HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-09-14 City Council Agenda Packet
1 09/14/09
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.
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. A binder containing supporting materials is available in the Council
Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting.
Special Meeting
Council Chambers
September 14, 2009
6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting.
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Title: City Attorney Gary Baum
Authority: Government Code section 54957(b)
7:30 PM or as soon as possible thereafter
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
2. Proclamation Expressing Appreciation to Anne Warner Cribbs and the
2009 National Senior Games Local Organizing Committee
ATTACHMENT
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the
right to limit the duration or Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
09/14/09 2
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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 13, 2009
July 20, 2009
July 27, 2009
August 03, 2009
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
3. Approval of a Contract with W. Bradley Electric, Inc. in an Amount Not
to Exceed $248,269 to Construct and Install a Fully Actuated Traffic
Signal at the Intersection of Embarcadero Road and the Town and
Country Shopping Center and Palo Alto High School Driveways, and to
Modify the Pedestrian Signal to Palo Alto High School
CMR 365:09 & ATTACHMENT
4. Approval of Contract with Prodigy Press in the Amount Not to Exceed
$180,000 Annually for a Three-Year Period for Digital Imaging Services
and Printing Projects
CMR 353:09 & ATTACHMENT
5. Finance Committee Recommendation to Preliminarily Approve Fiscal
Year 2009 Reappropriation Requests to be Carried Forward into Fiscal
Year 2010
CMR 354:09 & ATTACHMENT
6. 2nd Reading Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Sections
18.10.130 (Historical Review and Incentives), 18.10.060
(Parking), 18.12.140 (Historical Review and Incentives),
18.12.060 (Parking), and 18.13.040(c) (Single-Family and Two-
Family Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning), and Sections 21.20.010
(General Provisions) and 21.20.301 (Flag Lots) of Title 21
(Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding
Subdivision of One Lot into Two Nonconforming Lots Where
Covenants are Provided to Protect Historic Properties
(First reading July 27, 2009 – Passed 6-0, Barton, Morton, Schmid Absent)
09/14/09 3
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.
7. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Paula Kirkeby for
Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Public Art Commission
ATTACHMENT
8. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Barbara Mortkowitz
for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Public Art Commission
ATTACHMENT
9. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Gerald Brett for
Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Public Art Commission
ATTACHMENT
10. Approval of a Storm Drain Enterprise Fund Contract with Peak
Engineering, Inc. in the Amount of $573,004 for Alma Street Storm
Drain Improvement Project, Capital Improvement Program Project SD-
08101
CMR 362:09 & ATTACHMENT
11. Approval of a Contract with Valley Slurry Seal Company in an Amount
of $376,261 for the 2009 Street Maintenance Program Slurry Seal
Capital Improvement Program Project PE-86070
CMR 360:09 & ATTACHMENT
12. Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2010
to Accept $1,085,000 in Federal American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act “Stimulus” Funding and Approval of a Contract
with A. Ruiz Construction Company & Associates, in the Amount of
$1,105,648 for the 2009 Street Maintenance Program San Antonio and
Lytton Asphalt Overlay Capital Improvement Program Project PE-
86070
CMR 361:09 & ATTACHMENT
13. Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor’s Office
Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2009
ATTACHMENT
09/14/09 4
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.
14. Adoption of a Resolution Approving Revisions to the City of Palo Alto
Energy Risk Management Policy
CMR 359:09 & ATTACHMENT
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the
public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members
of the public have spoken.
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be
limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
15. Consider the: 1) Approval of the Negative Declaration; 2) Adoption of
a Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to
Change the Land Use Designation from Multiple Family Residential to
Commercial Hotel; and 3) Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the
Zoning Map to Change the Zone Designation for Approximately
0.30 Acre at 4261 and 4273 El Camino Real (Dinah’s Hotel)
from RM-15 (Low Density Residential Multi-Family) to CS(L)(D)
(Service Commercial with Landscape and Site and Design
Review Combining Districts)
*This item is quasi-judicial and subject to Council's Disclosure Policy
CMR 357:09 & ATTACHMENT PUBLIC COMMENT
16. Consider Adoption of an Uncodified Ordinance Extending the Life
of Specific Permits Which are Currently Active Pursuant to Title
18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
CMR 363:09 & ATTACHMENT
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
09/14/09 5
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.
