market Prices and Costs Compared to Budget Estimates
Figure 6 shows monthly market prices and the cost of purchasing energy from the market.
Electric market prices through the fourth quarter of FY 2016 were lower due to continued lower
natural gas prices that impact the electricity markets. The cost of market purchases through the
fourth quarter of FY 2016 was about $2.57M higher than it would have been if all energy had
been purchased in the spot market3. As discussed previously, the total cost of market purchases
in the fourth quarter was lower than budgeted due to higher than projected output from
hydroelectric resources.
Figure 6: FY 2016 Electric Market Purchase Costs and Market Prices
3 Note that some market purchases are made on a forward basis to lock in market prices.
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
10
II. Natural Gas
Market Price History and Projections
Ample supply and large volumes of gas in storage continue to keep gas prices low. Forward gas
prices at PG&E Citygate are around $3.50 per million British Thermal Units (MMBtu)4 for the
next 36 months. Figure 7 below shows historical monthly bidweek index prices through May
2016 and forward natural gas prices at PG&E Citygate as of September 7, 2016.
Figure 7: Natural Gas Prices – Historical and Projected as of September 7, 2016
4 Note that 1 million British Thermal Unit (MMBtu) is equal to 10 therms. Therefore, a gas cost of $3 per MMBtu is
equivalent to 30 cents per therm.
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
11
Gas Use History
Figure 8 below shows the City of Palo Alto’s historic gas use from FY 1971 through FY 2016.
Note that gas usage in FY 2016 was only 58% of that of FY 1973.
Figure 8: Palo Alto’s Historic Gas Use
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
12
Gas Supply Retail Rates
Since July 1, 2012, the commodity portion of CPAU’s retail gas rates for all customers varies
every month depending on the market price of natural gas. Figure 9 below shows the actual
commodity rates charged from July 2012 through October 2016. These rates can also be found
on the web site at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30399. Note
that gas commodity rates have risen from the low rates in the spring of 2016.
Figure 9: CPAU’s Gas Commodity Rates—July 2012 through October 2016
Gas Budget and Portfolio Performance Measures
Value of CPAU’s Share of Redwood Pipeline Capacity
Figure 10 below shows the cost of the Redwood gas transmission line compared to the value at
month-ahead spot market prices as well as daily spot market prices. The Redwood pipeline
allows the City to buy gas at the receipt point of Malin, Oregon and transport the gas to “PG&E
Citygate”, which is normally a higher value receipt point. The City’s share of the Redwood
pipeline was a net benefit to the Gas Utility of approximately $288,000 through the fourth
quarter of FY 2016. This is the difference between the value of Redwood capacity of $800,000
(the difference of the monthly index prices at the ends of the Redwood pipeline in Malin,
Oregon and PG&E Citygate) and the transportation cost of using the Redwood pipeline of
$512,000.
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
13
Figure 10: Cumulative Redwood Pipeline Cost vs. Market Benchmarks
Natural Gas Consumption and Costs: Budget vs. Actual
Figure 11 and Figure 12 compare actual natural gas use and supply costs with the FY 2016
budget. Natural gas use through the fourth quarter of FY 2016 was 11.8% below the budget
forecast, and costs were 53% lower than budgeted amounts. Gas usage was lower than
estimated in the budget since the weather has been much warmer than average. Reduced gas
usage may also be impacted by the drought and customer’s reduced usage of (hot) water.
Lower than budgeted gas prices were a main contributor to the lower than budgeted
commodity cost.
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
14
Figure 11: Natural Gas Consumption – Budget vs. Actual
Figure 12: Natural Gas Supply Cost – Budget vs. Actual
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
15
Figure 13 shows actual gas prices at PG&E Citygate (CG) versus gas prices that were projected
at the time the FY 2016 budget was developed. For the entire fiscal year, gas prices have been
lower than budget. The price of gas is passed directly to consumers through the monthly-
varying, market-based commodity portion of CPAU’s gas retail rate so commodity prices and
cost—and commodity revenues—are lower than projected.
Figure 13: FY 2016 Natural Gas Prices ($/MMBtu) – Expected vs. Actual
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
16
III. Water
Water Year 2016 Summary
September 30, 2016 marked the end of Water Year (WY) 2016. Figure 14 shows precipitation
for WY 2016 compared to median precipitation, last year (WY 2015), a very dry year (WY 1977),
a wet year (WY 1998), and a very wet year (WY 1983).
Figure 14: Precipitation at Hetch Hetchy
Figure 15 shows the flows on the Tuolumne at La Grange and the water allocated to the senior
rights holders (Modesto Irrigation District and Turlock Irrigation District, or “the Districts”) and
the water available to the City and County of San Francisco, the junior rights holder. The total
water available to SFPUC in WY 2016 for the Regional Water System was 651,330 acre-feet. For
comparison, SFPUC’s Regional Water System delivered almost 160,000 acre-feet in calendar
year 2015.
WY 1983
WY 1998
WY 2016
WY 1983 Median
WY 1983
WY 2015
WY 1983 WY 1977
WY 1983
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
17
Figure 15: Up Country Water Available to SFPUC for Water Year 2016
Figure 16 illustrates the very low amount of water available to the City from the Tuolumne
River watershed over the prior four water years (WY 2012-2015). WY 2016 had, by comparison,
much more water available for the Regional Water System.
Figure 16: Water Available to SFPUC from WY 2009-WY 2016
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
18
Figure 17 shows the relationship between precipitation at Hetch Hetchy and the end of water
year total system storage levels. As shown, the water storage in the system was relatively low
in WY 2012 through WY 2015, but has recovered somewhat as of the end of WY 2016.
Figure 17: Annual Rainfall at Hetch Hetchy and Regional Water System Storage as of the End
of the Water Year (from WY 2000 to WY 2016)
Water Use Compared to Targets
After an above average winter of precipitation, on March 18, 2016, the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) modified the emergency water use regulation replacing the state-
determined mandatory water use reduction targets with a self-certification process designed to
take into account local water supply conditions. The SWRCB’s water use reduction formula uses
a 3-year planning horizon and yielded a 0% mandatory reduction for San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission (SFPUC) customers including Palo Alto. The regulation is in effect until
January 31, 2017.
Despite the State’s water use reduction formula yielding no need to reduce water use, the
SFPUC requested a voluntary 10% water use reduction for its customers including Palo Alto. The
SFPUC uses a more conservative formula that recognizes the long-term uncertainty of water
supply in California and using an 8.5 year planning horizon. A 10% reduction is commensurate
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
19
with Stage I actions in the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan. As of August 30, the City’s
water use was 20.5% less than 2013 as shown in Figure 18 below.
Figure 18: Water Use Compared to Voluntary Target
Water Use History
Figure 19 below shows the City of Palo Alto’s historic water use from FY 1965 through FY 2016.
Note that FY 2016 water consumption was almost 30% below usage in 2013 and less than half
the City’s water usage in FY 1976.
Figure 19: Palo Alto’s Historic Water Use
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
20
Water Waste Coordinator
From March through August, the City received 106 water waste reports, of which 85 were
unique reports. The public has many options to report water waste: the Water Waste Hotline
(650) 496-6968, a special email address (Drought@CityofPaloAlto.org), the PaloAlto311 app,
and reporting tools operated by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and the State.
The Water Waste Coordinator follows up on water waste reports with a field investigation and
work with customers to resolve water use issues and educate them on efficient water use.
Figure 20 below shows the number of water waste reports per month by reporting tool.
Figure 20: Number of Water Waste Reports per Month by Reporting Tool
Recycled Water Strategic Plan
Since the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for expanding the
recycled water pipeline system to reach the Stanford Research Park on September 28, 2015
(Staff Report 5962), staff has issued a request for proposals (RFP) for pre-design work,
preparation of a business plan for the pipeline expansion project as well as examining
alternatives such as installing equipment to purify treated wastewater to potable water
standards. This larger more comprehensive project is now called the Recycled Water Strategic
Plan (see Staff Report 6700). Responses to the RFP were received in June of 2016 and a
contractor has been selected. Staff is currently negotiating with the selected contractor
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
March April May June July August
#
o
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
Month
Total Water Waste Reports
Duplicates
State
SCVWD
Other
Email
Phone
311 App
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
21
regarding the scope of the project. Utilities staff is also staying apprised of the progress in the
project meetings for the Advanced Water Purification System Feasibility Study. This feasibility
study is evaluating different options for upgrading the quality of the recycled water by purifying
it using technologies such as reverse osmosis (Staff Report 6458).
Additionally, staff is working closely with the SCVWD, the City of Mountain View, and the
partners of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant to make sure that both the Recycled
Water Strategic Plan and the Advanced Water Purification System Feasibility Study project
contribute to water reuse goals for the region as a whole. In an effort to facilitate regional
recycled water use and planning, staff is also working on a general memorandum of
understanding (MOU) regarding recycled water between the City of Mountain View and
SCVWD. The final MOU for this recycled water planning is anticipated to go to the SCVWD
Board of Directors in early November, with approval from the City Council of Palo Alto and the
City Council of Mountain View shortly thereafter.
Water Budget Performance Measures
Figure 21 and Figure 22 below compare actual water consumption and water supply cost to the
FY 2016 budget projections. The community has responded with substantial water savings
CPAU has been working diligently with the City’s interdepartmental drought team to ensure the
message about necessary water use reduction has been widespread, and to develop innovative
solutions to help the City and community members meet its water use reduction target. Actual
water use through the end of FY 2016 was 6% lower than budget estimates. Actual supply costs
through end of FY 2016 were 6% below budget, mostly due to the lower consumption.
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
22
Figure 21: Water Consumption – Budget vs. Actual
Figure 22: Water Cost – Budget vs. Actual
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
23
IV. Fiber Optics
Commercial Dark Fiber Service
The total number of commercial dark fiber customers was 107 as of the end of FY 2016. The
total number of active dark fiber service connections serving commercial customers is 219
(some customers have multiple connections). Commercial customers generate 81% of the dark
fiber license revenues. Through the end of FY 2016, 22 new dark fiber service connections to
existing and new customers were completed, while 30 service connections were disconnected.
Google Fiber
On July 18, 2016, a Google representative informed staff of a further delay in their fiber optic
network deployment plans in Silicon Valley. Staff understands that it could be up to 6 months
or more before Google moves forward with its network build. Google indicated that they are
exploring more innovative methods of deployment—including integrating wireless
technologies—that overcome some of the challenges they are facing in their current builds.
Deployments in the cities of Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale are also being
delayed. Google’s delay also impacts discussions about co-build opportunities and those
discussions are temporarily on hold.
AT&T GigaPower
As of September 2016, the City has approved the deployment of 2 cabinets related to AT&T
GigaPower service roll out, which is expected to deliver ultra-fast broadband speeds up to 1
Gigabit per seconds. Staff expects AT&T will file additional applications to deploy more cabinets
in 2017. Each cabinet can serve approximately 300-400 homes. Based on Council direction, staff
has also initiated co-build discussions with AT&T. A meeting between City leadership and AT&T
leadership is planned to further these discussions.
Fiber-to-the-Premises Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan
Staff is currently working on the following tasks for the FTTP and Wireless Plans as directed by
the Council on September 28, 2015:
1. “Dig Once” ordinance: Staff, including the City Attorney’s office and the City’s consultant
CTC Technology & Energy, is working to evaluate existing dig once models, ordinances and
strategies implemented by other municipalities and counties. Staff anticipates bringing a
recommendation to the Council late this year or in early 2017.
2. A Request for Information (RFI) was issued in May 2016 to explore potential municipally-
owned and public-private partnership models for FTTP. Eight responses to the RFI were
received and staff is working with CTC Technology & Energy to review these responses.
Discussions will be pursued with two or three of the respondents and CTC will participate in
these discussions as part of their scope of work.
3. Staff is working with CTC Technology & Energy to develop Requests for Proposals for a
Mobile Broadband Network for Public Safety (e.g. “in-vehicle” broadband access) and a
Point-to-Multipoint Network for Secure City Enterprise Access to improve command and
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
24
control of critical City infrastructure for Public Safety and Utilities. The RFPs are expected to
be released in early October 2016.
Fiber and Wireless Telecommunications Project Manager
On November 30, 2015, Council approved hiring a temporary Fiber and Wireless
Telecommunications Project Manager for up to 3 years at an annual cost of $228,000. This
position will manage various City fiber and wireless initiatives, including working as a special
point of contact for the City if Google Fiber builds its network in Palo Alto. As a result of the
Google Fiber delay, the hiring of the Fiber and Wireless Telecommunications Project Manager
has been postponed.
Citizen Advisory Committee
Staff continues to meet on a regular basis with the committee regarding fiber and wireless
initiatives. In April 2016, the City Manager invited the 6 current committee members to
continue their service until April 30, 2018 and all agreed to continue to serve. The City Manager
also asked staff to recruit new members to the committee and expects to appoint 5 new
members prior to the next committee meeting in October.
V. Public Benefit, Demand Side Management Programs and
Communications
Energy Efficiency Program Achievements
CPAU offers a wide range of customer programs and services to encourage energy and water
efficiency and customer-owned renewable generation. Some of these programs are
administered by CPAU staff, although the majority of the energy and water savings are
achieved through third-party administered programs. The Annual DSM Report summarizes
overall savings goals versus achievements, program-level achievements and expenditures, as
well as key initiatives undertaken by CPAU. The Annual DSM Report for FY 2015 was provided
to Council on April 18, 2016 and UAC in May 2016 (Staff Report 6715). Listed below are updates
and highlights from these programs.
2016 Summer Demand Response Program
The Demand Response Pilot Program started May 2, 2016 and will run until October 14, 2016.
CPAU had one event since the program started on June 3, 2016. Three of the program
participants were involved in the event which yielded a load reduction of 312 kW, or 0.2% load
reduction from the City’s peak load for 2016. Figure 23 shows the City’s hourly demand from
the start of the program.
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
25
Figure 23: Illustration of Citywide Hourly Load – With an Annual Peak of 164MW
Figure 24 shows the performance of the participating customers during the June 3 Demand
Response Event, which requested demand reductions between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. The three
customers who achieved load reduction were City of Palo Alto’s City Hall, HP Enterprises, and
Palo Alto Research Park. Total payment to the three customers for participating in the event
was $473.94.
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
26
Figure 24: Aggregated DR Performance of Participating Customers on 6/3/2016
– Average Load Reduction of 312 kW, ~15% of total customer load
Home Efficiency Genie Program
A new residential energy audit program, the Home Efficiency Genie, was launched at the
beginning of FY 2016. Residents pay a small co-payment for a comprehensive building
performance audit. After initial participation was low, staff launched an extensive marketing
campaign and participation picked up from 26 assessments in the second quarter to 35
assessments in the third quarter. With limited marketing funds remaining in the fourth quarter,
efforts were focused on building relationships with various neighborhood groups and Cool
Block Leaders with the hope of attracting participation by active members of the community. A
total of 105 assessments were completed in the first year of the program.
Georgetown University Energy Prize Competition
The Georgetown University Energy Prize (GUEP) is a national competition among small- to
medium-sized cities for a $5 million prize. The goal of the competition is to encourage energy
savings and develop energy efficiency programs that are innovative, replicable, lasting,
equitable, and connected to education. The competition measures energy usage in 2015 and
2016. Based on data from January through September 2015, Palo Alto ranked 15th (out of 50)
in the competition. No new rankings have been released since September 2015.
Of the three Utility customer sectors whose electricity and natural gas usage count towards the
competition—residential, municipal, and public school buildings—the residential sector is the
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
27
biggest energy user. For electricity, in 2015 residential usage made up 19% of Palo Alto’s total,
compared to 3% and 1% for municipal and school buildings, respectively. For natural gas, in
2015 residential usage made up 44% of Palo Alto’s total, compared to 4% and 1% for municipal
and school buildings, respectively. Thus, increasing energy efficiency for the residential
customers is a priority for the GUEP competition.
CPAU is collaborating with Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) to develop programs
designed to engage residential customers. At the core of the programs is CPAU’s new Utility
Portal, an online tool that enables customers to learn about their energy and water use, CPAU’s
efficiency programs, and tips to reduce usage. In order to increase Portal engagement, staff is
developing an Energy Passport initiative for elementary schools, as well as a Portal Sign-Up
campaign for middle schools and high schools. Both programs are designed to demonstrate the
effectiveness of reaching residential customers through students and their families and
encouraging them to use the Utility Portal. To date, 541 residential customers have created
Utility Portal accounts. The school programs will be launched in the fall of 2016.
Schools have an incentive to help Palo Alto win the GUEP competition since the City Council
approved allocating $1 million of GUEP prize funds to PAUSD, should Palo Alto win. These funds
would be used for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects at schools. From an
educational perspective, schools have an additional incentive to encourage Utility Portal
engagement since energy and water usage data available through the Portal represent valuable
real-life information that can be connected with curriculum. This incorporation of real-world
information aligns with the objectives of Common Core and Next Generation Science Standards
that the majority of states in the U.S.—including California—have adopted.
PaloAltoGreen Gas
The voluntary PaloAltoGreen Gas (PAGG) program provides the opportunity for residential and
commercial customers to reduce or eliminate the impact of GHG emissions associated with
their gas usage, through the purchase of certified environmental offsets. There will be no active
marketing for PAGG program until a decision is made on the proposed carbon neutral gas
portfolio later this year. As shown in Figure 25 below, 895 customers have signed up for PAGG
as of the end of August 2016. Although the bulk of the participants are residential customers,
the majority of the gas load enrolled in the program is for City facilities since all City facilities
enrolled in the program for 100% of their gas usage starting in July 2015.
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
28
Figure 25: PaloAltoGreen Gas Program Performance
Multi-family Residence Plus
The Multi-family Residence Plus+ Program was launched in June 2015 to offer EE measures to
an underserved segment of CPAU’s customer base. This is the first time CPAU has targeted
multi-family residences and the program has been successful in attracting participants. In the
fourth quarter, participation spiked with demand far exceeding initial expectations. The initial
budget for the 3 year contract was $450,000. The $150,000 initially allocated for FY 2016 was
used by the end of April 2016 so an additional $150,000 was allocated to FY 2016.
In FY 2016, EE upgrades were completed at 48 apartment buildings, 1 senior living complex and
1 rehabilitation facility and the program installed over 109,000 square feet of insulation and
replaced close to 2,000 lights with efficient bulbs saving close to 200,000 kWh.
New measures were approved in June, including a focus on LED lighting since it has become
affordable and the list of multi-family complexes eager to participate in the program has grown.
This situation prompted staff to request additional funds for the program. Council agreed and
approved increasing the contract by $500,000 in September (Staff Report 7192).
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
29
These additional funds will enable the program to meet its goals, including to:
Install EE measures in buildings with below market rate units and the common areas at
low income housing complexes;
Provide increased comfort and decreased heating and cooling bills due to insulation
installed for residents;
Provide increased safety due to better quality lighting in and around units; and
Claim energy savings to help CPAU’s efforts with the GUEP competition.
Water Conservation
CPAU partners with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) to provide residential and
commercial water conservation programs which includes, free water audits to residential
customers, landscape surveys, rebates for landscape conversions, irrigation hardware, clothes
washers, High-Efficiency Toilets (HETs) and urinals. On July 1, 2016, SCVWD reinstated the
Landscape Rebate Program and is now accepting new applications. Customers wishing to
participate in the rebate program must complete a pre-inspection and submit an application for
approval before beginning any work on their project.
Local Renewable Energy Programs
Net Energy Metering Cap
On October 26, 2015 City Council approved a formal definition of the Net Energy Metering
(NEM) cap of 9.5 MW (Staff Report 6139). On August 22, 2016 Council approved the NEM
Successor Program and directed staff to recalculate the NEM cap using an alternative
methodology (Staff Report 7150). The revised cap is 10.8 MW which is 13% larger than the
original NEM cap. As of September 6, 2016 Palo Alto has 7.8 MW of local solar photovoltaic (PV)
capacity, representing 72% of the new NEM cap.
PV Partners Solar Rebates
CPAU’s share of the SB1 mandated goal was to pay $13M in rebates for 6.5 MW of PV system
capacity by 2017. All of the available program funds have been reserved. Palo Alto’s SB1 funded
PV installations are expected to total 7.3 MW by 2018 and the final performance-based
incentive payments will end in FY 2023.
Bay Area SunShares (Group-buy) Solar Program
CPAU joined the 2016 Bay Area SunShares solar and electric vehicle (EV) group-buy program
administered by non-profit Business Council on Climate Change for Bay Area residents (see
http://www.bayareasunshares.org/ for more information). The program was launched in
August and a Palo Alto workshop was held in September. Solar or EV purchase and lease
contracts must be signed by November 18. In 2015 CPAU had 54 customers install solar with
the SunShares program.
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
30
Communications Activities
Education, Workshops and Community Outreach Activities
After the extensive spring series of workshops and events reported in the last quarterly report,
the summer activities are listed in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Summer FY 2016 Events and Workshops
Event Date Attendance
Graywater to Green Garden (BAWSCA) 5/21/2016 50
Palo Alto Downtown Farmer's Market 6/25/2016 60+
Communications Highlights
This section summarizes communications highlights, updates on major campaigns and
noteworthy events. Copies of all current and past ads and bill inserts are available online at
cityofpaloalto.org/UTLbillinsert
Frontier Solar Project Ribbon Cutting & Commercial Operations: On May 18, the developer of
the 20 megawatt Frontier Solar project hosted a ribbon-cutting ceremony at the project site
near the town of Newman. Utilities staff attended and were given the honor of officially cutting
the ribbon – giant scissors and all! The project began commercial operations on July 20.
Frontier Solar is the City’s third utility-scale solar project to begin operating, and it’s the closest
to the Bay Area of the six large solar projects that the City has under contract. Two more solar
projects are expected to begin operations by the end of 2016 and the sixth project is expected
to be operating in 2021.
Live Demo of Emergency Response to Utility Line Strikes: On June 10, Utilities and Office of
Emergency Services staff played a leading role in demonstrating emergency response to an
accidental gas and electric line “dig-in.” The event highlighted the importance of safety
prevention measures for excavation. Senator Jerry Hill provided a keynote address with praise
for Palo Alto’s safety practices.
The 2015 Consumer Confidence Report on water quality was updated in June and is now
available online in English, Spanish and Mandarin at cityofpaloalto.org/waterquality. The
reports are included in new utility customer welcome packets and current customers may
contact us to request a printed version. The City also provides a copy of the 2016 Public Health
Goals Report at this water quality webpage.
Groundbreaking for San Francisquito Creek Flood Control Project: On August 5, the City
celebrated groundbreaking on a major flood control improvement project for San Francisquito
Creek, along with partners of the Creek Joint Powers Authority, SCVWD, Cities of East Palo Alto,
Menlo Park, San Mateo County Flood Control District, members of the state Senate and
Assembly, and US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
31
Gas Safety Awareness: CPAU is required to maintain a public awareness outreach plan about
gas safety, which includes distributing an annual gas safety awareness brochure. These
brochures were mailed in August to all customers, non-customers living around a gas pipeline,
locators, excavators, contractors and plumbers working in and around Palo Alto. This brochure
is available online in English, Spanish and Mandarin at cityofpaloalto.org/safeutility
Communication about Rate Adjustments for Fiscal Year 2017: Utilities rate adjustments for
electric, gas, water, wastewater, refuse and storm drain services became effective July 1. CPAU
Communications staff developed a communications strategy for how to explain the reasons
behind the rate increases, including webpage (www.cityofpaloalto.org/RatesOverview),
prepared talking points, information in utility bills, frequently asked questions, and through
direct communication with internal and external stakeholders, such as City Council, City staff,
media and customers.
VI. Research and Development and Innovation
Program for Emerging Technologies
CPAU’s Program for Emerging Technologies, or PET, (www.cityofpaloalto.org/UTLInnovation)
provides the opportunity for local businesses and organizations to submit proposals for
innovative and impactful products to CPAU for review as a prospective partner. The goal is to
find and nurture creative products and services that will manage and better use electricity, gas,
water and fiber optic services. From the program’s inception in June 2012 through the fourth
quarter of FY 2016, the program received a total of 55 applications. Table 5 below summarizes
the status of all applications through the fourth quarter of FY 2016.
Table 5: Status to date of all applications to the Program for Emerging Technologies
Deadline Total Received Under Review Declined/Closed Active Completed
FY 2013 13 0 11 0 2
FY 2014 15 0 11 1 3
FY 2015 15 1 9 2 2
FY 2016 14 5 4 0 5
TOTAL 55 4 36 3 12
Customer Connect Pilot Program
This 300-home advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) pilot is operating in a stable fashion,
collecting hourly consumption information and providing it to the participating customers. This
pilot and associated ancillary pilots will be evaluated in 2017. An initial internal evaluation will
be undertaken at the end of the year, followed by an independent consultant evaluation in
2017. The same consultant will evaluate overall AMI investment strategy for CPAU and develop
a cost/benefit assessment for a full-scale deployment of smart grid technologies. This
assessment is expected to be completed by the end of 2017.
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
32
Use of Funds from LCFS Credits Sale
As recommended by the UAC in June and Finance Committee in September (Staff Report 7128),
in October Council will consider approval of a policy on the use of funds from the sale of
California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) credits allocated to
the City. Palo Alto is expected to have $350,000 to $450,000 in these funds to encourage
Electric Vehicle (EV) adoption, including the provision of rebates to encourage installation of
charging equipment at multi-family homes, commercial, and public building garages and
parking areas.
Heat Pump Water Heater Pilot
The heat pump water heater (HPWH) pilot is part of the City’s Electrification Work Plan adopted
by City Council to help Palo Alto meet its aggressive GHG emissions goal. The objectives of the
pilot include: 1) promote energy efficient HPWHs heaters among consumers, 2) support market
transformation of the supply chain, 3) streamline HPWH permitting process, and 4) gather
customer feedback on retrofit process and performance of HPWHs. The pilot targets single
family homeowners to convert their gas water heater to a HPWH, with an initial rebate of up to
$1,500 per household. The pilot was launched in April 2016 with a webpage that explains how a
HPWH works, costs and savings from a customer perspective as well as qualified models
(www.cityofpaloalto.org/HPWHpilot). The pilot is expected to continue through 2017.
VII. Legislative and Regulatory Issues
While the City operates on the (July through June) Fiscal Year, the State legislature operates on
the Calendar Year and Congress on the Federal Fiscal Year (October to September). In order to
provide accurate information in this report, staff note below current issues and those items
appearing since the last quarterly report, regardless of each entity’s operating year.
Summary
The State Legislature has ended its 2016 session, while Congress has only a few weeks left
before the all-consuming federal elections reach the home stretch. The State legislature was
particularly busy this year on energy and water issues and in the past few months, CPAU staff
worked closely with the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) and the California Municipal
Utilities Association (CMUA) on items affecting the City, some of which became non-issues
almost as quickly as they appeared. Staff also helped facilitate the Vice Mayor’s trip to
Washington, DC as part of the American Public Power Association’s federal fly-in day. An
important topic during that trip was the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015, mentioned
below.
State Legislative Issues
Cap and trade, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water issues, and the environment in general
were a large focus of the legislature this year. Energy market regionalization, renewable
resources, and climate pollutants were other policy items CPAU staff closely followed.
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
33
Regarding regionalization, the Governor was strongly in favor of introducing a bill late in this
year’s session to speed up the integration of the California Independent System Operator
(CAISO) and PacificCorp, a for-profit energy company located in various western states. Any
such end-of-session bills circumvent legislative review, and this one in particular would have
been crafted before the many operational issues it raised were ever vetted, by either CAISO
stakeholders or market participants. NCPA was heavily involved in opposing this premature
action to formalize a significant, foundational change in the state’s energy market. CPAU staff
participated in many calls and meetings regarding this potential action, including a Sacramento
lobby day on this sole item. In August, the Governor relented and agreed to drop his pursuit of
legislation in 2016. However, legislation to move forward regionalization is expected to be
introduced early in 2017, with stakeholder meetings already underway to prepare proposed
language by November this year. While still on a fast track, this approach is at least giving
stakeholders a chance to participate and a January introduction to the legislature will allow for
a full vetting by legislative committees.
Below, the outcomes of certain bills of interest to the City are noted:
Energy Legislation
AB 2339 (Irwin): Net energy metering (NEM). This bill would have extended the current
NEM program, causing Palo Alto to expend resources while jeopardizing the
implementation of the approved NEM Successor Program. CPAU staff was very active on
this bill, and engaged heavily with NCPA and CMUA.
AB 2163 (Wlliams): NEM: Imperial Irrigation District. A bill appearing for the first time
days before the end of session, AB 2163 would have required the Imperial Irrigation
District to renew its former NEM program for the benefit of certain customers, some of
whom do not have PV instillations. The bill would have taken effect immediately when
signed into law. As this was a bill represented a slippery slope that could impact Palo
Alto’s NEM program, CPAU staff worked with CMUA and NCPA staff to oppose the bill. It
failed quickly.
AB 2699 (Gonzales): Department of Consumer Affairs: Contractor's State License
Board: Solar energy systems companies: Regulations. Otherwise known as the solar
customer consumer protection bill, this bill would have protected customers against
perceived inappropriate actions of the solar industry. It was supported by CMUA and
NCPA.
SB 1393 (De Leon): Energy efficiency and pollution reduction (SB 350 clean-up bill).
This is the attempt to clarify certain portions of last year’s SB 350. Specifically, AB 1393
states that POUs do not have to notify the Energy Commission when they consider
renewable energy procurement, and if a POU receives a certain portion of its sales from
hydroelectric generation, it may not have to also procure eligible renewable resources
in certain circumstances. This bill attempted to go farther by inserting language from
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
34
various agencies; however, the many interested stakeholders could not agree to the
proposed amendments and the language did not appear in the final bill. NCPA and
CMUA were two of those stakeholders. Amends the Health and Safety, Public
Resources, and Public Utilities codes.
AB 1800 (Hadley): Utility outage compensation claims: annual posting. This bill would
have required electric utilities to annually post on its web site specified information
relating to utility outage compensation claims for the previous year.
SB 32 (Pavley): California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. This statute was
approved by the Governor (Chapter 249, Statutes of 2016). Building on The California
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (aka Pavley’s AB 32) it requires the Air Resources
Board to adopt rules and regulations to ensure statewide GHG emissions limits are
reduced to at least 40% below the 1990 level by December 2030. Section 38566, Health
and Safety Code.
AB 197 (Garcia, E): State Air Resources Board: greenhouse gases: regulations. This
statute was approved by the Governor (Chapter 250, Statutes of 2016). It is tied to SB
32, adding two members of the legislature to CARB as non-voting members and creates
the Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies. AB 167 also increases
CARB’s reporting on GHG sources. Adds to the Government Code, amends the Health
and Safety Code
SB 1028 (Hill): Electric Utilities: Wildfire mitigation plans. Requires electrical
corporations and local POUs, such as CPAU, to maintain and operate their electrical lines
and equipment in a manner that minimizes the risk of catastrophic wildfire posed by
such electrical lines and equipment. Palo Alto’s City Council will be required to
determine whether any portion of the geographical area where our utility’s overhead
electrical lines and equipment are located has a significant risk of catastrophic wildfire.
If such a finding is made, Council must approve wildfire mitigation measures the utility
intends to undertake to minimize the risk of its overhead electrical lines and equipment
causing a catastrophic wildfire. The area of the foothills served by CPAU may fall into
this category and the utility currently has a mitigation program in place. Staff will
coordinate with CMUA and NCPA providing input to a CPUC proceeding to develop the
California map of at-risk wildfire areas and continue coordination with our local fire
department in developing mitigation plans. Division 4.1, Chapter 6 of the Public Utilities
Code.
Water Legislation
SB 814 (Hill): Drought: excessive water use: urban retail water suppliers. This statute
was approved by the Governor (Chapter 230, Statutes of 2016). Enforceable only during
a state or locally declared drought, it states that excessive water use by a residential
customer is prohibited. Urban retail water suppliers must establish a method to identify
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
35
and restrict excessive water use. CPAU and CMUA staff actively engaged with Senator
Hill’s office before the bill was introduced to express concerns with earlier language
related to public requests; that language was stricken. Division 1, Chapter 3, Section 365
of the water code.
AB 2594 (Gordon): Stormwater resources: use of captured water. Currently, the
Stormwater Resource Planning Act authorizes public agencies to develop a stormwater
resource plan. This statute authorizes a public entity that captures stormwater from
urban areas, to use the water before it reaches a natural channel. Amends the Fish and
Game and Public Resources codes.
SB 1398 (Leyva): Public water systems: lead user service lines. Requires public water
systems, such as CPAU, to compile an inventory of known lead user service lines in use
in its distribution system and identify areas that may have lead user service lines by July
1, 2018. After completing the inventory, the utility is required to provide a timeline for
replacement of known lead user service lines in the distribution system to the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). If the utility identifies areas in the distribution
system that may have lead user service lines then, by July 1, 2020, the utility has to
either verify the existence or absence of lead user service lines in these areas or provide
a timeline for replacement of the user service lines whose content cannot be
determined. The SWRCB is authorized to approve a replacement timeline. Adds section
116885 to the Health and Safety Code.
Natural Gas Legislation
AB 2460 (Irwin). Solar Thermal Systems. This bill would have revised the current Solar
Water Heating and Efficiency program to promote the installation of solar water
systems and set the funding cap between January 1, 2017, and July 31, 2027, at $1
billion.
Federal Legislative Issues
In February, Senator Feinstein introduced S. 2533, The California Long-Term Provisions for
Water Supply and Short-Term Provisions for Emergency Drought Relief Act. Among other
things, the bill allows for competitive funding of recycled water projects, and long-term water
supply projects. This bill has not progressed and most likely will not pass this year.
Representative Tonko (D-NY) also introduced H.R. 4653 in February, a bill that would amend
the Safe Drinking Water Act to increase assistance for States, water systems, and disadvantaged
communities. It also has not progressed and will not pass.
A bill that is moving forward is Senator Murkowski’s S.2012, the Energy Policy Modernization
Act of 2015. It has passed both the House and Senate, and the necessary conference committee
meetings will begin soon. NCPA is very active on this bill and it was a topic of congressional
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
36
meetings with the Vice Mayor when he was in Washington, DC. Specifically, this bill will help
alleviate the red tape surrounding hydrologic power plant licensing.
State Regulatory Proceedings
California Air Resources Board
CARB continues to hold public workshops regarding a proposed regulation to create POU
compliance penalties supporting enforcement of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)
Program. It also continues work on cap-and-trade regulations for post 2020 implementation
and updates to the climate scoping plan. CARB also released its draft plan to comply with the
federal Clean Power Plan.
California Energy Commission
The CEC continues to work on implementing SB 350 and CPAU, through NCPA, is active in this
process, particularly on the requirements for integrated resource plans (IRPs). The CEC also
continues its efforts on power source disclosure regulations, and has created reporting
templates. Like CARB, the CEC is also working on RPS enforcement and recently promulgated
draft pre-rulemaking amendments to current procedures. Once such amendment would
potentially harm Palo Alto by impeding its ability to contract for hydroelectric generation
through the federal Western Area Power Administration agreement. CPAU staff recognized the
issue and worked with NCPA to gain an audience with CEC staff to describe the problem and
suggest different language.
Cap-and-Trade Compliance
Both the City’s gas and electric utilities are covered under the terms of CARB’s cap-and-trade
regulation. Although the electric utility does not have a compliance obligation, the City receives
free allowances that must be sold in the auction. The gas utility is both a buyer and a seller of
allowances. The City is allocated some free allowances for the gas utility and a percentage of
those must be sold in the auction. The City must hold allowance or other compliance
instruments in sufficient quantity to meet each year’s gas purchase for delivery to end use
customers, therefore the City must purchase allowances to make up the difference.
Figure 26 shows the floor and settlement prices for each vintage of allowances sold at each of
the quarterly auctions. Two vintages of allowances are offered for sale at each auctions. For
example, in the four 2014 auctions, vintage 2014 allowances and vintage 2017 allowances were
auctioned. The floor, or “reserve”, price was initially set to $10 per metric ton of CO2 and
increases by 5% plus the CPI annually. Since 2013 (the first year of the program) and until
February 2016, all current year allowances offered for sale were sold. However, starting in
February, auctions ceased clearing all current year allowances and auction prices settled at the
reserve level.
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
37
Figure 26: California Greenhouse Gas Allowance Prices
VIII. Utility Financial Summary
This section describes the unaudited actual financial results for FY 2016 for all Utilities funds.
The Council-adopted long-term Financial Plans for the Electric, Gas, Wastewater Collection, and
Water Funds were updated for FY 2017 during the budget review and approval process.
Electric Utility Overview
Sales through the fourth quarter of FY 2016 were 1.0% lower than expected. Sales revenues
have been lower by 0.5%. Deliveries from Western hydroelectric resources have been lower
than average, but Calaveras generation has been higher due to increased required flows and
precipitation. Transmission costs have continued to be higher than budget. FY 2016 net energy
costs were higher by $1.3 million for FY 2016.
This combination of higher costs and lower revenues was projected to result in a decrease in
the level of the Electric Supply Operations Reserve to $6.4 million and take the Distribution
Operations Reserve below zero. Because of this, several transfers were approved in the FY 2017
Financial Plans: $9 million transfer from the Supply Rate Stabilization Reserve, and $5.6 million
each from the Hydro Rate Stabilization and CIP Reserves to help bring the Supply and
Distribution Operations Reserves to near minimum levels. After these transfers, the Electric
Rate Stabilization Reserve has $9.0 million which could be used for contingencies. The
unaudited reserves for the Electric Distribution Operations Reserve show it to be slightly below
the minimum guideline level. A request for a $216,000 from other available Electric Reserve
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
38
funds will be made during FY 2017, in compliance with the adopted Electric Utilities Reserves
Management Practices.
As shown in Table 8, the Electric Utility CIP Reappropriation and Commitment Reserves totaled
$12.2 million at the end of FY 2016, of which $1.4 million was under contract.
Gas Utility Overview
Gas Utility sales through the end of FY 2016 were lower than the adopted budget by 8.4%. FY
2015 sales were 13.2% lower than budget, mainly due to warm weather and also to lower (hot)
water usage because of the drought. Decreased consumption has resulted in $1.7 million lower
distribution sales revenue through the end of the fiscal year. Gas supply revenues to date have
also been lower than budget by $3.6 million, or around 33%, although costs are reduced as well
since as gas prices are passed through directly to customers through the market-based
monthly-varying commodity rate. Initial expense savings, primarily in operations and
maintenance expenses, were $3.2 million for the year. Because of this, the Gas Operations
Reserve may end the year above the maximum reserve guideline range. A request will be made
to transfer any Gas Operations Fund balances above the maximum guideline level back to the
Gas Rate Stabilization Reserve, as part of the FY 2016 year end budget amendment process, or
at the start of FY 2017.
As shown in Table 9, preliminary levels for the Gas Utility CIP Reappropriation and Commitment
Reserves totaled $7.8 million at the end of FY 2016, of which $227,000 was committed to
projects under contract.
Wastewater Collection Utility Overview
Sales revenues are projected to be slightly lower than forecast, mainly due to lower commercial
wastewater revenues, which are based on winter water usage. The Wastewater Collection
Operations Reserve is projected to be between the maximum and minimum reserve guideline
level for FY 2016. Should it be needed, the CIP reserve has an additional $978,000 that could be
utilized in case of emergency.
As shown in Table 10, the Wastewater Collection Utility CIP Reappropriation and Commitment
Reserves totaled $12.0 million at the end of FY 2016, of which $4.4 million was committed to
projects under contract.
Water Utility Overview
Due to the ongoing drought, the Water Fund continues to be volatile with respect to sales and
revenue. Because of the reductions in water use mandated by the SWRCB after the preparation
of the FY 2016 Financial Plan, sales revenues and purchase costs were revised downward and
Council activated the drought surcharge effective September 1, 2015.
The FY 2016 Financial Plan estimated water purchases of 4.77 million hundred cubic feet (CCF)
for FY 2016, but this was revised to 4.27 million CCF after the SWRCB mandate. Customers in
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
39
Palo Alto have exceeded these savings targets, and sales revenues were lower than what was
presented in financial plan updates by around $1 million. Corresponding purchase cost savings
were around $2.8 million. Operational cost savings were $1.7 million. The Water Operations
Reserve is projected to be slightly over the guideline range. A request will be made to transfer
any Water Operations Reserve balances above the maximum guideline level to the Water Rate
Stabilization Reserve, as part of the FY 2016 year end budget amendment process, or at the
start of FY 2017.
As shown in Table 11, the Water Utility CIP Reappropriation and Commitment Reserves totaled
$16.0 million at the end of FY 2016, of which $5.8 million was for projects under contract.
Fiber Optic Utility Overview
Fiber revenues and expenses through the end of FY 2016 are $5.2 million and $2.2 million
respectively. Customer sales are in alignment with the FY 2016 budget of $4.5 million. Total
expenses are $1.5 million below budget, $2.3 million instead of $3.8 million, due to the delay of
the Fiber Optic System Rebuild CIP project. The Fiber Fund budgeted $1.2 million for the Fiber
Optic System Rebuild CIP project but only $0.2 million was spent in FY 2016. The remaining $1.0
million of the CIP rebuild project will be carried forward to the FY 2017 budget for construction
and repairs of the dark fiber network. As shown in Table 7, the Fiber Optics Rate Stabilization
Reserve is projected to be $24.3 million as of the end of FY 2016.
Financial Projections and Operations Reserve Balances
Table 6 is a summary of financial projections for all funds as of the fourth quarter of FY 2016.
Table 7 provides a summary of the projected reserve balance for the Operations Reserves for
the Electric (Distribution and Supply), Gas, Wastewater Collection and Water Funds and the
Rate Stabilization Reserve for the Fiber Fund as of the end of FY 2016 as well as the minimum
and maximum levels for those reserves. As described above, the Gas and Water Operations
Reserves are expected to be higher than the approved maximum reserve level and transfers will
be made to the Rate Stabilization Reserves from the Operations Reserve for those funds. A
transfer will also be made into the Electric Distribution Operations Reserve so that it will be
above the approved minimum reserve level.
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
40
Table 6: Financial Projections, FY 2016
Sales Volumes
Revenue
($000)
Expense
($000)
Net Reserve Change
($000)
Electric Utility
Financial Plan 946,995,929 kWh 129,249 (139,587) (10,338)
Current Forecast 937,156,962 kWh 121,004 (142,209) (21,205)
Change from
Financial Plan
-9,838,967 kWh (8,245) (2,622) (10,867)
-1.0% (6.4%) 1.9%
Gas Utility
Financial Plan 29,156,764 therms 35,993 (40,683) (4,690)
Current Forecast 26,718,637 therms 30,925 (33,007) (2,082)
Change from
Financial Plan
-2,438,127 therms (5,068) 7,676 2,608
-8.4% (14.1%) (18.9%)
Water Utility
Financial Plan 4,403,548 ccf 41,517 (46,454) (4,937)
Current Forecast 3,809,719 ccf 40,234 (41,991) (1,757)
Change from
Financial Plan
-593,829 CCF (1,283) 4,463 3,180
-13.5% (3.1%) (9.6%)
Wastewater Collection Utility
Financial Plan 18,319 (20,164) (1,845)
Current Forecast 17,269 (20,439) (3,170)
Change from
Financial Plan
(1,050) 275 ( 775)
5.7% 1.4%
Fiber Optic Utility
Financial Plan 4,842 (3,785) 1,057
Current Forecast 5,231 (2,243) 2,988
Change from
Financial Plan
389
8.0%
1,542
(41%)
1,931
Table 7: FY 2016 Operations Reserves ($000)
Electric
Supply
Electric
Distribution
Gas Water
Wastewater
Collection
Fiber
Optic *
Beginning 16,012 6,486 10,847 11,537 2,431 21,361
Projected Change (11,587) (9,618) (2,082) (1,630) (3,170) 2,968
Transfers 11,217 9,340 1,531 4,700 3,950 -
FY 2016 Ending 15,642 6,208 10,296 14,607 3,211 24,329
Reserve Minimum 14,596 6,424 4,772 6,208 2,541 895
Reserve Maximum 29,193 12,848 9,543 12,415 6,352 2,238
* For Fiber Optics, the Reserve is the Rate Stabilization (not the Operations) Reserve
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
41
CIP Reserves (Reappropriations and Commitments) Summary
Table 8: Electric CIP Reappropriations and Commitments
Table 9: Gas CIP Reappropriations and Commitments
Table 10: Wastewater Collection Utility CIP Reappropriations and Commitments
.