17. Update on Measure N Library Bond Measure Projects; Adoption of a
Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $109,041 for
Temporary Library Facilities; Approval of a Contract with Turner
Construction Company, Inc. in the Amount of $138,198 for
Construction Management Services for the Mitchell Park Library and
Community Center and the Downtown Library and Approval of
Amendment No. 1 to Contract C09130744 with Group 4 Architecture to
add $92,034 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $3,919,324 for
Measure N Library Projects Capital Improvement Program Projects PE-
009006 and PE-09005, PE-09010
CMR 368:09 & ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT PUBLIC COMMENT
COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM CONFERENCES
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
THE FOLLOWING CLOSED SESSION WILL BE HELD WITH THE CITY LABOR NEGOTIATORS.
18. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency Negotiator: City Manager and his designees pursuant to
Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Kelly Morariu,
Russ Carlsen, Sandra Blanch, Darrell Murray, Marcie Scott, Lalo Perez,
Joe Saccio)
Employee Organization: Local 521 Service Employees International
Union
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency Negotiator: City Manager and his designees pursuant to the
Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Kelly Morariu,
Russ Carlsen, Sandra Blanch, Darrell Murray, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio,
Marcie Scott)
Employee Organization: Unrepresented Employee Group Management
and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees
Authority: Government Code section 54957.6(a)
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency Negotiator: City Manager and his designees pursuant to
Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Kelly Morariu,
Russ Carlsen, Sandra Blanch, Darrell Murray, Marcie Scott, Lalo Perez,
Joe Saccio)
Employee Organization: Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
09/14/09 6
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.
ADJOURNMENT
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.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PROCLAMATION
Expressing Appreciation to Anne Warner Cribbs and the
2009 National Senior Games Local Organizing Committee
WHEREAS, Anne Warner Cribbs and the 2009 National Senior Games Local
Organizing Committee (LOC) have delivered an outstanding series of competitions for
athletes over 50, modeling the important benefits of an active lifestyle and healthy
ageing, while enhancing cross-generational understanding, communication and
appreciation; and
WHEREAS, Anne Warner Cribbs and the LOC have showcased the innovative spirit
of Palo Alto and Silicon Valley with the introduction of the first solar-powered Olympic
Torch and Cauldron; and
WHEREAS, Anne Warner Cribbs and the LOC have introduced to the Senior Games
innovative sustainability programs that highlight the importance Palo Altans and
Californians place on environmental stewardship; and
WHEREAS, Anne Warner Cribbs and the LOC have enlisted the participation of Bay
Area and US Olympic athletes to draw attention to the importance of athletics; and
WHEREAS, Anne Warner Cribbs and the LOC have enlisted the support of more
than 2,000 Palo Alto and Bay Area volunteers to support the 10,000 Senior Athletes
competing in the games; and
WHEREAS, Anne Warner Cribbs and the LOC have welcomed to Palo Alto and the
Bay Area 30,000 athletes and visitors, showcasing our beautiful City and Stanford
University.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, PETER DREKMEIER, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto,
on behalf of the City Council hereby commend the outstanding public service provided
by Anne Warner Cribbs and the LOC and record our appreciation as well as the
appreciation of the citizens for their public service and contributions to the City.