Table 11: Water Utility CIP Reappropriations and Commitments
Includes unspent funds from previous years carried forward or reappropriated into the current fiscal year
**Equal to Reserve for Reappropriations + Reserve for Commitments (CIP Reserves).
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
42
Table 12: FY 2016 Q4 Reserve Report from the City’s Financial System
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
43
Residential Bill Comparisons (based on 30 day bills)
Table 13: Residential Electric Bill Comparison ($/month)
As of September 1, 2016
Season Usage (KWh/mo) Palo Alto PG&E Santa Clara Roseville
Summer
(May -Oct)
300 33.09 54.62 34.16 53.70
365 (Median) 42.31 70.09 41.83 60.57
650 90.48 145.72 75.47 98.42
1200 183.43 365.63 140.38 184.87
Table 14: Residential Natural Gas Bill Comparison ($/month)
As of September 1, 2016
Season Usage (therms) Palo Alto
Menlo Park, Redwood City,
Mountain View, Los Altos, and
Santa Clara (PG&E Zone X)
Roseville
(PG&E Zone S)
Summer
(Apr-Oct)
15 23.24 20.50 21.19
18 (Median) 25.83 24.77 27.04
30 41.55 48.14 50.40
45 62.55 77.35 79.61
Table 15: Residential Water Bill Comparison ($/month)
As of September 1, 2016
Usage CCF/month Palo Alto
Menlo
Park
Redwood
City
Mountain
View
Los
Altos
Santa
Clara Hayward
4 43.69 44.46 46.47 34.63 33.37 19.80 28.68
(Winter median) 7 67.18 63.03 65.43 53.68 45.20 34.65 48.42
(Annual median) 9 87.24 75.43 78.07 66.38 53.09 44.55 61.58
(Summer median) 14 137.39 107.95 119.47 98.13 73.81 69.30 96.24
25 247.72 180.33 229.94 206.08 119.91 123.75 181.49
Based on the FY 2013 BAWSCA survey, the fraction of SFPUC as the source of potable water supply
was 100% for Palo Alto, 95% for Menlo Park, 100% for Redwood City, 87% for Mountain View, 10%
for Santa Clara and 100% for Hayward.
Table 16: Residential Wastewater Collection (Sewer) Bill Comparison ($/month)
As of September 1, 2016
Palo Alto Menlo Park Redwood City Mountain View Los Altos Santa Clara Hayward
34.83 85.91 75.11 34.30 33.93 41.65 28.93
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
44
Table 17: Median Residential Overall Bill Comparison ($/month)
As of September 1, 2016
Utility and Usage Palo Alto
Menlo
Park
Redwood
City
Mountain
View Los Altos
Santa
Clara Hayward
Electricity (365 kWh/mo) $ 42.31 $ 70.09 $ 70.09 $ 70.09 $ 70.09 $ 41.83 $ 70.09
Gas (18 th/mo) 25.83 24.77 24.77 24.77 24.77 24.77 24.77
Wastewater 34.83 85.91 75.11 34.30 33.93 41.65 28.93
Water (9 CCF/mo) 87.24 75.43 78.07 66.38 53.09 44.55 61.58
TOTAL $190.21 $256.20 $248.04 $195.54 $181.88 $152.80 $185.37
Non-Residential Bill Comparisons
Table 18: Non-Residential Electric Bill Comparison ($/month)
As of September 1, 2016
Usage (KWh/mo) Palo Alto PG&E Santa Clara Roseville
1,000 168 262 175 156
160,000 24,238 32,853 19,963 23,265
500,000 70,825 96,226 61,122 73,057
2,000,000 230,000 326,826 236,301 245,089
Table 19: Non-Residential Natural Gas Bill Comparison ($/month)
As of September 1, 2016
Usage (therms/mo) Palo Alto PG&E
500 601 541
5,000 5,302 4,683
10,000 10,745 8,532
50,000 52,217 37,476
CIP Project Detail
Tables showing the details regarding the Capital Improvement Program projects are shown in:
1. Table 20 for the Electric Utility;
2. Table 21 for the Gas Utility;
3. Table 22 for the Wastewater Collection Utility; and
4. Table 23 for the Water Utility
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
45
Table 20: Electric Utility CIP Project Detail (pg 1/2)
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
46
Table 20: Electric Utility CIP Project Detail (pg 2/2)
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
47
Table 21: Gas Utility CIP Project Detail (pg 1/2)
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
48
Table 21: Gas Utility CIP Project Detail (pg 2/2)
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
49
Table 22: Water Utility CIP Project Detail
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
50
Table 23: Wastewater Collection Utility CIP Projects
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
51
IX. Operations
Reliability Impact Measures
The reliability impact measures for FY 2016 are displayed in the following figures. This type of
data is used to develop long-term CIP plans as well as prioritization of CPAU’s repair and
rehabilitation projects.
Electric
1. Electric Distribution System Service Reliability Indices and Definitions (Figure 27)
2. Electric Service Reliability Interruption Frequency Indices (Figure 28)
3. Electric Service Reliability Interruption Duration Indices (Figure 29)
Gas
1. Gas Main Leaks By Type of Pipe (Figure 30)
2. Gas System O&M Mainline Break Repairs (Figure 31)
3. Gas Main Shutdowns and Customers Affected (Figure 32)
Gas Service Disruptions by Cause (
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
52
4. Figure 33)
Water
1. Water Main Leaks by Type of Pipe (
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
53
2. Figure 34)
3. Unplanned Water Service Disruption (Figure 35)
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
54
Figure 27: Electric Distribution System Service Reliability Indices and Definitions
See next page for definitions of terms used in this chart.
Fiscal Year 2016
Distribution System Service Reliability Indices
Month
Mo
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Su
s
t
a
i
n
e
d
Ov
e
r
h
e
a
d
Un
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
Ot
h
e
r
St
o
r
m
No
n
-
S
t
o
r
m
To
t
a
l
#
o
f
Ou
t
a
g
e
s
Customers
Affected
(I)
Customer
Minutes of
Interruption
(J)
Customer
Momentary
Outage
Impact
(K)
Total
Number of
Customers
Served
(L)
SAIDI
(Minutes)
(J) / (L)
SAIFI
(I) / (L)
CAIDI
(Minutes)
(J) / (I)
MAIFI
(K) / (L)
Jul-15 3 2 1 3 3 2766 595035 28600 20.81 0.097 215.1
Aug-15 28600
Sep-15 28600
Oct-15 1 1 1 1 209 101092 28600 3.53 0.007 483.7
Nov-15 3 3 1 2 3 87 25346 28600 0.89 0.003 291.3
Dec-15 1 1 1 1 310 188270 28600 6.58 0.011 607.3
Jan-16 3 3 3 3 2930 139553 28600 4.88 0.102 47.6
Feb-16 28600
Mar-16 6 3 3 4 2 6 154 38580 28600 1.35 0.005 250.5
Apr-16 2 2 2 81 8029 28600 0.28 0.003 99.1
May-16 4 3 1 4 4 297 28641 28600 1.00 0.010 96.4
Jun-16 3 3 3 3 18 4542 28600 0.16 0.001 252.3
Fiscal YTD TOTAL 26 17 7 22 4 26 6852 1129088 28600 39.48 0.24 164.78 0.00
55 0.9 61 1.5
88 1.1 85 5.4
160 1.74 130 11.1
630 4.5 825 13.7Fourth Quartile Industry Values per IEEE Std. 1366-2003
First Quartile Industry Values per IEEE Std. 1366-2003
Second Quartile Industry Values per IEEE Std. 1366-2003
Third Quartile Industry Values per IEEE Std. 1366-2003
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
55
DEFINITIONS
Customer Minutes of Interruption- Summation of [(# of customers affected) x (Duration of Interruption)]
Momentary Interruption - An interruption of duration limited to the period required to restore service by an interrupting device.
Sustained Interruption - Any interruption not classified as a momentary event.
IEEE 1366 Indice "Quartile" Data - First Quartile: 25% of survey respondents had an index less than this number; Second
Quartile: 50% of survey respondents had an index less than this number; Third Quartile: 75% of survey respondents had an
index less than this number; Fourth Quartile: 100% of survey respondents had an index less than this number.
System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) - Measure of the total duration of an interruption for the average
customer during a given time frame.
SAIDI = (Sum of Customer Minutes Interrupted) / (Total Customers Served)
System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI) - the average number of times that a customer will experience an
interruption during a given time frame.
SAIFI = (Total Customers Interrupted) / (Total Customers Served)
Customer Average Interruption Duration Index (CAIDI) - the average time to restore service.
CAIDI = (Sum of Customer Minutes Interrupted) / (Total Customers Interrupted)
Momentary Average Interruption Frequency Index (MAIFI) - the average number of momentary interruptions that a customer
will experience during a given time frame.
MAIFI = [Sum of (Momentary Interruptions x Customers Affected)] / (Total Customers Served)
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
56
Figure 28: Electric Service Reliability Interruption Frequency Indices
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
57
Figure 29: Electric Service Reliability Interruption Duration Indices
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
58
Figure 30: Gas Main Leaks By Type of Pipe
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
59
Figure 31: Gas System O&M Mainline Break Repairs
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
60
Figure 32: Gas Main Shutdowns and Customers Affected
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
61
Figure 33: Gas Service Disruptions by Cause
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
62
Figure 34: Water Main Leaks by Type of Pipe
Utilities Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2016
November 2016
63
Figure 35: Unplanned Water Service Disruption
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7387)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 11/7/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Law Enforcement Records & Support Day
Title: Proclamation in Honor of Law Enforcement Records and Support
Personnel Day
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Attachments:
Attachment A: Proclamation in Honor of Law Enforcement Records and Support
Personnel Day (DOCX)
Proclamation
LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS AND SUPPORT PERSONNEL DAY
NOVEMBER 8, 2016
WHEREAS, law enforcement agencies throughout the State depend upon law enforcement
records and support personnel to provide them with vital services; and
WHEREAS, law enforcement records and support personnel are crucial to helping law
enforcement agencies identify, pursue, capture and process suspected law breakers; and
WHEREAS, these professionals continually use their expertise and experience to assist in
tracking felons, maintaining criminal statistics and improving apprehension strategies; and
WHEREAS, the California Law Enforcement Association of Records Supervisors will hold
its 43rd annual Training and Technology Conference on November 14-18, 2016; and
WHEREAS, it is important to recognize the City of Palo Alto’s law enforcement records
and support personnel for their valuable contributions to our law enforcement system.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, PATRICK BURT, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of
the City Council do hereby proclaim November 8, 2016 as “Law Enforcement Records and
Support Personnel Day.”
Presented: November 7, 2016
______________________________
Patrick Burt
Mayor
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7413)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 11/7/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Investment Activity Report
Title: City of Palo Alto Investment Activity Report for the First Quarter, Fiscal
Year 2017
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Background
The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the City’s investment portfolio status as of the
end of the first quarter. The City’s investment policy requires that staff report quarterly to
Council on the City’s portfolio composition compared to Council-adopted policy, portfolio
performance, and other key investment and cash flow information.
Discussion
The City’s investment portfolio is detailed in Attachment B. It is grouped by investment type
and includes the investment issuer, date of maturity, current market value, the book and face
(par) value, and the weighted average maturity of each type of investment and of the entire
portfolio.
The par value of the City’s portfolio is $480.0 million; in comparison, last quarter it was $523.3
million. The decline in the portfolio of $43.3 million since the last quarter primarily results from
the prepayment of the City’s annual pensions to Public Employers’ Retirement System (PERS) of
$30.8 million. By prepaying instead of making payments with each payroll period, the City
expects savings of $1.1 million in PERS payments; however, the savings will be offset by the loss
of approximately $0.25 million in interest income. This results in net citywide savings of $0.85
million. The saving is a consequence of PERS’ ability to earn interest earlier and at a higher rate
than the City could realize. In addition, the first quarter of the fiscal year is generally a period of
low revenue. For example, the City’s in-lieu vehicle license fee tax payments is received in
January and May 2017 instead of on a monthly basis and property taxes are primarily paid
around December/January and April/May. Seasonality and the timing of remittances and
expenditures affect cash flow.
The portfolio consists of $19.3 million in liquid accounts and $460.7 million in U. S. government
treasury investments, agency securities, bonds of State of California local government agencies,
City of Palo Alto Page 2
bonds of some of the fifty United States, medium-term corporate notes, and certificates of
deposit. The $460.7 million includes $139.8 million in investments maturing in less than two
years, comprising 30.3 percent of the City’s investment in notes and securities. The investment
policy requires that at least $50 million be maintained in securities maturing in less than two
years.
The current market value of the portfolio is 101.4 percent of the book value. The market value
of securities fluctuates, depending on how interest rates perform. When interest rates
decrease, the market value of the securities in the City’s portfolio will likely increase; likewise,
when interest rates increase, the market value of the securities will likely decrease.
Understanding and showing market values is not only a reporting requirement, but essential to
knowing the principal risks in actively buying and selling securities. It is important to note,
however, that the City’s practice is to buy and hold investments until they mature so changes in
market price do not affect the City’s investment principal. The market valuation is provided by
Union Bank of California, which is the City’s safekeeping agent. The average life to maturity of
the investment portfolio is 3.76 years compared to 3.63 years last quarter.
Investments Made During the First Quarter
During the first quarter, $43.5 million of government agency securities with an average yield of
2.4% percent matured. During the same period, government securities totaling $40.8 million
with an average yield of 1.7% percent were purchased. The expectation is interest rates will
remain near historically low levels; the portfolio’s yield is expected to remain at the current
level. The City’s short-term money market and pool account decreased by $40.6 million
compared to the fourth quarter. Again, primarily due to the accumulation of cash last quarter
for the prepayment of the City’s annual pensions to Public Employers’ Retirement System
(PERS) in the first quarter. Investment staff continually monitors the City’s short-term cash flow
needs and adjusts liquid funds to meet them.
Availability of Funds for the Next Six Months
Normally, the flow of revenues from the City’s utility billings and General Fund sources is
sufficient to provide funds for ongoing expenditures in those respective funds. Projections
indicate receipts will be $235.8 million and expenditures will be $207.5 million over the next six
months, indicating an overall growth in the portfolio of $28.3 million.
As of September 30, 2016, the City had $19.3 million deposited in the Local Agency Investment
Fund (LAIF) and a money market account that could be withdrawn on a daily basis. In addition,
investments totaling $41.0 million will mature between October 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017.
On the basis of the above projections, staff is confident that the City will have more than
sufficient funds or liquidity to meet expenditure requirements for the next six months.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Compliance with City Investment Policy
During the first quarter, staff complied with all aspects of the investment policy. Attachment C
lists the major restrictions in the City’s investment policy compared with the portfolio’s actual
performance.
Investment Yields
Interest income on an accrual basis for the first quarter was $2.4 million; same as last quarter.
As of September 30, 2016, the yield to maturity of the City’s portfolio was 1.93 percent. This
compares to a yield of 1.88 percent in the fourth quarter; though the yield on new investments
has risen in the last few quarters, the continued (historical) low interest rate environment is
expected to put downward pressure on the portfolio yield. The City’s portfolio yield of 1.93
percent compares to LAIF’s average yield for the quarter of 0.61 percent and an average yield
on the two-year and five-year Treasury bonds during the first quarter of approximately 0.76
percent and 1.17 percent, respectively.
Yield Trends
After seven years, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), raised the federal funds and
discount rates in December 2015 by a quarter percent to 0.50 and 1.0 percent, respectively.
FOMC’s September 2016 report is consistent with the July 2016 report, the FOMC again cited
strengthening consumer spending, improving labor market and moderate economic growth
with inflation remaining below the FOMC’s long-term goal of 2 percent. Business spending
remains weak. The FOMC expects future rate increase to be gradual and dependent on the
economic outlook. Factors that could keep a lid on rate increases include: low inflation, weak
wage growth, and global economic weakness.
Funds Held by the City or Managed Under Contract
Attachment A is a consolidated report of all City investment funds, including those not held
directly in the investment portfolio. These include cash in the City’s regular bank account with
US Bank and Wells Fargo. The bond proceeds, reserves, and debt service payments being held
by the City’s fiscal agents are subject to the requirements of the underlying debt indenture. The
trustees for the bond funds are U.S. Bank and California Asset Management Program (CAMP).
Bond funds with U.S. Bank are invested in federal agency and money market mutual funds that
consist exclusively of U.S. Treasury securities. Bond funds in CAMP are invested in banker’s
acceptance notes, certificates of deposit, commercial paper, federal agency securities, and
repurchase agreements. The most recent data on funds held by the fiscal agent is as of
September 30, 2016.
Fiscal Impact
This is an information report.
Environmental Review
This information report is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act;
therefore, an environmental review is not required.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Attachments:
Attachment A: Consolidated Report of Cash Management (PDF)
Attachment B: Investment Portfolio (PDF)
Attachment C: Investment Policy Compliance (PDF)
Book Value Market Value
City Investment Portfolio (see Attachment B)484,619,858$ 491,604,466$
Other Funds Held by the City
Cash with Wells Fargo Bank 692,650 692,650
(includes general and imprest accounts)
Cash with US Bank 2,965,264 2,965,264
(includes general and imprest accounts)
Petty/Working Cash 12,678 12,678
Total - Other Funds Held By City 3,670,592 3,670,592
Funds Under Management of Third Party Trustees *
US Bank Trust Services **
1995 Utility Revenue Bonds
Debt Service Fund 3 3
2002 Downtown Parking Impvt. (Taxable) Certificates of Participation
Reserve Fund 237,334 237,334
2009 Water Revenue Bonds (Build America Bonds)
Project, Debt Service, Reserve, Cost of Issuance Funds 2,602,192 2,602,192
2010 General Obligation Bonds
Debt Service 5 5
2011 Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds
Debt Service, Reserve, and Cost of Issuance Funds 1,482,504 1,482,504
2013 General Obligation Bonds
Debt Service 15,499 15,499
California Asset Management Program (CAMP) ***
2012 University Ave. Parking Refunding Bonds
Reserve Fund 2,540,216 2,540,216
2013 General Obligation (Library) Bond
Project Fund 711,815 711,815
Total Under Trustee Management 7,589,567 7,589,567
GRAND TOTAL 495,880,017$ 502,864,624$
* These funds are subject to the requirements of the underlying debt indenture.
** U.S. Bank investments are in money market mutual funds that exclusively invest in U.S. Treasury securities.
*** CAMP investments are in money market mutual fund which invest in bankers acceptance, certificate of deposit,
commercial paper, federal agency securities, and repurchase agreements.
First Quarter, Fiscal Year 2016-17
(Unaudited)
(Debt Service Proceeds)
Attachment A
Consolidated Report of Cash Management
City of Palo Alto Cash and Investments
City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto
Administration Svcs. Dept.
250 Hamilton Ave., 4th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650)329-2362
September 30, 2016
Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings
Investments by Fund
Par Value
Days To
Maturity
Maturity
Date
Current
RateMarket ValueCUSIPInvestment #Issuer
PurchaseDate Book Value
YTM
360
YTM
365
Managed Pool Accounts
Fidelity Investments158 2,722,307.81SYS158 10.01007/01/2015 2,722,307.81 0.009 0.0102,722,307.81
Local Agency Investment Fund159 16,562,201.58SYS159 10.63007/01/2015 16,567,270.14 0.621 0.63016,562,201.58
Subtotal and Average 19,284,509.39 19,284,509.39 19,289,577.95 0.535 0.542 1
Negotiable CD's
Comenity Capital Bank1183 NCD 245,000.0020033ABE5 05/03/2018 5791.00005/03/2013 247,053.10 0.986 1.000245,000.00
American Federal Bank1476 NCD 245,000.0002600ADE4 09/30/2022 2,1902.45009/30/2015 249,530.05 2.418 2.451245,000.00
Alpine Bank1525 NCD 245,000.0002082CBG4 08/16/2023 2,5102.40002/16/2016 246,624.35 2.367 2.400245,000.00
American City Bank1692 NCD 245,000.00025140BC7 03/30/2021 1,6411.45009/30/2016 245,009.80 1.429 1.449245,000.00
American Eagle Bank1371 NCD 245,000.0002554BCE9 05/28/2019 9691.85008/26/2014 250,206.25 1.825 1.850245,000.00
American Express Centurion Bk1178 NCD 245,000.0002587DMV7 05/02/2018 5781.10005/02/2013 247,045.75 1.084 1.100245,000.00
American Express Centurion Bk1333 NCD 245,000.0002587CAC4 07/10/2019 1,0121.95007/10/2014 251,078.45 1.923 1.950245,000.00
Barclays Bank / Delaware1187 NCD 245,000.0006740AZB8 04/30/2018 5760.70005/07/2013 248,537.80 0.690 0.699245,000.00
Bankers Bank of the West1421 NCD 245,000.0006610TDB8 12/30/2019 1,1851.85012/29/2014 252,345.10 1.824 1.850245,000.00
Belmont Savings Bank1280 NCD 245,000.00080515AT6 11/13/2018 7731.55005/13/2014 249,120.90 1.528 1.550245,000.00
Bar Harbor Bank & Trust1377 NCD 245,000.00066851SG2 08/27/2019 1,0601.75008/27/2014 251,296.50 1.726 1.750245,000.00
Bank Champaign1477 NCD 245,000.0006607ABD2 09/30/2022 2,1902.50009/30/2015 245,343.00 2.467 2.501245,000.00
Bank of Deerfield1396 NCD 245,000.00061785CM1 09/30/2020 1,4602.20009/30/2014 254,042.95 2.171 2.201245,000.00
Bank of Holland Michigan1302 NCD 245,000.00062649ZV3 05/21/2019 9621.70005/21/2014 250,899.60 1.677 1.701245,000.00
Frontier Bank Madison NE1498 NCD 245,000.0035907XCL9 11/22/2021 1,8782.00011/20/2015 245,159.25 1.974 2.001245,000.00
Bank West1472 NCD 245,000.00063615AX6 09/16/2022 2,1762.25009/16/2015 258,428.45 2.220 2.251245,000.00
Apex Bank1693 NCD 245,000.0003753XAN0 09/30/2022 2,1901.70009/30/2016 244,309.10 1.676 1.700245,000.00
BMW Bank of North America1202 NCD 245,000.0005568P3E5 05/24/2017 2350.90005/24/2013 245,490.00 0.887 0.900245,000.00
Beneficial Bank1680 NCD 245,000.0008173QBR6 09/13/2021 1,8081.50009/12/2016 244,759.90 1.479 1.500245,000.00
BankWest, Inc.1380 NCD 150,000.0006652CEY3 09/16/2019 1,0801.90009/15/2014 153,936.00 1.873 1.900150,000.00
Bofi Federal Bank1381 NCD 50,000.0009710LAF2 08/30/2022 2,1592.25008/25/2014 50,060.00 2.493 2.52749,262.38
Bofi Federal Bank1382 NCD 100,000.0009710LAE5 08/08/2022 2,1372.35008/25/2014 100,170.00 2.592 2.62898,528.74
Bofi Federal Bank1402 NCD 100,000.0009710LAF2 08/30/2022 2,1592.25010/21/2014 100,120.00 2.462 2.49698,683.54
Banco Poplar North America1478 NCD 245,000.0005965GVP8 10/07/2020 1,4672.25010/07/2015 254,018.45 2.219 2.250245,000.00
Bridgewater Bank Bloom MN1393 NCD 245,000.00108622EA5 09/24/2019 1,0881.85009/24/2014 251,465.55 1.825 1.850245,000.00
Business Bank1531 NCD 245,000.0012325EHA3 02/10/2021 1,5931.55002/10/2016 253,244.25 1.530 1.551245,000.00
Portfolio CPA
AP
Run Date: 10/18/2016 - 12:53 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.3a
September 30, 2016
Par Value
Days To
Maturity
Maturity
Date
Current
RateMarket Value
Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings
Investments by Fund Page 2
CUSIP Investment #Issuer
Purchase
Date Book Value YTM
360
YTM
365
Negotiable CD's
Worlds Foremost Bank1387 NCD 200,000.00981571AT9 09/04/2019 1,0682.10009/04/2014 205,198.00 2.072 2.101200,000.00
Campbell County Bank1307 NCD 245,000.00134204BZ8 05/30/2019 9711.65005/30/2014 251,012.30 1.628 1.650245,000.00
Cathay Bank1194 NCD 245,000.00149159HS7 04/30/2018 5761.00005/14/2013 246,009.40 0.987 1.000244,999.22
CBC National Bank1571 NCD 245,000.0012480LDV6 04/15/2021 1,6571.50004/15/2016 250,323.85 1.479 1.500245,000.00
Celtic Bank1362 NCD 245,000.0015118RJW8 08/20/2019 1,0531.90008/20/2014 251,254.85 1.875 1.901245,000.00
Central State Bank1538 NCD 245,000.0015524EAA2 02/16/2022 1,9641.70002/16/2016 254,265.90 1.678 1.701245,000.00
Centrix Bank & Trust1220 NCD 245,000.0015640ABQ3 06/27/2018 6341.30006/27/2013 246,898.75 1.282 1.300245,000.00
CIT Bank1175 NCD 245,000.0017284CCN2 04/24/2018 5701.20004/24/2013 246,271.55 1.183 1.200245,000.00
Citizens Deposit Bank1677 NCD 245,000.0017453FBP6 08/24/2021 1,7881.40008/24/2016 244,657.00 1.380 1.400245,000.00
Citizens State Bank1541 NCD 250,000.0017670BAQ1 02/17/2023 2,3301.75002/19/2016 258,312.50 1.727 1.751250,000.00
Enerbank USA1246 NCD 245,000.0029266NYZ4 01/30/2020 1,2162.05001/30/2014 253,491.70 2.021 2.050245,000.00
Community State Bank1536 NCD 245,000.0020404YBQ7 02/24/2022 1,9721.95002/24/2016 245,193.55 1.924 1.951245,000.00
Capital One Bank USA NA1384 NCD 250,000.00140420NR7 09/04/2019 1,0681.80009/04/2014 256,430.00 1.775 1.800250,000.00
Capital One Bank USA NA1457 NCD 245,000.0014042E5M8 08/12/2020 1,4112.30008/12/2015 254,434.95 2.268 2.300245,000.00
Community Bank Pasadena1627 NCD 245,000.00203507BA5 06/15/2021 1,7181.55006/16/2016 246,766.45 1.529 1.550245,000.00
Commuincity Finl Svcs Bank1530 NCD 245,000.0020364ABA2 02/17/2021 1,6001.60002/17/2016 253,229.55 1.579 1.601245,000.00
Commercial Bank1369 NCD 245,000.0020143PDB3 05/20/2019 9611.85008/19/2014 250,176.85 1.824 1.850245,000.00
Community State Bank, IA1471 NCD 245,000.0020404MAN1 09/12/2022 2,1722.25009/11/2015 258,435.80 2.224 2.255245,000.00
Discover Bank / Delaware1176 NCD 245,000.00254671NJ5 05/01/2018 5771.15005/01/2013 247,043.30 1.134 1.150245,000.00
East Boston Savings Bank1463 NCD 245,000.0027113PAL5 08/24/2020 1,4231.90008/24/2015 254,831.85 1.876 1.902245,000.00
Ever Bank1454 NCD 245,000.0029976DZK9 07/30/2020 1,3982.00007/30/2015 253,543.15 1.972 2.000245,000.00
Farmer's and Merchants Bank1360 NCD 250,000.00308702BQ1 02/16/2021 1,5992.20008/15/2014 261,645.00 2.169 2.200250,000.00
First Bank of Highland1330 NCD 245,000.00319141BV8 07/03/2019 1,0051.85007/03/2014 245,735.00 1.824 1.850245,000.00
First Business Bank1250 NCD 245,000.0031938QF25 02/19/2020 1,2362.00002/19/2014 253,712.20 1.972 2.000245,000.00
First Choice Bank / NJ1297 NCD 245,000.00319464AR4 05/28/2019 9691.70005/28/2014 250,995.15 1.677 1.701245,000.00
State Bank of Fenton (MI)1283 NCD 245,000.00856188AU1 02/15/2019 8671.65005/15/2014 248,567.20 1.630 1.653245,000.00
First Federal S&L Bank1626 NCD 245,000.0032018YAW8 06/22/2023 2,4551.80006/22/2016 246,418.55 1.776 1.800245,000.00
1st Financial Bank1485 NCD 245,000.0032022RFD4 03/16/2022 1,9922.10010/19/2015 245,139.65 2.120 2.150244,374.31
Flushing Bank1413 NCD 245,000.0034387ABA6 12/10/2018 8001.80012/10/2014 248,591.70 1.776 1.801245,000.00
First General Bank1222 NCD 245,000.00320337AR9 07/03/2018 6401.30007/03/2013 246,906.10 1.282 1.300245,000.00
First Eagle National Bank1400 NCD 245,000.0032008JAG8 10/15/2021 1,8402.45010/17/2014 259,060.55 2.416 2.449245,000.00
First National Bank of America1391 NCD 240,000.0032110YEF8 08/03/2022 2,1322.35009/09/2014 241,423.20 2.665 2.703235,566.03
Portfolio CPA
AP
Run Date: 10/18/2016 - 12:53 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.3a
September 30, 2016
Par Value
Days To
Maturity
Maturity
Date
Current
RateMarket Value
Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings
Investments by Fund Page 3
CUSIP Investment #Issuer
Purchase
Date Book Value YTM
360
YTM
365
Negotiable CD's
First Nationnal Bank / KS1537 NCD 245,000.00334342BU5 02/26/2021 1,6091.55002/26/2016 245,156.80 1.530 1.551245,000.00
The FNB of Mcgregor1480 NCD 245,000.0032112UBW0 09/30/2021 1,8252.00010/01/2015 256,301.85 1.972 1.999245,000.00
First Nat. Bank of Park Falls1473 NCD 245,000.0032114RAQ9 09/17/2021 1,8122.20009/17/2015 245,144.55 2.171 2.201245,000.00
First Premier Bank1255 NCD 245,000.0033610RNX7 03/08/2021 1,6192.50003/07/2014 258,274.10 2.465 2.500245,000.00
First Merchants Bank1351 NCD 245,000.0032082BDH9 08/06/2019 1,0391.90008/06/2014 251,262.20 1.873 1.900245,000.00
Community First Bank1555 NCD 250,000.0020369JAA9 03/17/2022 1,9931.70003/17/2016 251,112.50 1.677 1.700250,000.00
Farmer's & Merchant's SVG Bank1551 NCD 245,000.00308863AH2 02/26/2021 1,6091.55002/29/2016 250,867.75 1.528 1.550245,000.00
First Neighbor Bank, NA1469 NCD 245,000.0033581VAF6 09/03/2021 1,7982.40009/03/2015 256,757.55 2.367 2.400245,000.00
First Savings Bank Northwest1335 NCD 245,000.0033621JAB4 07/18/2019 1,0201.80007/18/2014 245,120.05 1.776 1.801245,000.00
First State Bank1366 NCD 245,000.0033648RAT6 08/20/2019 1,0531.85008/20/2014 251,330.80 1.825 1.851245,000.00
First State Bank of Purdy1475 NCD 248,000.0033646TAE7 04/13/2022 2,0202.35009/25/2015 249,232.56 2.321 2.353247,979.06
Fox Chase Bank1305 NCD 245,000.0035137QAV6 06/06/2019 9781.70006/06/2014 251,031.90 1.677 1.700245,000.00
Gulf Coast Bank & Trust1462 NCD 200,000.00402194ES9 05/20/2021 1,6922.00008/13/2015 200,380.00 1.972 1.999200,000.00
Gold Coast Bank1375 NCD 245,000.0038058KDA1 08/05/2019 1,0381.80009/04/2014 251,000.05 1.775 1.800245,000.00
GE Capital Bank1184 NCD 245,000.0036161TJR7 05/03/2018 5791.00005/03/2013 245,507.15 0.986 1.000245,000.00
GE Capital Bank1262 NCD 245,000.0036157PXV6 03/22/2021 1,6332.65003/21/2014 258,254.50 2.613 2.650245,000.00
Goldman Sachs Bank USA1177 NCD 245,000.0038147JEC2 05/01/2018 5771.15005/01/2013 246,082.90 1.134 1.150245,000.00
Happy State Bank1683 NCD 245,000.00411394AN9 09/16/2021 1,8111.50009/16/2016 244,708.45 1.500 1.520245,000.00
HSBC Bank1564 NCD 245,000.0040434AR84 10/07/2021 1,8322.00004/07/2016 248,824.45 1.972 2.000245,000.00
Dubuque Bank & Trust1372 NCD 245,000.00263849BD2 08/21/2019 1,0541.90008/21/2014 251,252.40 1.873 1.900245,000.00
Iroquois Federal Sav Loan Asso1535 NCD 245,000.0046355PBV9 08/12/2020 1,4111.60002/12/2016 245,906.50 1.578 1.600245,000.00
Investors Bank1460 NCD 245,000.0046176PEJ0 08/25/2020 1,4242.00008/25/2015 254,515.80 1.972 2.000245,000.00
Inst. for Sav in Newburyport1455 NCD 245,000.0045780PAN5 07/30/2021 1,7632.30007/31/2015 256,255.30 2.269 2.301245,000.00
Iowa State Bank1343 NCD 250,000.0046256YAB5 07/23/2019 1,0251.80007/23/2014 256,272.50 1.775 1.800250,000.00
JP Morgan Chase BAnk NA1200 NCD 245,000.0048124JD39 12/05/2018 7951.25006/05/2013 245,303.80 1.232 1.250245,000.00
Lakeside Bank1686 NCD 245,000.0051210SLR6 09/18/2023 2,5431.80009/16/2016 244,191.50 1.775 1.800245,000.00
LCA Bank Corporation1306 NCD 245,000.00501798FJ6 05/30/2019 9711.65005/30/2014 251,002.50 1.627 1.650245,000.00
Leader Bank1364 NCD 245,000.0052168UCN0 08/22/2019 1,0552.00008/22/2014 245,178.85 1.973 2.001245,000.00
Legends Bank1533 NCD 245,000.0052465JGM3 02/11/2022 1,9591.70002/12/2016 255,064.60 1.678 1.701245,000.00
Live Oak Banking Company1671 NCD 245,000.00538036CH5 08/19/2021 1,7831.40008/19/2016 244,806.45 1.381 1.400245,000.00
Luana Savings Bank1367 NCD 245,000.00549103QA0 09/07/2021 1,8022.25009/05/2014 253,832.25 2.219 2.250245,000.00
Machias Savings Bank1358 NCD 245,000.00554479DN2 08/28/2019 1,0611.80008/28/2014 251,438.60 1.776 1.801245,000.00
Portfolio CPA
AP
Run Date: 10/18/2016 - 12:53 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.3a
September 30, 2016
Par Value
Days To
Maturity
Maturity
Date
Current
RateMarket Value
Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings
Investments by Fund Page 4
CUSIP Investment #Issuer
Purchase
Date Book Value YTM
360
YTM
365
Negotiable CD's
Mascoma Savings Bank1319 NCD 248,000.0057461PAG1 01/15/2019 8361.80006/20/2014 253,322.08 1.627 1.650248,819.38
Medallion Bank - Salt Lake1238 NCD 245,000.0058403BJ31 01/10/2019 8311.85001/10/2014 250,181.75 1.825 1.850245,000.00
Merrick Bank1464 NCD 245,000.0059013JHE2 08/20/2020 1,4191.90008/20/2015 250,762.40 1.876 1.902245,000.00
Merchants National Bank OH1534 NCD 245,000.00588806AV1 02/17/2022 1,9651.80002/17/2016 254,238.95 1.776 1.801245,000.00
Mifflinburg Bank & Trust Co.1321 NCD 132,000.00598580AB4 04/30/2019 9411.65006/20/2014 135,133.68 1.627 1.649132,000.00
Marlin Business Bank1483 NCD 245,000.0057116AKU1 10/21/2020 1,4811.75010/21/2015 254,143.40 1.727 1.751245,000.00
MutualOne Bank1407 NCD 250,000.0062847HAA7 11/21/2019 1,1461.85011/21/2014 257,415.00 1.825 1.850250,000.00
MY Safra Bank FSB1467 NCD 245,000.0055406JAL6 09/03/2020 1,4331.90009/03/2015 254,626.05 1.873 1.900245,000.00
NBT Bank1322 NCD 156,000.00628779FJ4 06/06/2019 9781.80006/20/2014 159,786.12 1.775 1.799156,000.00
NBT Bank1373 NCD 94,000.00628779FN5 08/20/2019 1,0532.10008/20/2014 96,281.38 2.071 2.10094,000.00
Customers Bank1388 NCD 250,000.0023204HCA4 09/10/2019 1,0742.10009/10/2014 256,420.00 2.071 2.100250,000.00
NCB Savings Bank1344 NCD 245,000.00628825JL6 07/25/2019 1,0271.80007/25/2014 249,853.45 1.775 1.800245,000.00
National Bank Commerce1607 NCD 245,000.00633368DY8 05/11/2023 2,4131.80005/11/2016 247,114.35 1.776 1.800245,000.00
Nebraska State Bank & Trust1466 NCD 245,000.0063969ABL7 08/26/2022 2,1552.25008/26/2015 259,185.50 2.220 2.251245,000.00
Lake Sunapee Bank FSB1309 NCD 245,000.00510868AG7 06/05/2019 9771.75006/05/2014 251,027.00 1.727 1.750245,000.00
Connectone Bank1355 NCD 245,000.0020786AAT2 08/13/2019 1,0461.85008/13/2014 251,296.50 1.824 1.850245,000.00
Bank of Northern Michigan1298 NCD 245,000.0006414TNW9 05/21/2020 1,3282.00005/21/2014 253,996.40 1.972 2.000245,000.00
Northfield Bank1365 NCD 245,000.0066612AAA6 08/12/2019 1,0451.85008/13/2014 251,156.85 1.824 1.850245,000.00
Northstar Bank1326 NCD 245,000.0066704MEG2 07/18/2019 1,0201.75007/18/2014 251,208.30 1.727 1.751245,000.00
Naqtional Bank of NY City1312 NCD 245,000.00634116CB1 06/18/2019 9901.65006/18/2014 251,012.30 1.627 1.650245,000.00
Oostburg State Bank1532 NCD 245,000.00683430BU5 02/09/2021 1,5921.55002/09/2016 252,607.25 1.530 1.551245,000.00
Williamette Valley Bank1524 NCD 245,000.00969294BY2 02/06/2023 2,3192.10002/04/2016 250,458.60 2.072 2.101245,000.00
Orrstown Bank1465 NCD 245,000.00687377DR9 08/20/2020 1,4192.00008/20/2015 245,159.25 1.974 2.002245,000.00
Peoples United Bank1378 NCD 245,000.0071270QGB6 08/27/2019 1,0601.95008/27/2014 251,272.00 1.923 1.950245,000.00
Peapack-Gladstone Bank1275 NCD 245,000.00704692AK8 04/17/2019 9281.80004/17/2014 250,740.35 1.776 1.801245,000.00
Planters Bank1363 NCD 245,000.0072741PCU9 08/20/2021 1,7842.50008/20/2014 245,617.40 2.467 2.501245,000.00
Prime Alliance Bank1331 NCD 245,000.0074160NED8 07/11/2019 1,0131.70007/11/2014 251,115.20 1.677 1.701245,000.00
Park National Bank1395 NCD 250,000.00700654AV8 03/26/2019 9062.10009/26/2014 254,397.50 2.070 2.099250,000.00
Providence Bank1445 NCD 245,000.00743738BQ8 02/25/2022 1,9732.10002/26/2015 258,859.65 2.072 2.101245,000.00
Peoples State Bank, WI1304 NCD 245,000.00712515GY5 05/23/2019 9641.70005/23/2014 250,902.05 1.676 1.700245,000.00
Private Bank & Trust Co.1293 NCD 245,000.0074267GUN5 11/21/2018 7811.65005/21/2014 249,187.05 1.627 1.650245,000.00
Ohio Valley Bank1338 NCD 250,000.00677721CE0 07/23/2019 1,0251.80007/23/2014 256,350.00 1.776 1.801250,000.00
Portfolio CPA
AP
Run Date: 10/18/2016 - 12:53 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.3a
September 30, 2016
Par Value
Days To
Maturity
Maturity
Date
Current
RateMarket Value
Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings
Investments by Fund Page 5
CUSIP Investment #Issuer
Purchase
Date Book Value YTM
360
YTM
365
Negotiable CD's
Reliance Savings Bank1636 NCD 245,000.0075950XAD1 06/22/2021 1,7251.45006/22/2016 246,734.60 1.430 1.450245,000.00
Sallie Mae Bank1350 NCD 245,000.00795450SC0 07/30/2019 1,0322.05007/30/2014 251,218.10 2.021 2.050245,000.00
State Bank Definace1233 NCD 245,000.00855736CX0 07/19/2018 6561.65007/19/2013 248,829.35 1.628 1.650245,000.00
State Bank of India1390 NCD 245,000.00856284Z98 09/11/2019 1,0752.15009/11/2014 251,362.65 2.120 2.150245,000.00
State Bank of Texas1230 NCD 245,000.00856528CG7 07/17/2018 6541.60007/17/2013 245,095.55 1.578 1.600245,000.00
Security National Bank1499 NCD 245,000.00814414AC2 11/19/2021 1,8752.00011/19/2015 245,450.80 1.974 2.001245,000.00
Somerset Trust Company Bank1616 NCD 245,000.00835104BL3 06/12/2023 2,4451.80006/10/2016 246,477.35 1.776 1.800245,000.00
Bell State Bank & Trust1223 NCD 245,000.0007815AAG2 06/28/2018 6351.30006/28/2013 246,854.65 1.282 1.300245,000.00
Sterns Bank NA1221 NCD 245,000.00857894NG0 06/28/2018 6351.30006/28/2013 246,898.75 1.282 1.300245,000.00
Stockman Bank1557 NCD 245,000.0086128QBX5 03/30/2023 2,3712.00003/30/2016 247,006.55 1.973 2.000245,000.00
Third Federal Savings and Loan1242 NCD 245,000.0088413QAF5 10/22/2018 7511.75001/22/2014 249,664.80 1.726 1.750245,000.00
Thomasville Natl Bank1266 NCD 245,000.00884693BJ0 04/12/2021 1,6542.40004/11/2014 258,411.30 2.367 2.400245,000.00
Uinta Bank1639 NCD 245,000.00903572BC8 12/26/2023 2,6421.70006/24/2016 246,269.10 1.676 1.700245,000.00
United Bankers' Bank1379 NCD 245,000.00909557EA4 04/29/2019 9401.80008/29/2014 249,789.75 1.776 1.800245,000.00
United Community Bank1694 NCD 245,000.0090983WBD2 03/28/2022 2,0041.60009/29/2016 245,695.80 1.577 1.599245,000.00
Unity Bank1529 NCD 245,000.0091330ABF3 02/26/2021 1,6091.60002/26/2016 252,685.65 1.579 1.601245,000.00
Valley Central Savings Bank1422 NCD 245,000.0091944RAF5 12/30/2019 1,1851.85012/29/2014 252,345.10 1.824 1.850245,000.00
Washington Trst Westerly1345 NCD 245,000.00940637GJ4 07/31/2019 1,0331.90007/31/2014 251,237.70 1.873 1.900245,000.00
Webster Bank NA1252 NCD 245,000.0094768NJM7 02/12/2019 8641.90002/12/2014 249,985.75 1.873 1.900245,000.00
Northwest Bank1308 NCD 245,000.0066736AAK5 05/29/2019 9701.65005/29/2014 251,004.95 1.628 1.650245,000.00
Western State Bank1392 NCD 245,000.0095960NJA6 03/26/2020 1,2722.10009/26/2014 252,499.45 2.071 2.100245,000.00
Wells Fargo Bank1656 NCD 245,000.009497486H5 06/30/2021 1,7331.60006/30/2016 246,685.60 1.578 1.600245,000.00
Woodford State Bank1459 NCD 245,000.00979424AA6 07/29/2022 2,1272.35008/12/2015 258,484.80 2.317 2.349245,000.00
Zions First National Bank1417 NCD 250,000.0098970TU79 12/10/2019 1,1651.90012/08/2014 255,930.00 1.873 1.899250,000.00
Subtotal and Average 34,790,212.66 34,798,000.00 35,528,087.12 1.800 1.825 1,373
Medium Term Notes
Apple, Inc.1342 MTN 2,000,000.00037833AQ3 05/06/2019 9472.10007/15/2014 2,043,720.00 1.982 2.0102,004,418.43
Apple, Inc.1461 MTN 750,000.00037833AX8 02/07/2020 1,2241.55008/13/2015 756,765.00 1.980 2.008739,038.40
Apple, Inc.1497 MTN 1,500,000.00037833BD1 05/06/2020 1,3132.00011/05/2015 1,533,540.00 1.854 1.8791,506,183.41
Apple, Inc.1543 MTN 700,000.00037833BS8 02/23/2021 1,6062.25002/23/2016 718,060.00 2.140 2.169702,288.63
Alphabet (Google) Inc.1657 MTN 100,000.0002079KAA5 05/19/2021 1,6913.62507/11/2016 109,741.00 1.271 1.288110,458.40
Portfolio CPA
AP
Run Date: 10/18/2016 - 12:53 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.3a
September 30, 2016
Par Value
Days To
Maturity
Maturity
Date
Current
RateMarket Value
Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings
Investments by Fund Page 6
CUSIP Investment #Issuer
Purchase
Date Book Value YTM
360
YTM
365
Medium Term Notes
Alphabet (Google) Inc.1658 MTN 946,000.0038259PAB8 05/19/2021 1,6913.62507/11/2016 1,038,149.86 1.271 1.2881,044,936.45
Alphabet (Google) Inc.1660 MTN 1,500,000.0002079KAA5 05/19/2021 1,6913.62507/12/2016 1,646,115.00 1.238 1.2551,659,228.60
Johnson & Johnson1411 MTN 2,000,000.00478160BM5 12/05/2019 1,1601.87511/24/2014 2,048,220.00 1.874 1.9001,998,483.93
Johnson & Johnson1418 MTN 1,500,000.00478160BM5 12/05/2019 1,1601.87512/08/2014 1,536,165.00 1.824 1.8501,501,125.86
Johnson & Johnson1624 MTN 1,000,000.00478160BS2 03/01/2021 1,6121.65006/07/2016 1,014,680.00 1.530 1.5511,004,086.97
Microsoft Corporation1448 MTN 2,000,000.00594918AV0 02/12/2020 1,2291.85002/12/2015 2,033,120.00 1.785 1.8102,002,528.17
Microsoft Corporation1496 MTN 2,000,000.00594918BG8 11/03/2020 1,4942.00011/05/2015 2,041,460.00 1.913 1.9402,004,584.65
Microsoft Corporation1515 MTN 900,000.00594918BG8 11/03/2020 1,4942.00001/07/2016 918,657.00 1.887 1.913903,022.01