Presented: September 14, 2009
______________________________
Peter Drekmeier
Mayor
TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 3
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 CMR:365:09
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Approval of a Contract with W. Bradley Electric, Inc. in an Amount Not to
Exceed $248,269 to Construct and Install a Fully Actuated Traffic Signal at
the Intersection of Embarcadero Road and the Town and Country Shopping
Center and Palo Alto High School Driveways, and to Modify the Pedestrian
Signal to Palo Alto High School
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract
with W. Bradley Electric, Inc. (Attachment A) in an amount not to exceed $248,269 to
install a traffic signal at the intersection of Embarcadero Road at the Town and Country
Shopping Center and Palo Alto High School driveways on Embarcadero Road and to
modify the pedestrian signal at the crosswalk to Palo Alto High School; and
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change
orders to the contract with W. Bradley Electric, Inc. for related, additional but
unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not
exceed $24,826.
BACKGROUND
As part of the conditions of approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment
in 2007 for the Trader Joe's development at ~55 EI Camino Real (Town and Country Village
Shopping Center), the intersection of the maiil shopping center driveway and Palo Alto High
School driveway onto Embarcadero" Road was required to be signalized, a new signalized
driveway onto westbound Embarcadero Road was required to be installed for the Trader Joe's
project, and the pedestrian signal for the crosswalk to Palo Alto High School was required to be
modified.
These traffic signal improvements will be constructed by the City and coordinated with the on-
and off-site improvements being implemented by the developer. The developer was required to
CMR:365:09
contribute up to $225,000 to the City toward the signalization of the main driveway and other
signal improvements.
DISCUSSION
The scope of the contract to complete the signal work provides that the contractor shall furnish
and install a fully actuated traffic signal, signal interconnect, emergency vehicle pre-emption,
signing, striping and lighting. Work also includes removal of existing traffic signal equipment
per the plans and specifications.
Project Coordination
The Department of Planning and Community Environment has coordinated the bid process with
the Purchasing Division of Administrative Services and the Department of Public Works.
Project inspections and verification of work per the contract will be the responsibility of
Planning and Public Works. Staff has also worked with and will continue to coordinate the
project with the Palo Alto Unified School District.
Bid Process
A notice inviting formal bids for this project was posted at City Hall, on the City website, and
sent to twelve potential bidders on August 6,2009. The bidding period was 26 days. Bids were
received from three qualified contractors on September 1, 2009 as listed on the attached bid
summary (Attachment B). Bids ranged from a total low bid of $248,269 to a high of $331 ,21 O.
The low bid is 4 percent less than the engineer's estimate of $258,600. The engineer's estimate
was based on reduced signal equipment and striping costs and came in between the amount of
the two lowest bidders. The estimate took into account that the current recession has driven down
construction costs including the cost of materials and concrete. Staff will continue monitoring
bid prices and adjust future estimates accordingly.
A summary of the bid process is outlined in the table below:
Summary of Bid Process
Bid NamelNumber Town and Country I Palo Alto High School Si
Improvement Project I IFB 133624
Proposed Length of Project 40 calendar days
Number of Bid Packages Mailed to
I 12 Contractors
Number of Bid Packages Mailed to None Builder's Exchanges
Total Days to Respond to Bid 26
Pre-Bid Meeting? No
Number of Company Attendees at N/A
. Pre-Bid Meeting
Number of Bids Received: 3 Ir= Price Range (including 2 Low bid $248,269 to a high of $331 ,21 0
alternates)
Page
Staff recommends that the bid in the amount of $248,269 submitted by W. Bradley Electric, Inc.
be accepted and that W. Bradley Electric, Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The
change order amount of $24,826 (which equals 10% of the total contract) is requested to resolve
unforeseen problems and/or conflicts that may arise during the construction period. Staff
anticipates project completion by the end of October, 2009. Staff checked references supplied by
the contractor for previous work performed and found no significant complaints. Staff also
checked with the Contractor's State .License Board and found that the contractor has an active
license on file.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for this project has been included in Capital Improvement Program Project: PL-05030,
Traffic Signal System Upgrade. As a condition of approval for the Trader Joe's project, the
developer is responsible for a maximum contribution of $225,000 to the City toward the design
and construction of the traffic signal project.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation is consistent with existing City policies that require developers to fully
mitigate project impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Mitigated Negative· Declaration was adopted by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment for the Major Architectural Review and Design Enhancement Exception approved
for the project in 2007. The Mitigated Negative Declaration required a new traffic signal at the
Main Driveway and Embarcadero Road intersection to coordinate traffic flow and vehicle
queuing to acceptable levels. This project implements that mitigation measure.