Stanford University1336 MTN 300,000.00854403AC6 05/01/2019 9424.75007/10/2014 327,033.00 1.966 1.993320,270.94
Stanford University1347 MTN 150,000.00854403AC6 05/01/2019 9424.75007/24/2014 163,516.50 1.896 1.922160,417.41
Stanford University1349 MTN 225,000.00854403AC6 05/01/2019 9424.75007/25/2014 245,274.75 1.895 1.921240,635.22
Stanford University1419 MTN 105,000.00854403AC6 05/01/2019 9424.75012/11/2014 114,461.55 1.893 1.920112,326.84
Subtotal and Average 18,014,034.32 17,676,000.00 18,288,678.66 1.776 1.801 1,328
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1028 3,000,000.0031315PPC7 02/21/2019 8731.79002/21/2012 3,057,540.00 1.765 1.7903,000,000.00
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1031 2,000,000.0031315PQC6 09/06/2018 7051.55003/06/2012 2,025,480.00 1.528 1.5502,000,000.00
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1052 1,500,000.0031315PTW9 04/10/2019 9211.87004/10/2012 1,532,010.00 1.844 1.8701,500,000.00
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1055 1,500,000.0031315PTQ2 04/10/2017 1911.26004/10/2012 1,505,505.00 1.242 1.2601,500,000.00
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1090 2,000,000.0031315PZQ5 06/05/2017 2471.11006/05/2012 2,006,780.00 1.094 1.1102,000,000.00
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1096 2,000,000.0031315PZQ5 06/05/2017 2471.11006/20/2012 2,006,780.00 0.998 1.0122,001,290.40
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1098 2,000,000.0031315PPK9 07/03/2017 2751.02007/03/2012 2,006,120.00 1.006 1.0202,000,000.00
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1109 2,000,000.0031315PSX8 08/23/2017 3261.03008/23/2012 2,004,560.00 1.015 1.0302,000,000.00
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1122 Call 1,000,000.0031315PNY1 11/21/2022 2,2422.19011/21/2012 1,000,000.00 2.163 2.193999,846.53
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1123 Call 1,500,000.0031315PQL6 11/29/2021 1,8852.00011/29/2012 1,503,360.00 1.972 2.0001,500,000.00
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1124 Call 1,750,000.0031315PNY1 11/21/2022 2,2422.19011/21/2012 1,750,000.00 2.166 2.1961,749,462.85
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1130 1,500,000.0031315PPX1 07/05/2022 2,1032.20012/13/2012 1,543,905.00 1.930 1.9571,519,060.98
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1134 750,000.0031315PB32 11/21/2022 2,2422.00012/19/2012 767,212.50 2.081 2.110745,447.91
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1136 1,500,000.0031315PTY5 12/27/2019 1,1821.48012/27/2012 1,514,940.00 1.395 1.4151,502,991.35
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1137 1,500,000.0031315PUE7 12/27/2022 2,2782.18001/04/2013 1,536,435.00 2.165 2.1961,498,658.21
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1138 740,000.0031315PEY1 12/30/2019 1,1854.50001/04/2013 819,246.60 1.514 1.535807,300.02
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1139 500,000.0031315PWN5 06/01/2021 1,7043.84001/04/2013 547,405.00 1.946 1.973539,952.03
Portfolio CPA
AP
Run Date: 10/18/2016 - 12:53 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.3a
September 30, 2016
Par Value
Days To
Maturity
Maturity
Date
Current
RateMarket Value
Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings
Investments by Fund Page 7
CUSIP Investment #Issuer
Purchase
Date Book Value YTM
360
YTM
365
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1141 1,500,000.0031315PUE7 12/27/2022 2,2782.18001/08/2013 1,536,435.00 2.195 2.2251,496,188.87
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1142 1,200,000.0031315PTW9 04/10/2019 9211.87001/09/2013 1,225,608.00 1.400 1.4201,212,998.98
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1143 451,000.0031315PPC7 02/21/2019 8731.79001/09/2013 459,650.18 1.372 1.392455,095.78
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1144 1,500,000.0031315PUE7 12/27/2022 2,2782.18001/23/2013 1,536,435.00 2.111 2.1411,503,261.54
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1147 2,595,000.0031315PUE7 12/27/2022 2,2782.18001/28/2013 2,658,032.55 2.199 2.2292,587,765.57
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1152 2,000,000.0031315PPF0 01/30/2019 8511.32002/11/2013 2,014,700.00 1.220 1.2372,003,716.74
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1155 1,500,000.0031315PPF0 01/30/2019 8511.32002/21/2013 1,511,025.00 1.262 1.2801,501,336.75
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1160 1,500,000.0031315PQM4 03/06/2018 5210.94003/07/2013 1,501,170.00 0.925 0.9371,500,041.82
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1163 1,500,000.0031315PQM4 03/06/2018 5210.94003/08/2013 1,501,170.00 0.987 1.0011,498,719.66
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1179 1,500,000.0031315PXM6 05/02/2018 5780.85005/02/2013 1,498,545.00 0.864 0.8771,499,372.85
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1186 1,450,000.0031315PXH7 01/09/2019 8302.10005/01/2013 1,485,351.00 1.055 1.0701,482,832.04
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1199 1,500,000.0031315PZZ5 03/09/2018 5240.77005/15/2013 1,496,175.00 0.961 0.9751,495,684.83
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1209 1,500,000.0031315PZZ5 03/09/2018 5240.77005/30/2013 1,496,175.00 1.151 1.1671,491,689.85
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1224 1,500,000.0031315PC98 06/12/2018 6191.18006/21/2013 1,503,855.00 1.549 1.5701,490,460.42
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1225 1,500,000.0031315PC98 06/12/2018 6191.18006/21/2013 1,503,855.00 1.575 1.5971,489,816.67
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1226 1,500,000.0031315PC98 06/12/2018 6191.18006/25/2013 1,503,855.00 1.783 1.8081,484,773.38
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1243 1,500,000.0031315PQT9 03/06/2020 1,2521.41001/15/2014 1,505,745.00 2.462 2.4961,448,446.71
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1244 1,500,000.0031315P3G2 09/09/2020 1,4392.80001/15/2014 1,587,600.00 2.635 2.6721,506,867.88
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1256 1,500,000.0031315PXH7 01/09/2019 8302.10003/05/2014 1,536,570.00 1.702 1.7261,512,164.47
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1257 300,000.0031315PTU3 03/09/2021 1,6204.16003/06/2014 329,907.00 2.574 2.609318,753.22
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1258 1,500,000.0031315P6P9 03/05/2024 2,7123.40003/07/2014 1,639,110.00 3.325 3.3721,502,619.75
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1259 1,500,000.0031315P6P9 03/05/2024 2,7123.40003/10/2014 1,639,110.00 3.424 3.4711,493,305.70
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1264 1,500,000.0031315PK40 03/26/2021 1,6372.50003/26/2014 1,571,535.00 2.495 2.5301,498,125.45
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1265 1,800,000.0031315PJ67 02/28/2019 8801.70003/28/2014 1,829,286.00 1.784 1.8091,795,490.13
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1271 1,000,000.0031315P4B2 01/30/2024 2,6773.46004/09/2014 1,095,980.00 3.297 3.3431,007,197.27
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1279 1,250,000.0031315PPX1 07/05/2022 2,1032.20004/23/2014 1,286,587.50 2.889 2.9301,203,551.62
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1399 500,000.0031315PVF3 04/03/2020 1,2801.47510/15/2014 505,160.00 1.857 1.882493,234.71
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1406 1,500,000.0031315PA58 11/20/2019 1,1451.31011/07/2014 1,509,945.00 1.854 1.8801,474,527.44
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1408 2,000,000.0031315PM22 11/20/2019 1,1451.84011/20/2014 2,045,840.00 1.814 1.8402,000,000.00
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1410 1,500,000.0031315PM22 11/20/2019 1,1451.84011/20/2014 1,534,380.00 1.848 1.8731,498,494.67
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1423 1,500,000.0031315PZ85 12/23/2019 1,1781.85012/23/2014 1,532,595.00 1.851 1.8761,498,770.22
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1427 675,000.0031315P2C2 05/05/2021 1,6772.51001/09/2015 707,859.00 2.110 2.140685,669.06
Portfolio CPA
AP
Run Date: 10/18/2016 - 12:53 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.3a
September 30, 2016
Par Value
Days To
Maturity
Maturity
Date
Current
RateMarket Value
Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings
Investments by Fund Page 8
CUSIP Investment #Issuer
Purchase
Date Book Value YTM
360
YTM
365
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1428 404,000.0031315PL23 03/27/2024 2,7343.33001/09/2015 443,014.28 2.540 2.575424,188.31
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1433 1,604,000.0031315PD89 06/12/2023 2,4452.61001/22/2015 1,681,489.24 2.269 2.3011,634,013.40
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1447 1,450,000.0031315PD89 06/12/2023 2,4452.61002/09/2015 1,520,049.50 2.377 2.4101,467,473.93
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1452 1,000,000.003130H0AJ2 03/01/2022 1,9772.15003/05/2015 1,026,950.00 2.120 2.1501,000,000.00
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1493 Call 1,000,000.003132X0CV1 10/28/2025 3,3142.98010/28/2015 1,000,320.00 2.956 2.997998,638.75
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1495 Call 1,500,000.003132X0CV1 10/28/2025 3,3142.98010/30/2015 1,500,480.00 2.985 3.0261,494,551.97
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1552 Call 1,500,000.003132X0EU1 01/27/2026 3,4052.93002/26/2016 1,500,825.00 2.831 2.8701,507,133.03
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1554 Call 1,500,000.003132X0EU1 01/27/2026 3,4052.93003/02/2016 1,500,825.00 2.878 2.9181,501,412.06
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1576 1,000,000.0031315PZS1 01/24/2023 2,3062.13004/06/2016 1,021,520.00 1.839 1.8641,015,635.23
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1580 474,000.0031315PEM7 08/04/2025 3,2294.35004/08/2016 559,732.38 2.296 2.328549,765.28
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1595 1,500,000.0031315P2J7 05/01/2024 2,7693.30004/21/2016 1,644,045.00 2.084 2.1121,623,586.82
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1604 1,500,000.0031315P2J7 05/01/2024 2,7693.30004/26/2016 1,644,045.00 2.159 2.1891,615,227.76
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1617 500,000.0031315PUE7 12/27/2022 2,2782.18005/26/2016 512,145.00 1.844 1.870509,037.05
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1655 1,500,000.0031315PQT9 03/06/2020 1,2521.41007/01/2016 1,505,745.00 0.992 1.0051,520,363.52
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1663 510,000.0031315PQT9 03/06/2020 1,2521.41007/21/2016 511,953.30 1.135 1.150514,424.39
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1665 2,000,000.003132X0BH3 07/15/2022 2,1132.38007/25/2016 2,093,720.00 1.499 1.5202,094,817.15
Federal Agricultural Mortgage1681 1,750,000.003132X0BG5 06/15/2020 1,3531.75008/24/2016 1,781,955.00 1.136 1.1521,787,823.67
Federal Agricultural Mortgage839 1,500,000.0031315PEY1 12/30/2019 1,1854.50012/30/2009 1,660,635.00 4.438 4.5001,500,000.00
Federal Agricultural Mortgage840 2,000,000.0031315PGE3 01/19/2017 1104.12501/19/2010 2,022,960.00 4.068 4.1252,000,000.00
Federal Agricultural Mortgage866 1,000,000.0031315PAT6 05/17/2017 2283.75005/17/2010 1,019,870.00 3.698 3.7501,000,000.00
Federal Agricultural Mortgage923 1,500,000.0031315PNM7 12/28/2017 4533.15012/28/2010 1,542,030.00 3.106 3.1501,500,000.00
Federal Agricultural Mortgage942 1,500,000.0031315PTU3 03/09/2021 1,6204.16003/09/2011 1,649,535.00 4.103 4.1601,500,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank1006 2,000,000.0031331KK90 10/26/2016 251.35010/26/2011 2,001,440.00 1.331 1.3502,000,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank1092 1,500,000.003133EAUF3 06/14/2019 9861.50006/14/2012 1,521,690.00 1.479 1.5001,500,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank1205 575,000.0031331JQM8 06/04/2018 6113.40005/23/2013 598,586.50 1.045 1.060596,889.86
Federal Farm Credit Bank1206 950,000.0031331YW63 06/12/2018 6194.90005/23/2013 1,014,106.00 1.045 1.0601,010,128.89
Federal Farm Credit Bank722 2,000,000.0031331YCJ7 10/30/2017 3944.90010/30/2007 2,088,860.00 4.832 4.9002,000,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank725 2,000,000.0031331YHQ6 12/15/2017 4404.62512/12/2007 2,090,120.00 4.561 4.6242,000,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank850 2,000,000.0031331JFZ1 03/08/2017 1583.37503/08/2010 2,026,080.00 3.328 3.3752,000,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank870 1,000,000.0031331JQB2 06/02/2017 2443.00006/02/2010 1,016,020.00 2.958 3.0001,000,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank872 2,000,000.0031331YEL0 11/15/2016 455.00006/04/2010 2,011,480.00 3.027 3.0702,004,250.11
Federal Farm Credit Bank903 1,000,000.0031331JN90 09/29/2020 1,4592.87509/29/2010 1,063,260.00 2.835 2.8751,000,000.00
Portfolio CPA
AP
Run Date: 10/18/2016 - 12:53 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.3a
September 30, 2016
Par Value
Days To
Maturity
Maturity
Date
Current
RateMarket Value
Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings
Investments by Fund Page 9
CUSIP Investment #Issuer
Purchase
Date Book Value YTM
360
YTM
365
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
Federal Farm Credit Bank910 2,000,000.0031331JX32 10/28/2016 271.70010/28/2010 2,002,100.00 1.676 1.7002,000,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank918 2,000,000.0031331J5F6 12/16/2020 1,5373.62512/16/2010 2,194,000.00 3.575 3.6252,000,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank925 1,500,000.0031331JX32 10/28/2016 271.70001/04/2011 1,501,575.00 2.576 2.6111,499,053.67
Federal Farm Credit Bank932 3,000,000.0031331J2M4 11/22/2016 521.87501/14/2011 3,006,750.00 2.483 2.5182,997,472.74
Federal Farm Credit Bank937 2,000,000.0031331KBX7 02/10/2017 1322.87502/10/2011 2,017,240.00 2.835 2.8752,000,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank959 1,500,000.0031331KQD5 06/27/2017 2692.30006/27/2011 1,518,705.00 2.268 2.3001,500,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1181 Call 1,500,000.003133EA4J4 10/11/2018 7401.15004/30/2013 1,500,000.00 1.137 1.1531,499,888.32
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1189 Call 1,500,000.003133ECMF8 04/24/2018 5700.98005/06/2013 1,500,000.00 0.986 1.0001,499,527.68
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1227 1,500,000.003133ECTM6 07/02/2018 6391.90007/02/2013 1,527,450.00 1.873 1.9001,500,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1241 500,000.003133ECRH9 06/06/2023 2,4392.45001/09/2014 525,780.00 3.383 3.430472,215.04
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1526 625,000.003133EAA65 07/26/2023 2,4892.12501/27/2016 644,175.00 2.024 2.052627,865.23
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1563 500,000.0031331XSS2 03/14/2022 1,9905.16003/17/2016 600,270.00 1.876 1.902583,557.64
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1565 Call 1,000,000.003133EFT98 03/28/2025 3,1002.62003/28/2016 1,000,740.00 2.596 2.632999,056.48
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1582 Call 1,500,000.003133EF3D7 04/21/2025 3,1242.54004/21/2016 1,501,440.00 2.505 2.5401,500,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1584 Call 1,500,000.003133EF3D7 04/21/2025 3,1242.54004/21/2016 1,501,440.00 2.505 2.5401,500,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1585 Call 1,500,000.003133EF4A2 04/19/2022 2,0261.92004/19/2016 1,500,495.00 1.893 1.9201,500,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1591 Call 1,500,000.003133EF2D8 04/13/2026 3,4812.64004/19/2016 1,510,740.00 2.603 2.6391,500,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1593 250,000.003133EC4L5 11/23/2021 1,8791.61004/21/2016 252,490.00 1.558 1.580250,365.89
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1596 1,000,000.003133ECPF5 05/13/2022 2,0501.87504/21/2016 1,025,230.00 1.578 1.6001,014,659.96
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1598 Call 1,000,000.003133EFX44 10/05/2022 2,1952.05004/22/2016 1,002,160.00 2.021 2.0491,000,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1603 Call 1,930,000.003133EFYV3 02/17/2026 3,4262.82004/26/2016 1,939,283.30 2.722 2.7601,939,410.92
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1606 Call 1,605,000.003133EFYF8 02/10/2025 3,0542.73004/28/2016 1,611,195.30 2.621 2.6571,613,553.10
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1609 Call 1,000,000.003133EF6T9 05/12/2025 3,1452.47005/12/2016 1,006,700.00 2.436 2.4701,000,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1612 Call 1,000,000.003133EFWF0 01/26/2023 2,3082.34005/10/2016 1,003,630.00 2.191 2.2211,006,897.51
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1615 1,000,000.003133EC7D0 12/13/2024 2,9952.12505/13/2016 1,021,120.00 1.930 1.9561,012,629.59
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1623 Call 1,500,000.003133EGEB7 06/09/2026 3,5382.57006/09/2016 1,502,925.00 2.534 2.5701,500,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1630 Call 1,000,000.003133EF2D8 04/13/2026 3,4812.64006/13/2016 1,007,160.00 2.522 2.5571,006,883.39
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1634 Call 1,000,000.003133EF2D8 04/13/2026 3,4812.64006/16/2016 1,007,160.00 2.489 2.5241,009,703.14
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1638 Call 2,000,000.003133EGGR0 06/22/2026 3,5512.50006/22/2016 1,996,580.00 2.465 2.5002,000,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1641 Call 1,500,000.003133EGHN8 06/30/2025 3,1942.42006/30/2016 1,506,660.00 2.386 2.4201,500,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1647 Call 1,500,000.003133EGJH9 01/06/2025 3,0192.24007/06/2016 1,501,020.00 2.209 2.2401,500,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1650 1,500,000.003133EGKM6 07/06/2020 1,3741.00007/06/2016 1,491,195.00 0.986 1.0001,500,000.00
Portfolio CPA
AP
Run Date: 10/18/2016 - 12:53 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.3a
September 30, 2016
Par Value
Days To
Maturity
Maturity
Date
Current
RateMarket Value
Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings
Investments by Fund Page 10
CUSIP Investment #Issuer
Purchase
Date Book Value YTM
360
YTM
365
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1653 Call 1,500,000.003133EGKF1 01/05/2023 2,2871.93007/05/2016 1,499,985.00 1.903 1.9301,500,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1659 500,000.0031331XSS2 03/14/2022 1,9905.16007/08/2016 600,270.00 1.215 1.232603,110.27
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1664 Call 1,500,000.003133EGFB6 06/16/2025 3,1802.36007/25/2016 1,508,610.00 2.309 2.3411,502,203.61
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1670 Call 1,500,000.003133EGEJ0 03/13/2024 2,7202.10008/30/2016 1,488,060.00 2.071 2.1001,500,000.00
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1675 Call 1,500,000.003133EGQA6 11/08/2023 2,5941.85008/09/2016 1,500,045.00 1.859 1.8851,496,545.26
Federal Farm Credit Bank .1679 Call 1,350,000.003133EGQH1 08/10/2026 3,6002.14008/18/2016 1,344,343.50 2.110 2.1391,350,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1012 2,000,000.00313376BR5 12/14/2018 8041.75012/16/2011 2,036,100.00 1.725 1.7492,000,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1017 2,000,000.00313376V36 01/25/2017 1161.00001/25/2012 2,003,180.00 0.986 1.0002,000,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1021 2,000,000.00313376VN2 12/22/2016 821.10001/30/2012 2,003,300.00 1.084 1.1002,000,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1027 2,000,000.003133787M7 02/27/2017 1491.05002/21/2012 2,005,220.00 1.035 1.0492,000,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1038 1,500,000.003133782N0 03/10/2017 1600.87503/08/2012 1,502,760.00 0.999 1.0131,499,109.26
Federal Home Loan Bank1039 1,500,000.003133782M2 03/08/2019 8881.50003/08/2012 1,519,605.00 1.574 1.5961,496,685.15
Federal Home Loan Bank1041 1,500,000.00313378LA7 02/25/2022 1,9732.33003/20/2012 1,575,330.00 2.298 2.3301,500,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1045 2,000,000.00313378QP9 03/28/2017 1781.26003/28/2012 2,007,200.00 1.242 1.2602,000,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1049 1,500,000.00313378VG3 05/22/2019 9631.85004/09/2012 1,532,235.00 1.824 1.8501,500,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1057 1,500,000.00313378ZW4 04/17/2017 1981.05004/17/2012 1,504,095.00 1.035 1.0501,500,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1058 1,500,000.003133792L2 10/20/2017 3841.23004/20/2012 1,507,290.00 1.213 1.2301,500,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1068 1,500,000.00313379BL2 12/29/2017 4541.25004/30/2012 1,507,905.00 1.232 1.2501,500,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1070 1,500,000.00313379BG3 04/27/2017 2081.07004/27/2012 1,504,455.00 1.055 1.0701,500,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1073 2,000,000.00313379EC9 11/18/2020 1,5092.00005/18/2012 2,059,800.00 1.972 2.0002,000,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1089 2,000,000.00313379PD5 09/20/2017 3541.09006/07/2012 2,007,320.00 1.075 1.0902,000,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1125 1,500,000.00313381C94 12/13/2019 1,1681.25011/30/2012 1,505,940.00 1.196 1.2121,501,707.74
Federal Home Loan Bank1126 Call 750,000.00313381DA0 12/05/2022 2,2562.19012/05/2012 750,015.00 2.165 2.195749,768.33
Federal Home Loan Bank1127 1,500,000.00313381GB5 11/30/2018 7901.00011/30/2012 1,502,790.00 0.986 1.0001,500,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1131 1,500,000.00313381C94 12/13/2019 1,1681.25012/13/2012 1,505,940.00 1.232 1.2491,500,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1135 1,500,000.00313376BR5 12/14/2018 8041.75012/19/2012 1,527,075.00 1.075 1.0901,521,054.98
Federal Home Loan Bank1140 1,500,000.00313376BR5 12/14/2018 8041.75001/08/2013 1,527,075.00 1.117 1.1321,519,669.07
Federal Home Loan Bank1146 Call 212,500.00313381DA0 12/05/2022 2,2562.19001/25/2013 212,504.25 2.201 2.232212,000.78
Federal Home Loan Bank1154 1,500,000.003133XRFZ8 06/08/2018 6154.75002/21/2013 1,596,960.00 1.020 1.0351,591,189.42
Federal Home Loan Bank1156 1,315,000.003133XHRJ3 12/10/2021 1,8965.00002/25/2013 1,556,328.80 1.825 1.8501,512,573.94
Federal Home Loan Bank1157 2,000,000.003133XSR59 12/14/2018 8043.75002/25/2013 2,120,220.00 1.128 1.1442,110,736.81
Federal Home Loan Bank1168 530,000.003133XSR59 12/14/2018 8043.75003/11/2013 561,858.30 1.165 1.182558,897.22
Portfolio CPA
AP
Run Date: 10/18/2016 - 12:53 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.3a
September 30, 2016
Par Value
Days To
Maturity
Maturity
Date
Current
RateMarket Value
Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings
Investments by Fund Page 11
CUSIP Investment #Issuer
Purchase
Date Book Value YTM
360
YTM
365
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
Federal Home Loan Bank1182 Call 1,500,000.00313381C29 06/04/2018 6111.05004/30/2013 1,495,575.00 1.039 1.0541,499,901.36
Federal Home Loan Bank1204 Call 557,958.01313383EP2 06/20/2018 6271.25006/20/2013 558,108.66 1.232 1.250557,958.01
Federal Home Loan Bank1212 1,500,000.00313379DT3 06/08/2018 6151.25006/05/2013 1,510,185.00 1.222 1.2391,500,267.65
Federal Home Loan Bank1213 2,000,000.00313379DT3 06/08/2018 6151.25006/06/2013 2,013,580.00 1.191 1.2082,001,368.65
Federal Home Loan Bank1216 Call 1,500,000.00313382Y98 05/16/2018 5921.00006/12/2013 1,498,875.00 1.412 1.4321,489,859.78
Federal Home Loan Bank1217 Call 1,000,000.00313382FP3 03/20/2018 5351.00006/12/2013 1,000,010.00 1.372 1.391994,457.51
Federal Home Loan Bank1228 1,500,000.00313373UU4 06/08/2018 6152.75007/01/2013 1,548,525.00 1.605 1.6271,527,173.58
Federal Home Loan Bank1240 1,500,000.00313371U79 12/11/2020 1,5323.12501/09/2014 1,616,865.00 2.615 2.6511,527,012.76
Federal Home Loan Bank1248 1,500,000.003130A0J27 01/07/2020 1,1932.22001/23/2014 1,556,475.00 2.194 2.2251,499,761.40
Federal Home Loan Bank1253 1,500,000.003130A12B3 03/13/2020 1,2592.12502/24/2014 1,553,295.00 2.095 2.1241,500,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1261 1,500,000.00313382K69 03/12/2021 1,6231.75003/13/2014 1,532,850.00 2.418 2.4511,457,222.98
Federal Home Loan Bank1267 1,500,000.00313370US5 09/11/2020 1,4412.87504/02/2014 1,600,050.00 2.271 2.3031,531,274.90
Federal Home Loan Bank1270 200,000.00313379EC9 11/18/2020 1,5092.00004/08/2014 205,980.00 2.263 2.295197,749.51
Federal Home Loan Bank1272 550,000.00313379EC9 11/18/2020 1,5092.00004/09/2014 566,445.00 2.263 2.295543,808.54
Federal Home Loan Bank1278 325,000.003133XTYY6 06/14/2019 9864.37504/22/2014 353,359.50 1.889 1.916345,472.34
Federal Home Loan Bank1314 1,500,000.00313379EE5 06/14/2019 9861.62506/04/2014 1,523,730.00 1.700 1.7241,496,153.69
Federal Home Loan Bank1318 1,500,000.00313379EE5 06/14/2019 9861.62506/16/2014 1,523,730.00 1.774 1.7991,493,281.89
Federal Home Loan Bank1324 Call 1,250,000.003133836A4 05/22/2019 9630.80006/24/2014 1,248,025.00 1.766 1.7911,218,734.80
Federal Home Loan Bank1332 1,500,000.003130A2FH4 06/14/2019 9861.75007/02/2014 1,528,380.00 1.686 1.7101,501,539.76
Federal Home Loan Bank1577 1,500,000.003130A7Q73 12/08/2021 1,8941.53004/08/2016 1,514,415.00 1.450 1.4701,504,442.36
Federal Home Loan Bank1583 Call 1,690,000.003130A7RS6 04/27/2026 3,4952.65004/27/2016 1,690,980.20 2.619 2.6551,689,191.15
Federal Home Loan Bank1587 Call 1,500,000.003130A7TA3 04/28/2023 2,4002.07004/28/2016 1,501,395.00 2.041 2.0701,500,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1597 Call 1,500,000.003130A7PC3 04/11/2025 3,1142.60004/21/2016 1,500,090.00 2.562 2.5981,500,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1599 Call 1,500,000.003130A7PC3 04/11/2025 3,1142.60004/22/2016 1,500,090.00 2.562 2.5971,500,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1605 1,000,000.00313382K69 03/12/2021 1,6231.75004/27/2016 1,021,900.00 1.490 1.5111,010,180.72
Federal Home Loan Bank1619 500,000.003133827D9 02/08/2021 1,5911.75006/02/2016 510,170.00 1.476 1.496505,305.59
Federal Home Loan Bank1620 400,000.003133XDVS7 12/11/2020 1,5325.25006/02/2016 465,544.00 1.461 1.481460,936.89
Federal Home Loan Bank1628 Call 1,500,000.003130A8F99 06/15/2026 3,5442.58006/15/2016 1,500,030.00 2.544 2.5801,500,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1632 Call 2,000,000.003130A8J46 06/29/2026 3,5582.52006/29/2016 2,000,600.00 2.485 2.5202,000,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1633 Call 1,500,000.003130A8J79 12/27/2024 3,0092.35006/27/2016 1,500,015.00 2.317 2.3501,500,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1635 Call 1,500,000.003130A8JG9 06/22/2023 2,4552.07006/22/2016 1,500,360.00 2.041 2.0701,500,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1637 Call 1,000,000.003130A8J79 12/27/2024 3,0092.35006/27/2016 1,000,010.00 2.317 2.3501,000,000.00
Portfolio CPA
AP
Run Date: 10/18/2016 - 12:53 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.3a
September 30, 2016
Par Value
Days To
Maturity
Maturity
Date
Current
RateMarket Value
Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings
Investments by Fund Page 12
CUSIP Investment #Issuer
Purchase
Date Book Value YTM
360
YTM
365
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
Federal Home Loan Bank1640 Call 1,500,000.003130A8JX2 06/29/2026 3,5582.54006/29/2016 1,500,060.00 2.505 2.5401,500,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1643 Call 1,500,000.003130A8HF3 09/23/2025 3,2792.44006/23/2016 1,500,000.00 2.430 2.4641,497,088.29
Federal Home Loan Bank1644 Call 1,500,000.003130A8HT3 12/29/2025 3,3762.47006/29/2016 1,500,015.00 2.451 2.4851,498,146.25
Federal Home Loan Bank1648 Call 1,500,000.003130A8J46 06/29/2026 3,5582.52006/29/2016 1,500,450.00 2.425 2.4591,500,438.50
Federal Home Loan Bank1649 250,000.003130A0EN6 12/10/2021 1,8962.87506/28/2016 269,182.50 1.232 1.249270,329.66
Federal Home Loan Bank1651 Call 1,500,000.003130A8MQ3 10/12/2022 2,2021.87507/12/2016 1,493,370.00 1.849 1.8751,500,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1652 Call 980,000.003130A8F99 06/15/2026 3,5442.58006/29/2016 980,019.60 2.524 2.560981,663.36
Federal Home Loan Bank1661 Call 1,000,000.003130A8SJ3 11/01/2024 2,9532.15008/01/2016 995,080.00 2.120 2.1501,000,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1662 Call 1,500,000.003130A8R54 07/28/2023 2,4911.80007/28/2016 1,487,820.00 1.795 1.8201,498,085.59
Federal Home Loan Bank1667 Call 1,500,000.003130A8VP5 08/23/2024 2,8832.00008/23/2016 1,494,810.00 1.972 2.0001,500,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1668 Call 1,500,000.003130A8VN0 11/17/2023 2,6031.94008/17/2016 1,500,000.00 1.913 1.9401,500,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank1690 Call 1,000,000.003130A94L2 09/02/2026 3,6232.12509/15/2016 991,020.00 2.129 2.158997,013.38
Federal Home Loan Bank822 3,000,000.003133XUMS9 09/13/2019 1,0774.50008/12/2009 3,301,860.00 4.437 4.4993,000,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank832 3,000,000.003133XVRJ2 12/09/2016 693.50011/19/2009 3,018,060.00 3.325 3.3723,000,638.44
Federal Home Loan Bank860 1,500,000.003133XHVS8 12/09/2016 695.00004/26/2010 1,513,140.00 3.430 3.4781,503,820.61
Federal Home Loan Bank911 1,500,000.00313371PV2 12/09/2016 691.62511/09/2010 1,503,510.00 1.602 1.6241,500,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank920 1,500,000.00313371PV2 12/09/2016 691.62512/15/2010 1,503,510.00 2.550 2.5851,497,491.67
Federal Home Loan Bank926 1,500,000.00313371PV2 12/09/2016 691.62501/04/2011 1,503,510.00 2.592 2.6291,497,380.83
Federal Home Loan Bank940 2,000,000.003133X0PF0 08/15/2018 6835.37502/17/2011 2,167,260.00 3.423 3.4702,062,303.78
Federal Home Loan Bank982 2,000,000.00313375KP1 03/15/2017 1651.50009/15/2011 2,009,860.00 1.479 1.5002,000,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank985 2,000,000.00313375M87 10/14/2016 131.27009/14/2011 2,000,700.00 1.252 1.2702,000,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank992 2,000,000.00313371ZX7 12/08/2017 4332.62509/13/2011 2,043,600.00 1.526 1.5472,024,261.97
Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1036 1,500,000.003137EABA6 11/17/2017 4125.12503/01/2012 1,572,900.00 1.227 1.2441,563,163.02
Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1106 1,500,000.003134G3A91 08/22/2019 1,0551.40008/22/2012 1,513,920.00 1.380 1.4001,500,000.00
Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1113 1,500,000.003134G3L73 12/26/2019 1,1811.50009/26/2012 1,521,270.00 1.479 1.5001,500,000.00
Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1153 1,500,000.003137EADP1 03/07/2018 5220.87502/11/2013 1,501,170.00 0.960 0.9731,497,941.65
Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1166 1,500,000.003137EADN6 01/12/2018 4680.75003/15/2013 1,499,565.00 0.948 0.9621,496,029.35
Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1273 2,000,000.003134G45T1 12/10/2021 1,8962.00004/10/2014 2,052,900.00 2.564 2.6001,943,821.65
Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1277 1,000,000.003134G45T1 12/10/2021 1,8962.00004/22/2014 1,026,450.00 2.643 2.680968,251.48
Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1282 300,000.003134G3A91 08/22/2019 1,0551.40005/01/2014 302,784.00 1.914 1.941295,554.91
Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1286 300,000.003134G35V8 03/13/2020 1,2591.65005/02/2014 305,913.00 2.053 2.082295,806.26
Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1287 300,000.003134G3U40 11/21/2019 1,1461.45005/02/2014 303,666.00 1.938 1.965295,421.21
Portfolio CPA
AP
Run Date: 10/18/2016 - 12:53 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.3a
September 30, 2016
Par Value
Days To
Maturity
Maturity
Date
Current
RateMarket Value
Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings
Investments by Fund Page 13
CUSIP Investment #Issuer
Purchase
Date Book Value YTM
360
YTM
365
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1291 1,000,000.003134G3K58 03/19/2020 1,2651.50005/06/2014 1,011,550.00 2.041 2.070981,477.86
Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1292 1,000,000.003134G44G0 05/22/2020 1,3291.50005/06/2014 1,009,100.00 2.091 2.120978,907.12
Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1301 1,000,000.003134G3L73 12/26/2019 1,1811.50005/13/2014 1,014,180.00 1.945 1.972985,603.06
Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1352 1,000,000.003134G43G1 05/07/2019 9481.20007/25/2014 1,006,170.00 1.765 1.790985,357.45
Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1588 Call 2,000,000.003134G8ZK8 04/28/2023 2,4001.75004/28/2016 2,000,200.00 2.096 2.1252,000,000.00
Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1590 Call 2,000,000.003134G8ZK8 04/28/2023 2,4001.75004/28/2016 2,000,200.00 2.096 2.1252,000,000.00
Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1678 Call 1,000,000.003134GAEF7 09/29/2021 1,8241.65009/29/2016 998,380.00 1.627 1.6501,000,000.00
Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.993 2,000,000.003137EAAY5 08/23/2017 3265.50009/13/2011 2,085,160.00 1.415 1.4352,069,461.72
Federal National Mortgage Asso1022 2,000,000.0031398ADM1 06/12/2017 2545.37501/25/2012 2,066,240.00 1.317 1.3362,054,165.20
Federal National Mortgage Asso1023 2,590,000.003136FPXN2 11/24/2017 4192.30001/25/2012 2,635,014.20 1.406 1.4262,614,828.17
Federal National Mortgage Asso1033 3,000,000.003135G0JA2 04/27/2017 2081.12503/01/2012 3,009,360.00 1.134 1.1502,999,583.78
Federal National Mortgage Asso1035 2,000,000.0031398ALG5 01/23/2018 4794.37703/01/2012 2,093,600.00 1.388 1.4082,074,447.88
Federal National Mortgage Asso1048 2,000,000.003136G0AW1 10/16/2020 1,4762.35004/16/2012 2,088,880.00 2.317 2.3502,000,000.00
Federal National Mortgage Asso1059 2,000,000.003136G0DU2 04/30/2020 1,3072.00004/30/2012 2,059,560.00 1.972 2.0002,000,000.00
Federal National Mortgage Asso1061 1,500,000.003136G0EC1 04/30/2020 1,3072.05004/30/2012 1,547,940.00 2.021 2.0501,500,000.00
Federal National Mortgage Asso1066 2,000,000.003136G0FJ5 10/30/2020 1,4902.00004/30/2012 2,061,620.00 1.972 2.0002,000,000.00
Federal National Mortgage Asso1082 450,000.003136FPYB7 05/23/2017 2342.05005/11/2012 454,036.50 1.070 1.085452,716.01
Federal National Mortgage Asso1118 500,000.003136FPXN2 11/24/2017 4192.30010/18/2012 508,690.00 0.927 0.940507,599.16
Federal National Mortgage Asso1149 1,500,000.003135G0TG8 02/08/2018 4950.87501/31/2013 1,502,010.00 1.019 1.0341,496,862.93
Federal National Mortgage Asso1174 1,500,000.003135G0WJ8 05/21/2018 5970.87504/15/2013 1,501,335.00 0.905 0.9171,498,968.46
Federal National Mortgage Asso1190 Call 1,000,000.003135G0XD0 05/21/2018 5971.00005/21/2013 999,580.00 0.996 1.010999,836.11
Federal National Mortgage Asso1191 Call 2,000,000.003135G0XA6 05/21/2018 5971.03005/21/2013 2,000,180.00 1.015 1.0302,000,000.00
Federal National Mortgage Asso1197 1,500,000.003135G0WJ8 05/21/2018 5970.87505/21/2013 1,501,335.00 0.986 1.0001,497,009.68
Federal National Mortgage Asso1210 Call 1,500,000.003135G0XK4 05/25/2018 6011.05005/30/2013 1,499,340.00 1.035 1.0501,500,000.00
Federal National Mortgage Asso1214 Call 1,500,000.003135G0XD0 05/21/2018 5971.00006/07/2013 1,499,370.00 1.262 1.2791,493,352.58
Federal National Mortgage Asso1268 1,500,000.003136FTR43 08/28/2020 1,4272.00004/08/2014 1,547,565.00 2.172 2.2021,488,979.52
Federal National Mortgage Asso1276 1,000,000.003136G0U58 04/30/2021 1,6721.75004/16/2014 1,016,850.00 2.364 2.397972,863.73
Federal National Mortgage Asso1288 250,000.003136G0M57 04/09/2021 1,6511.75005/02/2014 254,970.00 2.452 2.486242,391.37
Federal National Mortgage Asso1290 1,000,000.003136G0Y70 01/30/2019 8511.08005/05/2014 1,002,480.00 1.633 1.656987,136.97
Federal National Mortgage Asso1315 1,200,000.003136G0YK1 08/28/2019 1,0611.50006/05/2014 1,216,260.00 1.815 1.8401,188,723.76
Federal National Mortgage Asso1317 1,000,000.003136G02P5 04/29/2019 9401.20006/12/2014 1,006,620.00 1.765 1.790985,495.96
Federal National Mortgage Asso1546 Call 1,000,000.003136G3AN5 03/16/2021 1,6271.50003/16/2016 1,000,220.00 1.978 2.0061,000,000.00
Portfolio CPA
AP
Run Date: 10/18/2016 - 12:53 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.3a
September 30, 2016
Par Value
Days To
Maturity
Maturity
Date
Current
RateMarket Value
Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings
Investments by Fund Page 14
CUSIP Investment #Issuer
Purchase
Date Book Value YTM
360
YTM
365
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
Federal National Mortgage Asso1654 1,000,000.003136G0EG2 04/23/2021 1,6652.28006/30/2016 1,042,340.00 1.171 1.1871,048,291.67
Federal National Mortgage Asso1669 Call 1,350,000.003136G3XZ3 07/28/2021 1,7611.50007/28/2016 1,343,614.50 1.505 1.5261,348,371.56
Federal National Mortgage Asso1687 Call 1,050,000.003136G36A8 09/27/2024 2,9182.00009/27/2016 1,045,065.00 1.972 2.0001,050,000.00
Federal National Mortgage Asso991 2,000,000.0031359M4D2 02/13/2017 1355.00009/13/2011 2,032,800.00 1.272 1.2902,026,194.22
State of Tennessee1676 MUN 700,000.00880541XX0 08/01/2025 3,2262.06608/25/2016 699,818.00 1.893 1.920708,250.60
Tennessee Valley Authority1132 500,000.00880591EL2 02/15/2021 1,5983.87512/14/2012 554,645.00 1.596 1.618546,031.87
Tennessee Valley Authority1133 1,010,000.00880591EN8 08/15/2022 2,1441.87512/14/2012 1,030,331.30 1.893 1.9201,007,567.98
Tennessee Valley Authority1145 1,500,000.00880591EL2 02/15/2021 1,5983.87501/23/2013 1,663,935.00 1.647 1.6691,634,769.00
Tennessee Valley Authority1170 1,500,000.00880591EC2 04/01/2018 5474.50003/25/2013 1,580,700.00 0.913 0.9261,578,397.77
Tennessee Valley Authority1260 1,160,000.00880591EL2 02/15/2021 1,5983.87503/12/2014 1,286,776.40 2.427 2.4611,225,548.61
Tennessee Valley Authority1508 1,000,000.00880591CJ9 11/01/2025 3,3186.75011/20/2015 1,389,840.00 2.807 2.8461,306,883.24
Tennessee Valley Authority1519 750,000.00880591ER9 09/15/2024 2,9062.87501/15/2016 811,260.00 2.564 2.600764,588.50
Tennessee Valley Authority1589 775,000.00880591CJ9 11/01/2025 3,3186.75004/18/2016 1,077,126.00 2.337 2.3701,049,515.45
Tennessee Valley Authority861 2,000,000.00880591EA6 07/18/2017 2905.50004/26/2010 2,075,780.00 3.602 3.6522,025,664.55
Tennessee Valley Authority954 2,000,000.00880591CU4 12/15/2017 4406.25005/23/2011 2,129,140.00 2.624 2.6612,078,913.77
Subtotal and Average 361,814,802.60 359,133,458.01 367,181,419.34 1.970 1.997 1,387
Treasury Securities - Coupon
U.S. Treasury1201 TB 2,000,000.00912828UJ7 01/31/2018 4870.87505/16/2013 2,004,220.00 0.779 0.7902,002,210.74
U.S. Treasury1237 TB 2,000,000.00912828SD3 01/31/2019 8521.25001/07/2014 2,019,460.00 1.682 1.7051,979,707.43
U.S. Treasury1284 TB 1,500,000.00912828TH3 07/31/2019 1,0330.87505/02/2014 1,500,345.00 1.726 1.7501,464,657.58
U.S. Treasury1285 TB 1,500,000.00912828TN0 08/31/2019 1,0641.00005/02/2014 1,504,800.00 1.755 1.7801,467,627.51
U.S. Treasury1289 TB 1,500,000.00912828SX9 05/31/2019 9721.12505/05/2014 1,511,130.00 1.692 1.7161,477,489.37
U.S. Treasury1299 TB 1,500,000.00912828SX9 05/31/2019 9721.12505/13/2014 1,511,130.00 1.654 1.6771,478,935.99
U.S. Treasury1316 TB 1,500,000.00912828TC4 06/30/2019 1,0021.00006/10/2014 1,505,745.00 1.687 1.7111,472,075.73
Subtotal and Average 11,342,704.35 11,500,000.00 11,556,830.00 1.536 1.558 889
Municipal Bonds
Acalanes Union High School Dis1494 MUN 1,000,000.00004284B38 08/01/2021 1,7652.38110/30/2015 1,032,460.00 2.120 2.1501,010,434.96
Burlingame School District1548 MUN 730,000.00121457EQ4 08/01/2025 3,2266.23802/24/2016 869,313.20 3.557 3.606872,720.26
Carlsbad Unified School Dist .1547 MUN 300,000.00142665DH8 08/01/2021 1,7654.58402/24/2016 337,278.00 2.130 2.159332,991.72
Carlsbad Unified School Dist .1556 MUN 1,250,000.00142665DH8 08/01/2021 1,7654.58403/04/2016 1,405,325.00 2.138 2.1681,386,818.76
Cerritos Community College Dis1523 MUN 500,000.00156792GV9 08/01/2021 1,7652.78101/27/2016 526,150.00 2.012 2.040516,851.86
Portfolio CPA
AP
Run Date: 10/18/2016 - 12:53 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.3a
September 30, 2016
Par Value
Days To
Maturity
Maturity
Date
Current
RateMarket Value
Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings
Investments by Fund Page 15
CUSIP Investment #Issuer
Purchase
Date Book Value YTM
360
YTM
365
Municipal Bonds
Fremon Union High School Distr1646 MUN 525,000.00357172VA0 02/01/2026 3,4106.08006/28/2016 659,300.25 2.994 3.035655,269.33
State of Georgia1613 MUN 500,000.00373384RU2 10/01/2022 2,1913.57005/17/2016 545,420.00 1.878 1.904546,966.35
State of Georgia1645 MUN 365,000.00373384W69 02/01/2023 2,3143.25006/27/2016 393,331.30 1.898 1.925393,629.22
State of Georgia1666 MUN 1,825,000.003733844V5 02/01/2025 3,0452.37507/29/2016 1,859,729.75 1.972 1.9991,877,193.09
State of Georgia1691 MUN 385,000.00373384RU2 10/01/2022 2,1913.57009/26/2016 419,973.40 1.630 1.653427,056.30
State of Maryland1689 MUN 485,000.005741925C0 03/01/2022 1,9774.30009/16/2016 555,208.60 1.534 1.555554,013.28