PREP ARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
CMR:365:09
Contract
Bid Summary
Project Map
SAMPEIRIS
Traffic Engineer
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and Community Environment
J SKEENE
. yManager
Page 3 of3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT A
.. CONTRACT No. 510133624
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENTfTRANSPORTATION DIVISION
This Contract, number C10133624 dated September 21, 2009 is entered into by and between the City of Palo Alto, a chartered
____ c~x_C!n~Clrnuni_~ipal of the S_~<l!~~L9(3~fQ!l1~aJ~Q!ty.:Lc:tD~IJ'.i',-_.?BA[)L§X, _ IN9:l£Q~!rC!<::!Q~2~ ____ ._. __ _
For and in consideration of the covenants, terms, and conditions (*the provisions·) of this Contract, City and Contractor ("the
parties") agree:
1. Term. This Contract shall commence and be binding on the parties on the Date of Execution of this Contract, and shall
expire on the date of recordation of the Notice of Substantial Completion, or, if no such notice is required to be filed, on
the date that final payment is made hereunder, subject to the earlier termination of this Contract. Work is to be
completed by November 13, 2009.
2. General Scope of Project and Work. Contractor shall furnish labor, services, materials and equipment in connection
with the construction of the Project and complete the Work in accordance with the covenants, terms and conditions of
this Contract to the satisfaction of City. The Project and Work is generally described as follows:
Title of Project: Town and Country Palo Alto High School Signal improvements Project,
Invitation For Bid (IFB) Number 133624.
Bid: $ 248.269.00
3. Contract Documents. This Contract shall consist of the documents set forth below, which are on file with the City Clerk
and are hereby incorporated by reference. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies
between and among the provisions of this Contract, these documents and the provisions thereof are set forth in the
following descending order of precedence.
a. This .Contract.
b. Invitation for Bid.
c. Project Specifications.
d. Drawings.
e. Change Orders.
f. Bid.
g. Supplementary Conditions.
h. General Conditions.
I. City of Palo Alto Dept. of Public Works Standard Drawings and Specifications (1992).
i-Certificate of Insurance, Performance Surety Bond, Labor & Materials (Payment) Surety Bond.
k. Other Specifications, or part thereof, not expressly incorporated in the Contract Specifications or the City of
Palo Alto Dept. of Public Works Standard Drawings and Specifications (1992).
I. Any other document not expressly mentioned herein which is issued by City or entered into by the parties.
4. Compensation. In consideration of Contractor's performance of its obligations hereunder, City shall pay to Contractor
the amount set forth in Contractor's Bid in accordance with the prOVisions of this Contract and upon the receipt of
written invoices and all necessary supporting documentation within the time set forth in the Contract Specifications and
the City of Palo Alto Dept. of Public Works Standard Drawings and Specifications (1992), or, if no time is stated, within
thirty (30) Days of the date of receipt of Contractor's invoices.
5. On or before the Date of Execution, ,Contractor shall obtain and maintain the policies of insurance coverage
described in the Invitation For Bid on terms and conditions and in amounts as may be required by the Risk Manager.
City shall not be obligated to take out insurance on Contractor's personal property or the personal property of any
person performing labor or services or supplying materials or equipment under the Project. Contractor shall furnish
City with the certificates of. insurance and with original endorsements affecting coverage required under this Contract
on or before the Date of Execution. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a
person who is authorized by that insurer to bind coverage in its behalf. Proof of insurance shall be mailed to the
Project Manager to the address set forth in Section 16 of this Contract.