Mtn. View-Whisman School Dist.1348 MUN 500,000.0062451FFK1 08/01/2021 1,7652.97307/24/2014 525,945.00 2.893 2.933504,868.14
Mt. San Antonio Community Coll1489 MUN 1,335,000.00623040GX4 08/01/2023 2,4954.10310/26/2015 1,498,096.95 2.490 2.5251,464,942.26
State of Ohio1550 MUN 1,500,000.00677522HZ0 05/01/2021 1,6731.57003/09/2016 1,514,580.00 1.548 1.5691,500,000.00
State of Ohio1688 MUN 800,000.00677522JB1 05/01/2023 2,4032.11009/13/2016 809,376.00 1.764 1.788815,879.40
State of Oregon1682 MUN 570,000.0068609BGH4 05/01/2022 2,0382.50008/29/2016 597,861.60 1.528 1.550598,827.65
Palo Alto Unified School Dist.1192 MUN 2,000,000.00697379UE3 08/01/2021 1,7652.44105/10/2013 2,076,120.00 2.031 2.0602,033,695.24
Palo Alto Unified School Dist.1193 MUN 1,800,000.00697379UE3 08/01/2021 1,7652.44105/13/2013 1,868,508.00 2.031 2.0601,830,324.71
Palo Alto Unified School Dist.1195 MUN 1,990,000.00697379UE3 08/01/2021 1,7652.44105/15/2013 2,065,739.40 2.051 2.0802,021,744.40
Palo Alto Unified School Dist.1437 MUN 200,000.00697379UE3 08/01/2021 1,7652.44101/27/2015 207,612.00 2.041 2.070203,337.47
Palo Alto Unified School Dist.1610 MUN 1,000,000.00697379UE3 08/01/2021 1,7652.44105/12/2016 1,038,060.00 1.528 1.5501,041,198.83
Palo Alto Unified School Dist.1684 MUN 600,000.00697379UD5 08/01/2020 1,4002.29109/02/2016 619,194.00 1.290 1.308621,966.39
City & County of San Francisco1441 MUN 360,000.00797646NL6 06/15/2022 2,0834.95002/09/2015 414,910.80 2.416 2.450406,722.21
City & County of San Francisco1509 MUN 1,000,000.00797646NC6 06/15/2025 3,1795.45011/27/2015 1,248,550.00 3.067 3.1101,175,059.15
San Jose Unified School Dist.1435 MUN 580,000.00798186C83 08/01/2023 2,4952.50001/29/2015 592,435.20 2.663 2.700572,959.19
San Mateo Union High School Dt1516 MUN 245,000.00799017KT4 09/01/2019 1,0652.19301/08/2016 251,210.75 1.775 1.800247,703.77
San Mateo Union High School Dt1518 MUN 180,000.00799017KV9 09/01/2021 1,7962.72001/19/2016 188,002.80 2.046 2.075185,358.85
State of Tennessee1673 MUN 1,000,000.00880541XY8 08/01/2026 3,5912.11608/25/2016 988,230.00 1.923 1.9501,014,759.90
State of Tennessee1674 MUN 1,650,000.00880541XX0 08/01/2025 3,2262.06608/25/2016 1,649,571.00 1.893 1.9201,669,447.84
State of Texas1482 MUN 920,000.00882723PP8 10/01/2021 1,8262.58910/14/2015 969,275.20 1.864 1.890950,266.16
State of Texas1586 MUN 1,000,000.00882722KA8 10/01/2023 2,5565.64304/19/2016 1,131,980.00 3.339 3.3851,138,600.00
State of Texas1592 MUN 235,000.00882722JZ5 10/01/2022 2,1915.50304/21/2016 266,022.35 3.047 3.090265,631.03
State of Texas1621 MUN 500,000.00882723A41 10/01/2020 1,4611.77706/07/2016 508,235.00 1.450 1.470505,921.24
State of Texas1625 MUN 485,000.00882722KC4 10/01/2025 3,2875.91306/09/2016 552,613.85 3.831 3.885558,652.34
University of California1340 MUN 1,875,000.0091412GSB2 07/01/2019 1,0031.79607/14/2014 1,898,287.50 2.007 2.0351,863,324.43
University of California1356 MUN 425,000.0091412GGU3 05/15/2020 1,3223.34807/31/2014 452,348.75 2.281 2.313439,825.65
University of California1368 MUN 250,000.0091412GGT6 05/15/2019 9563.04808/08/2014 260,655.00 1.982 2.010256,454.61
Portfolio CPA
AP
Run Date: 10/18/2016 - 12:53 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.3a
September 30, 2016
Par Value
Days To
Maturity
Maturity
Date
Current
RateMarket Value
Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings
Investments by Fund Page 16
CUSIP Investment #Issuer
Purchase
Date Book Value YTM
360
YTM
365
Municipal Bonds
University of California1383 MUN 955,000.0091412GSB2 07/01/2019 1,0031.79608/27/2014 966,861.10 1.972 2.000949,904.11
University of California1414 MUN 750,000.0091412GSB2 07/01/2019 1,0031.79611/28/2014 759,315.00 1.923 1.950746,972.50
University of California1420 MUN 1,500,000.0091412GSB2 07/01/2019 1,0031.79612/12/2014 1,518,630.00 1.943 1.9701,493,159.40
University of California1481 MUN 260,000.0091412GQB4 05/15/2020 1,3221.99510/08/2015 264,425.20 1.824 1.850261,301.32
State of Utah1622 MUN 750,000.00917542QT2 07/01/2020 1,3693.28906/07/2016 804,090.00 1.430 1.450800,044.06
State of Vermont1456 MUN 2,000,000.00924258TT3 08/15/2023 2,5094.25008/06/2015 2,107,580.00 3.275 3.3202,111,291.46
State of Washington1672 MUN 250,000.0093974DHW1 08/01/2022 2,1302.74008/08/2016 261,765.00 1.504 1.524266,869.81
West Valley-Mission Community1479 MUN 250,000.0095640HBT4 08/01/2024 2,8616.09010/01/2015 280,187.50 4.030 4.086282,636.18
Subtotal and Average 39,373,594.83 37,580,000.00 39,759,764.45 2.194 2.225 2,077
Total Investments and Average 484,619,858.15 479,971,967.40 491,604,357.52 1.901 1.928 1,373
Portfolio CPA
AP
Run Date: 10/18/2016 - 12:53 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.3a
1 General Investment Guidelines:
a) The max. stated final maturity of individual securities in the portfolio should be 10 years.Full Compliance
b) A max. of 30 percent of the par value of the portfolio shall be invested in securities with maturities
beyond 5 years.29.6%
c) The City shall maintain a minimum of one month's cash needs in short term investments.Full Compliance
d) At least $50 million shall be maintained in securities maturing in less than 2 years.
Plus two managed pool accounts which provide instant liquidity:
- Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) - maximum investment limit is $50 million $16.6 million
- Fidelity Investments
e) Should market value of the portfolio fall below 95 percent of the book value, report this fact within a
reasonable time to the City Council and evaluate if there are risk of holding securities to maturity.101.4%
d) Commitments to purchase securities newly introduced on the market shall be made no more than three (3)
working days before pricing.Full Compliance
f) Whenever possible, the City will obtain three or more quotations on the purchase or sale of
comparable securities (excludes new issues, LAIF, City of Palo Alto bonds, money market
accounts, and mutual funds).Full Compliance
2 U.S. Government Securities:Full Compliance
a) There is no limit on purchase of these securities.
b) Securities will not exceed 10 years maturity.
3 U.S. Government Agency Securities:Full Compliance
a) There is no limit on purchase of these securities except for:
Callable and Multi-step-up securities provided that:
- The potential call dates are known at the time of purchase;Full Compliance
- the interest rates at which they "step-up" are known at the time of purchase; and Full Compliance
- the entire face value of the security is redeemed at the call date.Full Compliance
- No more than 25 percent of the par value of portfolio.19.2%
b) Securities will not exceed 10 years maturity.
4 Bonds of the State of California Local Government Agencies Full Compliance
a)Having at time of investment a minimum Double A (AA/AA2) rating as provided by a nationally 7.8%
recognized rating service (e.g., Moody’s and/or Standard and Poor’s).
b)May not exceed 10 percent of the par value of the portfolio.
5 Certificates of Deposit:Full Compliance
a) May not exceed 20 percent of the par value of the portfolio;
b) No more than 10 percent of the par value of the portfolio in collateralized CDs in any institution.
c) Purchase collateralized deposits only from federally insured large banks that are rated by
a nationally recognized rating agency (e.g. Moody's, Standard & Poor's, etc.).
d) For non-rated banks, deposit should be limited to amounts federally insured (FDIC)
e) Rollovers are not permitted without specific instruction from authorized City staff.
6 Banker's Acceptance Notes:None Held
a) No more than 30 percent of the par value of the portfolio.
b) Not to exceed 180 days maturity.
c) No more than $5 million with any one institution.
Attachment C
Investment Policy Compliance
As of September 30, 2016
Investment Policy Requirements
Compliance
Check
$139.8 million
$2.7 million
2.4%
Attachment C
Investment Policy Compliance
As of September 30, 2016
Investment Policy Requirements
Compliance
Check
7 Commercial Paper:None Held
a) No more than 15 percent of the par value of the portfolio.
b) Having highest letter or numerical rating from a nationally recognized rating service.
c) Not to exceed 270 days maturity.
d) No more than $3 million or 10 percent of the outstanding commercial paper of any one institution,
whichever is lesser.
8 Short-Term Repurchase Agreement (REPO):None Held
a) Not to exceed 1 year.
b) Market value of securities that underlay a repurchase agreement shall be valued at 102 percent or
greater of the funds borrowed against those securities.
9 Money Market Deposit Accounts Full Compliance
a) Liquid bank accounts which seek to maintain a net asset value of $1.00.
10 Mutual Funds:None Held
a) No more than 20 percent of the par value of the portfolio.
b) No more than 10 percent of the par value with any one institution.
11 Negotiable Certificates of Deposit (NCD):Full Compliance
a) No more than 10 percent of the par value of the portfolio.7.3%
b) No more than $5 million in any one institution.FDIC Insured
12 Medium-Term Corporate Notes:Full Compliance
a) No more than 10 percent of the par value of the portfolio.3.7%
b) Not to exceed 5 years maturity.
c) Securities eligible for investment shall have a minimum rating of AA from a nationally recognized
rating service.
d) No more than $5 million of the par value may be invested in securities of any single issuer, other
than the U.S. Government, its agencies and instrumentality.
e) If securities owned by the City are downgraded by either rating agencies to a level below AA it
shall be the City's policy to review the credit situation and make a determination as to whether
to sell or retain such securities.
13 Prohibited Investments:
a) Reverse Repurchase Agreements
b) Derivatives as defined in Appendix B of the Investment Policy
14 All securities shall be delivered to the City's safekeeping custodian, and held in the name of the
City, with the exception of :
- Certificates of Deposit, Mutual Funds, and LAIF
Full Compliance
None Held
Full Compliance
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
November 7, 2016
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Independent Police Auditors Second Report- 2015
Attached you will find the Independent Police Auditor’s Second Report- 2015.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: PAPD 2nd Half of 2015 IPA Final (PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 2
1
OIR
GROUP www.oirgroup.com
INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITOR’S SECOND
REPORT - 2015
Presented to the Honorable City Council
City of Palo Alto
November 2016
Prepared by: Michael Gennaco and Stephen Connolly
Independent Police Auditors
for the City of Palo Alto
Michael.Gennaco@oirgroup.com
Stephen.Connolly@oirgroup.com
2
I. Introduction
This reports addresses materials received by the Independent Police Auditor (“IPA”) for
review from the second half of 2015. Per an oversight protocol established by the City of Palo
Alto in 2006, the Palo Alto Police Department (“PAPD”) sends completed cases to us from
within three categories: complaint investigations, internally generated misconduct
investigations, and reviews of Taser deployments. We then evaluate those cases for both the
effectiveness of the process and the legitimacy of the results; where applicable, we also offer
recommendations to the Department regarding best practices and systemic reforms.
The report features a discussion of five allegations of misconduct, and one use of the
Taser to apprehend the suspect in an attempted burglary.
II. Case Reviews
Case # 1
Factual Overview:
A citizen complained that a PAPD supervisor refused to take a witness statement from
him as his friend’s car was being towed for being in violation of a City ordinance. The
supervisor had responded to the location because civilian police department employees had
experienced issues with the owner of the vehicle in the past.
The supervisor’s body-worn camera video captured the encounter with the complainant
and was available for review. The complainant told the supervisor that he was a friend of the
vehicle’s owner and indicated that the vehicle should not be towed since he had seen it moved
recently. The complainant repeatedly asked the supervisor to take his witness statement
regarding his observation that the vehicle had been moved. The supervisor explained to the
complainant that he was not the investigating officer and that his role was limited to keeping the
peace. The supervisor told the complainant that if he caused a disturbance regarding the tow, he
would be required to take action. The supervisor further explained that if the complainant
obstructed the process, that he and the complainant would have some problems.
The supervisor advised the complainant that he could accompany the owner of the
vehicle to contest the tow at a subsequent hearing. The supervisor declined to take the
complainant’s statement and instead provided him the telephone number for PAPD
Communications, told him the name of the supervisor who had authorized the tow, and
suggested that he call her instead. The complainant asked the supervisor to call the watch
commander to the scene but the supervisor indicated that he was unwilling to do so. The
complainant made several phone calls to the police department, including the supervisor
responsible for Internal Affairs, but was not successful at the scene in reaching the sought after
personnel.
3
The towing process was completed without further incident.
Outcome and Analysis
PAPD determined that the physical evidence established that the car in question had not
been recently moved and that the tow was consistent with Police Department and City policy.
The investigation further noted that, in general, the supervisor sounded calm and professional
when communicating with the complainant. The investigation found that the supervisor
provided the complainant with answers to his questions and displayed good command presence
without escalating the situation. Accordingly, it determined that the allegations were not
supported. We concur with this outcome.
The investigation into whether the tow was consistent with Departmental and City policy
was extremely thorough, and important documents, video, witnesses and audio evidence were
identified and included with the investigation. We also agree that, overall, the supervisor’s
interaction with the complainant was professional and not in violation of Departmental policy.
However, the interaction might well have had a better outcome had the supervisor agreed
to take a brief statement from the complainant about his assertion on behalf of the vehicle owner.
While the supervisor was technically correct that he was not called to the location to conduct an
investigation, interviewing the complainant on his (already recording) body camera seems to
have been an alternative worth considering. Instead, the supervisor referred the complainant to
an appeal process that could be engaged only after the towing was completed, and to other
Department members whom the complainant could not successfully reach. The ensuing
complaint required Departmental effort and attention that could perhaps have been preempted by
a small investment of patience and flexibility on the front end.
A review of the body-worn camera footage also showed that the supervisor became
aggravated with the complainant during parts of the encounter. At one point, the supervisor told
the complainant that he was asking “dumb” questions and said that a comment made by the
complainant was “ridiculous.” More directly, the supervisor told the complainant at one point
that he was starting to irritate him.
Though these small shortcomings did not rise to the level of a policy violation, in our
view they did seem to merit at least an informal intervention by Department management as a
means of strengthening performance. As controlled and professional as the supervisor managed
to be on the whole, his flashes of annoyance and steadfast refusal to accept the witness statement
were less than ideal – particularly as an example for lower-ranking officers. In our view, the
encounter had the makings of a “teachable moment,” and ideally some sort of relevant
interaction would have occurred between the supervisor and PAPD command staff.
Dealing with sometimes difficult and emotional people comes with the job of being a
police officer. Though occasional lapses in professionalism can seem understandable or
4
justified, these small moments can have a cumulative effect on Department culture and
community relations. In situations like this, we encourage the Department to look beyond the
“bottom line” outcome of a complaint and find creative ways to promote performance that
exceeds the floor of a given policy.
Case # 2:
Factual Overview:
The complainant alleged that he had been subjected to racial discrimination after his
vehicle had been stopped by a PAPD officer. In a written document, the complainant indicated
that he had been stopped because the officer told him that one of his headlights was out.
According to the complaint, the officer initially intended to only give him a verbal warning but
when the complainant indicated his intent to file a complaint against the officer, the officer then
wrote him a citation. The complainant indicated that he called for a supervisor and that while
waiting for the supervisor to arrive he believed the officer called him the “N” word.
A PAPD internal investigator contacted the complainant but the complainant would not
agree to be interviewed unless the citation was voided. When the investigator declined to
dismiss the complaint, the complainant declined to participate further in the investigation, but to
PAPD’s credit, the investigation proceeded without further cooperation from the complainant.
The vehicle stop and subsequent conversation between the officer and the complaint were
captured on the officer’s patrol car video/audio recording. The recording indicated that the
officer told the complainant that he was pulled over because one of his headlights was out. The
officer then asked for the complainant’s driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance,
which the complainant provided to the officer. The officer called out information over the radio,
soon returned to the complainant’s vehicle, returned the driver’s documents, and told him to get
the front headlight fixed.
At that point, the complainant asked the officer his name and indicated that he intended to
make a complaint against the officer because he had stopped him for no reason. The officer then
instructed the complainant to give him his driver’s license back so that he could write a citation
for the offense. When the officer returned with the citation for signature, the complainant said
that he had asked for a supervisor to come to the stop because he felt threatened by the officer.
Nowhere in the recording is there any apparent use of the “N” word (or any other racially
derogatory word) by the officer.
Eventually, a PAPD supervisor responded to the location and talked with the officer. The
officer provided the supervisor his account of the incident. The supervisor then talked with the
complainant who focused on the fact that the officer had decided to cite him only after he had
told the officer he wanted to make a complaint against the officer. The supervisor told the
5
complainant that the officer could have issued the citation to him immediately but that if the
motorist wished to make a complaint he could do so the next day.
Outcome and Analysis:
PAPD determined that the allegation of racial discrimination was not supported by the
evidence. However, PAPD did find that the officer’s decision to issue the complainant a citation
after he indicated that he intended to file a complaint against the officer could be seen as
retaliatory, constituted offensive treatment of the public and was contrary to Department policy.
The IPA concurs with PAPD’s findings. The audio/video recording provides strong
evidence that the decision made by the officer to stop the complainant was not impacted by his
race but instead was due solely to his headlight being out. Moreover, the recording provides no
evidence that the officer ever spoke in a threatening tone to the complainant or used a racially
derogatory term during the encounter. At the same time, the decision by the officer to cite the
driver only after he indicated his intent to file a complaint could clearly be viewed as potentially
retaliatory and therefore inappropriate and out of policy.