6. Contractor agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold City, its Council members, officers,
employees, agents and representatives harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, losses,
damages, costs, expenses, liens, penalties, suits, or judgments, arising, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, at any
time from any injury to or death of persons or damage to property as a result of the willful acts or the negligent acts or
omissions of Contractor, or which results from Contractor's noncompliance with any Law respecting the condition, use,
occupation or safety of the Project site, or any part thereof, or which arises from Contractor's failure to do anything
required under this Contract or for doing anything which Contractor is required not to do under this Contract, or which
arises from conduct for which any Law may impose strict liability on Contractor in the performance of or failure to
perform the provisions of this Contract. except as may arise from the sole willful acts or negligent acts or omissions of
City or any of its Council members, officers, employees. agents or representatives. This indemnification shall extend to
any and all claims, demands, or liens made or filed by reason of any work performed by Contractor under this Contract
at any time during the term of this Contract, or arising thereafter.
To the extent Contractor will use hazardous materials in connection with the execution of its obligations under this
--~~~~~~,~~¥:r~!~n-~U~~~lOi~~~sf~~m~~~e~~EI~ft~~en1-~g~E3~n~7c;i~i,I~:%:m:;::li~b~if1e~~~~s~tLd~;g~{66i~~--
expenses, liens, penalties, suits, or judgments City may incur, arising, in whole or in part, in connection with or as a
result of Contractor's willful acts or negligent acts or omissions under this Contract, under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and liability Act (42 U.S.C. 339601-6975, as amended); the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 336901-6992k, as amended); the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C.
332601-2692, as amended); the Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act (Health & Safety Code,
3325300-25395, as amended); the Hazardous Waste Control Law (Health & Safety Code, 3325100-25250.25, as
amended); the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Health & Safety Code, 3325249.5-25249.13, as
amended); the Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances Act (Health & Safety Code, 3325280-25299.7, as
amended); or under any other local, state or federal law, statute or ordinance, or at common law.
7. Assumption of Risk. Contractor agrees to voluntarlly assume any and all risk of loss, damage, or injury to the property
of Contractor which may occur in, on, or about the Project site at any time and in any manner, excepting such loss,
injury, or damage as may be caused by the sole willful act or negligent act or omission of City or any of its Council
members, officers, employees, agents or representatives.
8. The acceptance of any payment or performance, or any part thereof, shall not operate as a waiver by City of
its rights under this Contract. A waiver by City of any breach of any part or provision of this Contract by Contractor
shall not operate as a waiver or continuing waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision, nor
shall any custom or practice which may arise between the parties in the administration of any part or provision of this
Contract be construed to waive or to lessen the right of City to insist upon the performance of Contractor in strict
compliance with the covenants, terms and conditions of this Contract.
9. No Exoneration By Inspection: The City has the right, but not the duty, to inspect Contractor's Work. The right of
inspection is solely for the benefit of City. Contractor has the obligation to complete the Work in a satisfactory manner
in compliance with Contract requirements. The presence of a City inspector does not shift that obligation to the City or
relieve Contractor from its obligations to complete the Work in a satisfactory manner in compliance with the Contract
requirements.
10. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all Laws now in force or which may hereafter be in force
pertaining to the Project and Work and this Contract, with the requirement of any bid security or fire underwriters or
other similar body now or hereafter constituted, with any discretionary license or permit issued pursuant to any Law of
any public agency or official as well as with any provision of all recorded documents affecting the Project site, insofar
as any are required by reason of the use or occupancy of the Project site, and with all Laws pertaining to
nondiscrimination in employment and hazardous materials.
11. Bid Security Bonds. As a condition precedent to City's obligation to pay compensation to Contractor, and on or before
the Date of Execution, Contractor shall furnish to the Project Manager the Bid Security as required under the Invitation
For Bid.