We also noted issues that were potentially worthy of additional exploration.
First, as noted above, when the supervisor responded to the scene, the officer admitted to
him that he had issued a citation to the motorist after he indicated that he wished to make a
complaint against him. That account of the incident was also provided to the supervisor when he
talked separately to the complainant. However, in spite of the apparent retaliatory nature of the
officer’s action, the supervisor only informed the driver that he could file a formal complaint at
the station the next day. This suggests that appropriate review and accountability might only
have happened because of the complainant’s decision to follow through – and not because the
supervisor was already and sufficiently aware of an issue deserving of attention and at least a
self-initiated review of the MAV recordings. In our view, PAPD would ideally have covered
this point with the supervisor as part of its response.
After we shared this concern with the Department, we learned that, in fact, PAPD had
addressed this issue with the supervisor and counseled him about his performance that evening.
In fact, PAPD determined that the newly promoted supervisor could benefit from additional
formal training classes on leadership, which he welcomed. As a result, the supervisor attended
three separate classes on leadership and communication. This kind of holistic response is very
much consistent with best practices in policing, and we commend the Department’s use of this
complaint as a basis for critical examination, learning, and holistic remediation.1
1 A related issue is how to ensure that the entirety of PAPD’s response is effectively
communicated to the Independent Police Auditor. We recognize and endorse the concept of
informal remediation in the context of an administrative review, but when such interventions are
not documented or otherwise included in the case materials, it is obviously harder to know about
6
PAPD officers could also have benefited from a “lessons learned” Departmental briefing
about this pitfall of traffic enforcement. Officers’ discretion about whether and how to enforce
driving infractions can be a source of real friction – and allegations of unfairness – between law
enforcement and the public. Most importantly, all PAPD officers need to know that when a
member of the public complains about their conduct, the last thing an officer should do at that
point is to take enforcement action against the person that otherwise would not have been taken.
Case # 3:
Factual Overview:
This matter was brought to the Department’s chain of command by the District
Attorney’s Office when it reported that a PAPD officer had told prosecutors that he had
problems with the probable cause relating to a traffic stop and ultimate arrest initiated by a
PAPD supervisor. The stop was initiated by a PAPD supervisor who had observed damage to a
vehicle and also observed the vehicle speeding and failing to signal prior to pulling the driver
over.
Based on additional observations such as the distinct smell of alcohol emanating from the
vehicle, the supervisor determined that the driver should be field tested for driving under the
influence. Another officer was called to the scene and performed sobriety tests on the driver.
Based on the field observations made by the officer, the driver was arrested for driving under the
influence.
The matter was eventually set for a preliminary hearing and the second officer was
subpoenaed to testify. The officer then sent an email and had telephone conversations with
several prosecutors in which he expressed concern about the probable cause that was alleged to
have formed the basis for the stop. As a result of those communications, the Office of the
District Attorney contacted the Department, which initiated an investigation into the matter.
Outcome and Analysis:
The PAPD investigation found that the vehicle stop conducted by the supervisor was
appropriate and consistent with the Fourth Amendment and Departmental policy. The internal
investigation further found that the officer had violated Departmental policy by making false
and/or misleading statements questioning the propriety of the actions of the supervisor.2
and evaluate them. To its credit, PAPD has resolved to find mechanisms to ensure that, in the
future, IPA is provided all relevant information relating to the Department’s response.
2 It is unclear whether the founded violations for false statements will create Brady implications
for the officer (by constituting evidence of veracity that would have to be provided to defense
counsel whenever the officer testified in court).
7
IPA concurs with PAPD’s findings. The extensive investigation established that the
supervisor had a legal basis to stop the vehicle in question. Moreover, the allegations made by
the officer to the Office of the District Attorney against his supervisor questioning the propriety
of the vehicle stop amounted to false or misleading statements.
While the conduct of the supervisor on the date of the arrest was found to be appropriate,
one allegation that was learned by PAPD relative to this incident was not, in our estimation,
sufficiently explored and addressed. The supervisor described having been approached by
another officer shortly after the incident, and being told that the officer who eventually
complained to the District Attorney’s Office had issues with the probable cause of the stop.3
However, there is no evidence from the investigation that the supervisor either addressed this
matter with the officer or brought the allegation to the attention of Department executives.
Instead, it wasn’t until nine months after the incident, when the District Attorney was preparing
for a hearing, before the allegation formally surfaced.
Given the seriousness of the officer’s claim, the supervisor’s inaction in response to first
learning of it struck us as perplexing. One would expect that a supervisor whose integrity is
potentially being called into question by a subordinate would not let such an allegation go
unchallenged or unreported. In our view, this aspect of the scenario merited some response from
the Department; PAPD protocols and policy obligate supervisors to ensure that appropriate
notifications – and, if necessary, investigations – occur in the aftermath of a situation like this
one.
The supervisor’s ultimate status as the “victim” in this matter may have influenced the
Department’s assessment and contributed to the bypassing of this question. We also recognize
that, from a conduct perspective, it is significantly less egregious than the false statements that
drove the case forward. Nonetheless, in our view, this element merited further attention –
whether formal or informal – in an effort to improve future performance.
Case # 4
Factual Overview:
The PAPD executive command initiated this investigation based on its awareness of a
Department member’s personal social media (Twitter) account and its contents. While the
account did not directly or overtly identify its owner as a Department member, some individual
(and publicly accessible) entries did have a nexus to PAPD, contained identifying information,
3 Another issue with the supervisor’s assertion is that the officer who allegedly reported to the
supervisor that the officer had issues with the probable cause relating to the stop indicated that he
did not recall such a conversation ever occurring. This is yet another potential consequence of
the supervisor choosing not to pursue this matter contemporaneously resulting in no follow up
with the “go between” officer and the Department for months.
8
and arguably conflicted with the Department’s policies on “Employee Speech, Networking, and
Social Media.”
Additionally, one of the postings was an uploaded “training” video that had apparently
been created while on duty, with Department resources, and without known authorization.
Others of the entries related to Department business were posted while the relevant employee (a
patrol officer) was apparently on duty.
The final concern was that some of the individual postings clashed with prior direction
the officer had been given by a supervisor regarding his desire to share PAPD information
online. In the months prior to the discovery of the account, the officer had twice requested
permission to create a PAPD-endorsed site to highlight the activities of his specialty unit.
Department officials had demurred, citing the desire to maintain a coherent and unified message.
Outcome and Analysis
PAPD determined that the officer had violated multiple Department policies in relation to
the Twitter account (which he had earlier de-activated at management’s direction). These
included different sections of the “Prohibited Speech, Expression and Conduct” policy as well as
the policy prohibiting insubordination. However, the Department also cleared the officer of any
wrongdoing in conjunction with the creation of the video on Department time and with
Department resources.4
We concur with these outcomes, and with the attendant corrective actions administered
by PAPD.
The investigation was thorough and thoughtful. It included an individualized analysis of
each one of the more than 50 entries that had formed the substance of the account. Along with
addressing the problematic “live posting” during on-duty time, the Department showed a
sensitivity to the negative public perception that could attach to the some of the “tweets” that
were posted or “re-tweeted” by the subject officer.5
4 Although all three participants acknowledged that it had occurred, the content – and the
exercise itself – was found to be appropriate. The involved parties were seemingly conscious of
making the video efficiently, at a “slow” time in their overnight shift, and while remaining
available for any calls for service. While ensuring the specific knowledge and approval of
supervision would perhaps have been preferable, this omission did not rise to the level of
misconduct.
5 These included opinionated commentary about current events relating to law
enforcement, and observations that were meant to be humorous but had the potential to be
offensive.
9
The interviews with witnesses and the subject officer also were appropriately thorough
and methodical. Although there was seemingly nothing malicious or intentionally provocative
about the officer’s actions in creating the account and sharing information, the Department
concerns and response were also warranted.
Social media issues are a significant recent challenge for law enforcement across the
country. The popularity and availability of the various forms of “networking” have pushed
agencies to develop sound policies. Free speech rights are balanced against the pitfalls of private
social media activity that overlaps with users’ status as representatives of their respective
departments. PAPD appears to have a sound policy, and to have enforced it effectively in this
matter.
Case # 5:
Factual Overview:
This case was generated internally by PAPD executive command in the aftermath of an
arrest and related use of force. The incident involved the response of specialized Department
personnel to the scene of a garage where a suspect was hiding. The scene was contained, a
command post was established, and a team eventually made entry. After a brief struggle, which
included a K-9 bite of the suspect, he was taken into custody.
Subsequent to the arrest, questions arose as to what exactly had transpired inside the
garage. An officer who was on scene (but not present inside the garage) became aware of
rumors and concerns that he brought to the attention of Department management within days of
the incident. More specifically, there were allegations that not only had unreported force
occurred, but also that a supervisor had subsequently and intentionally deterred his team
members from sharing required information about their actions.
This prompted the Department to initiate additional investigation, and it soon emerged
that other team members had indeed used physical force to subdue the suspect. Further inquiry
revealed that the additional force was both minor and seemingly appropriate in the context of the
suspect’s resistance. Nonetheless, it was troubling that it had not been reported immediately and
per policy. It also turned out that one of the team members had been bitten by the K-9 during the
apprehension; this was known to the same handling supervisor and not formally addressed, as it
should have been. The allegations of a “code of silence” directive from the supervisor – in the
form of text messages to team members – formed a separate and significant component of the
case.
Additionally, the officer who was responsible for initiating these allegations brought forth
other claims of past misconduct by the same involved supervisor. These included inappropriate
statements during training activities, failure to report another accidental K-9 bite of a PAPD
officer during a deployment, the countermanding of orders from a Department executive in the
10
context of a team operation, and instructions by the supervisor for team members to remain quiet
about poor tactics during a multi-agency response in an outside jurisdiction, so as not to
undermine PAPD management’s willingness to participate in mutual aid events. Each of these
allegations was fleshed out and framed for further investigation as part of the same Internal
Affairs case.
Outcome and Analysis:
PAPD conducted a thorough review of the various charges. It found that the supervisor
was culpable for various shortcomings in conjunction with the arrest in the garage. These
included failure to report his own force (which was more in the category of attempts to assist in
the context of a group struggle), and failure to properly execute his responsibility for assuring
that all force inside the garage was properly reported, documented, and reviewed. The
investigation also confirmed that the supervisor had failed to fulfill his notification obligations
regarding the accidental K-9 bite that occurred that day.
We concur with these findings.
The investigation also produced substantial corroborating evidence regarding the “code
of silence” allegation and three of the other claims about prior events. (Evidence established that
the supervisor had not been involved at all with the fourth allegation, which related to a previous
case of an accidental dog bite.) Nonetheless, the Department determined that ambiguity
regarding the supervisor’s intentions, and the potential for actual or willful misinterpretation by
involved subordinates, was such that no conclusive determination of formal misconduct could be
sustained.
We found this to be a debatable conclusion, and were not always as persuaded by the
supervisor’s explanations as PAPD executives turned out to be.6 Additionally, we found that the
investigator, whose work we have admired in the past for its thoroughness and objectivity, was
seemingly reticent during the administrative interview of the supervisor when it came to follow-
up questions and further clarification of key points.
These hesitations aside, we find that the Department’s ultimate determinations were
reasonable. Some of this is driven by evidence regarding the arrest and use of force that
precipitated the allegations. The underlying actions in the garage appear to have been justified,
minor, and proportional to the suspect’s resistance – not an example of the rogue or abusive
behavior with which the “code of silence” is commonly associated. This reality seemingly
6 The plain meaning of the text message that initiated the investigation, for example, seemed
more consistent with an instruction to team members to keep details to themselves than with the
supervisor’s subsequent claim that it had to do with maintaining professionalism.
11
undermines the more troubling interpretations of the supervisor’s text messages and related
comments at the scene.
Our concerns about the investigation and conclusions were also mitigated by further
discussion with PAPD management. A credible stand-alone product within the “four corners” of
the investigative file should obviously be the goal in every case. Occasionally, though, the full
picture depends on an understanding of broader dynamics; this is especially true when it comes
to matters of internal management and the relationship between supervisors and subordinates.
The strengths and weaknesses of strong, distinctive personalities seem to have been at
play in this case. Even people who admire the supervisor in question recognize that his style is
occasionally unorthodox, and that he is not always as meticulous a communicator as he can or
should be. Furthermore, a pattern in the allegations and attendant evidence seems to be that good
intentions and a “bottom line” sense of propriety were sometimes overshadowed by inattention
to detail or poor judgment.7
These qualities certainly “gave a sword” to potential critics, and may well have raised
sincere qualms on the part of subordinates. On the other hand, several witnesses put the
individual episodes into a context of familiarity with the supervisor and his style, and recognition
of his core strengths. The real meaning of disputed or problematic statements seemed a matter of
genuine and reasonable disagreement.
Ideally, of course, a grain of salt is not a necessary interpretive tool when it comes to
communications – and orders – that occur in a law enforcement setting. And it is important to
note that though not all the charges were sustained, the Department recognized the significance
of the situation as a whole and the need for managerial adjustments. There was appropriate
discipline, and the relevant supervisor is now assigned to different responsibilities.
III. Common Issues: PAPD and Supervision
We have identified above a number of performance issues regarding supervisors that
could have been more fully addressed and encompassed as part of the Department’s response to
7 One example of concern in this regard relates to the accidental dog bite of one of the involved
officers by the Department K-9 that was on scene. The injury was apparently minor, and the
officer himself was apparently fine with not pursuing it. However, while the “no harm, no foul”
approach might have a surface appeal, the relevant reporting protocols also have a purpose and
legitimacy that extends beyond their mere (and in this case ignored) existence. There are
worker’s compensation implications, for example. And the performance history of a dog
entrusted with helping to apprehend suspects has obvious relevance to operational effectiveness
and risk management. Accordingly, the failure to follow up through documentation and
appropriate remedial measures constitutes a significant gap in effective management.
12
underlying allegations.8 In the case of the supervisor who was present when a vehicle was being
towed, for example the Department could have more fully considered whether a different
approach in dealing with the eventual complainant could have resulted in a better handling of the
situation.
More significantly, in the case of the complainant who believed that he had been the
subject of retaliation for making a complaint, the Department could have more carefully assessed
the supervisor’s seeming lack of proactivity in ensuring that a likely policy violation was
investigated. And finally, and most importantly, the failure of the Department to identify and
investigate a supervisor’s failure to timely bring to PAPD’s attention a significant internal
concern against her by a subordinate officer calls into question whether sufficient diligence is
always being directed toward evaluating supervisor’s roles.
Modern day policing requires that first level supervisors perform at a high bar, set an
example for their subordinates, and ensure that complaints are made known to the chain of
command at PAPD. When investigations are launched, it is incumbent upon the Department to
evaluate supervisor performance through that enhanced lens and take appropriate remedial action
when supervisors fall short of those high expectations.
Recommendation: When PAPD receives a complaint of violations of policy, it must ensure
that part of that complaint evaluation considers the performance of supervisors, particularly
with regard to fulfilling their duty to ensure that potential violations of policy are timely
investigated.
IV. Taser Case
Factual Overview:
The one Taser use case of this review period stemmed from the search for, and ultimate
apprehension of, the suspect in a residential prowling/attempted burglary case. Officers
responded to a call for service in daytime hours from a homeowner who not only spotted the
suspect on his property but also followed him long enough to take a cell phone photograph. The
picture was then distributed to other officers patrolling the area.
It was just a few minutes later and a short distance away that a PAPD patrol officer
spotted the suspect at a train station platform and attempted to detain him. As he himself
acknowledged later, the suspect was apprehensive and uncooperative. After a brief exchange, he
broke away from the officer (who was in uniform) and hopped over a guardrail in an effort to
flee.
8 This is a separate point from the allegations of misconduct against supervisors that are covered above, which speak
even more directly to the need for focused attention on managerial expectations and performance.
13
The officer pursued on foot for a short distance while putting out relevant information
over the radio. He also enlisted the help of a bystander who was in the path of the pursuit,
calling “Stop him!” The private citizen did attempt to block the suspect’s path, momentarily
slowing him before the chase continued.
When they had covered a few hundred yards, the suspect abruptly turned around and
came back in the officer’s direction. At that point, the officer perceived a threat. He warned the
suspect, per policy, and then deployed his Taser. The prongs struck the suspect in the back and
lower buttocks area. Only one of them pierced the skin, but the charge nonetheless affected the
suspect, who dropped to the ground. Other responding officers were able to handcuff the suspect
and take him into custody without further incident.
The suspect was transported to a local hospital for treatment of very minor injuries.
Outcome and Analysis:
The Department followed its usual protocol in reviewing the TASER deployment, and
determined that the use of force was “in policy.” We concur.
The gathering of reports, witness statement, and other evidentiary materials was
thorough and often thoughtful. The suspect agreed to release his medical records from the
incident, and the Department collected and analyzed the “download data” from the Taser itself.
Interestingly, the Taser evidence showed two different and consecutive activations – a
discrepancy from the officer’s reported perception of having pulled the trigger only once. This
gap, while noteworthy on it face, did not seemingly have a significant impact on the suspect.
Both activations were for five seconds only, with an “active charge” phase of less than one
second in each instance. Moreover, the fragile positioning of the probes, and the resultant effects
on the suspect’s response, may also have contributed to the officer’s confusion or the
inadvertence of a second engagement. Nonetheless, the precision of the Taser data is clearly a
valuable ingredient in the assessment process and the quest for accountability when it comes to
this weapon.
Though the officer’s recollection about number of activations proved to be incorrect, his
written report does include a thoughtful and persuasive account of his decision-making. It
includes a description of the overall circumstances (including his own fatigue after the pursuit),
and an assessment of other force options and why they seemed less viable. It reflects sound
training and an emphasis by the Department on responsible, calculated use of the Taser.
The review process also included a detailed and useful interview with the subject for
purposes of the administrative force analysis. This is an important component, and PAPD is
generally conscientious about making sure it occurs and that the subject’s version of events is
14
documented. Additionally, as is standard, PAPD provided a recording of the exchange for our
review.
In this case, the interview led to several significant concessions by the subject, who
admitted that he was intentionally defying the officer’s orders and that he heard the warning
before the Taser was deployed. He did, however, deny that he turned back during the pursuit in
order to aggress the officer. And he made a point of noting (accurately) that the prongs had hit
the rear of his body – not the front, as might be initially be expected from the officer’s
description of events and his justification for deployment.9 Moreover, the subject initially
maintained that the officer did not have a justification for detaining him, which meant that his
refusal to cooperate was justified.
A few minutes into the interview, the PAPD supervisor who was taking his statement
challenged this account. He pointed out that the subject had been photographed by the reporting
party homeowner in conjunction with the prowling allegations, and said that “We both know he
had a right” to detain. This seemed to change the tenor of the interview, and the subject
somewhat sheepishly began to make statements – some in response to leading questions from the
supervisor – that overtly supported the officer’s actions.
The supervisor’s approach was not heavy-handed, and it clearly yielded information that
was beneficial from the Department’s perspective. Nonetheless, we would encourage PAPD to
re-visit the goals of such interviews with its supervisory team.
In our view, the ideal interview in this context is one in which the subject feels able and
willing to articulate his own version of events. Specific follow-up questions from the supervisor
are often appropriate, but should be designed to evoke details that can later be weighed against
the other evidence – not to discredit or “cross-examine” the subject. Any expressions of
skepticism or challenge, however mild, can alter the tone of the exchange. And while this might
produce “better” answers in the short run, it comes at a potential cost of undermining the
objectivity of the review process.
Recommendation: PAPD should work with supervisors to emphasize objective
evidence-gathering – and not simply confirmation of the officers’ accounts – as the goal of a
subject interview in an administrative force review investigation process.
9 The Department’s analysis of this potential issue hinged on the reality that a “target” can
change quickly in a dynamic situation, and that gaps in reaction time can lead to someone hitting
the back of a subject who has changed course at the last instant. Extensive research has been
done with this topic, with a particular focus on officer-involved shootings. In our view, the
concept has legitimacy. But it also lends itself to overuse and to the pre-emption of valid
questions or concerns about a given set of facts. Here, though, in the overall context of the
incident and in conjunction with the other evidence, it seems to be a possible explanation for
what occurred.
15
Finally, we found the officer’s attempt to “deputize” the bystander by yelling “Stop him!”
to be a noteworthy element of the incident. (The person did make an effort to impede the
suspect’s progress and slowed him down, though the overall effect is hard to quantify.)
Fortunately, the involved citizen was both unfazed by the request and unharmed by his
involvement. But the potential for liability inherent in a spontaneous “deputization” seems
significant and foreseeable.
On the few occasions that we have seen officers engage civilians in apprehension, we
have cautioned against doing so because of the risk involved. Enlisting the physical help of an
untrained and unequipped party in a police arrest action creates obvious grounds for civil
exposure in the event that the encounter injured the person or suspect.10
At the very least, it seemed to merit some discussion and analysis from the Department in
terms of the advantages and disadvantages of the tactic and the potential implications for training
and briefing of officers on a going-forward basis. The documentation we received did not
contain a specific focus on this issue or any indication that it was identified or addressed as part
of the Department’s response.11
This is not to say that the Department didn’t address it; though the relevant lieutenant has
retired and was not available for questions, it’s entirely possible that PAPD management did at
least have an informal debrief with the involved officer and others.12 We certainly recommend
(as we did in our previous report) this kind of holistic assessment when it comes to Taser
incidents. Additionally, we recommend the Department make an effort to “show its work”
whenever it does look at tactical or training questions beyond the use of force itself. Formal
documentation will help ensure that appropriate follow-through occurs, and will create a record
of engagement that may benefit the Department in litigation or other contexts.
Recommendation: PAPD should expand its review of Taser use cases to encompass the
event more broadly, including any tactical decision-making preceding the Taser deployment,
and should create a record of any relevant assessments and interventions for future reference.
10 While we can envision a situation where an officer appropriately feels the need to request
civilian aid in the face of a serious threat to safety, those dire circumstances did not exist in this
fact pattern.
11 See Footnote #1, above.
12 It might also have been a topic worthy of discussion with the City Attorney as well, for the
sake of a heightened awareness of the legal implications; this kind of pro-active collaboration
between City Departments can be constructive in various ways.
16
V. Conclusion
Thank you for the continued opportunity to monitor PAPD on behalf of the community it
serves. Please feel free to contact us at your convenience with questions or other feedback.