12. Representations and Warranties. In the supply of any materials and equipment and the rendering of labor and services
during the course and scope of the Project and Work, Contractor represents and warrants:
a. Any materials and equipment which shall be used during the course and scope of the Project and Work shall
be vested in Contractor;
b. Any materials and equipment which shall be used during the course and scope of the Project and Work shall
be merchantable and fit to be used for the particular purpose for which the materials are required;
c. Any labor and services rendered and materials and equipment used or employed during the course and scope
of the Project and Work shall be free of defects in workmanship for a period of one (1) year after the
recordation of the Notice of Substantial Completion, or, if no such notice is required to be filed, on the date
that final payment is made hereunder;
d. Any manufacturer's warranty obtained by Contractor shall be obtained or shall be deemed obtained by
Contractor for and in behalf of City.
e. Any information submitted by Contractor prior to the award of Contract, or thereafter, upon request, whether or
not submitted under a continuing obligation by the terms of the Contract to do so, is true and correct at the
time such information is submitted or made available to the City;
, . f. Contractor has not colluded, conspired, or agreed, directly or indirectly, with any person in regard to the terms
and conditions of Contractor's Bid, except as may be permitted by the Invitation For Bid;
g. Contractor has the power and authority to enter into this Contract with City, that the individual executing this
Contract is duly authorized to do so by appropriate resolution, and that this Contract shall be executed,
..--'-'---~"-'aelivered"an(::f-peffoi;med'-p ijfsuanf'lo'''{he ·powe(-ana·· a uthcirlty-ccmferrecr upon .-{he 'pe rson 01:" ·pers·ons·-··
authorized to bind Contractor; .
h. Contractor has not made an attempt to exert undue influence with the Purchasing Manager or Project
Manager or any other person who has directly contributed to City's decision to award the contract to
Contractor;
I. There are no unresolved claims or disputes between Contractor and City which would materially affect
Contractor's ability to perform under the Contract;
j. Contractor has furnished and will furnish true and accurate statements, records, reports, resolutions,
certifications, and other written information as may be requested of Contractor by City from time to time during
the term of this Contract;
k. Contractor and any person performing labor and services under this Project are duly licensed by the State of
California as required by California Business & Professions Code Section 7028, as amended; and
I. Contractor has fully examined and inspected the Project site and has full knowledge of the physical conditions
of the Project site.
13. Assignment. This Contract and the performance required hereunder is personal to Contractor, and it shall not be
assigned by Contractor. Any attempted assignment shall be null and void.
14. Claims of Contractor. All claims pertaining to extra work, additional charges, or delays within the Contract Time or
other disputes arising out of the Contract shall be submitted by Contractor to City in writing by certified or registered
mail within ten (10) Days after the claim arose or within such other time as may be permitted or required by law, and
shall be described in sufficient detail to give adequate notice of the substance of the claim to City.
15. Audits by City. During the term of this Contract and for a period of not Jess than three (3) years after the expiration or
earlier termination of this Contract, City shall have the right to audit Contractor's Project-related and Work-related
writings and business records, as such terms are defined in Califomia Evidence Code Sections 250 and 1271, as
amended, during the regular business hours of Contractor, or, if Contractor has no such hours, during the regular
business hours of City.
16. Notices. All agreements, appointments, approvals, authorizations, claims, demands, Change Orders, consents,
designations, notices, offers, requests and statements given by either party to the other shall be in writing and shall be
sufficiently given and served upon the other party if (1) personally served, (2) sent by the United States mail, postage
prepaid, (3) sent by private express delivery service, or (4) in the case of a facsimile transmission, if sent to the
telephone F P\X number set forth below during regular business hours of the repeiving party and followed within two (2)
Days by delivery of a hard copy of the material sent by facsimile transmission, in accordance with (1), (2) or (3) above.
Personal service shall include, without limitation, service by delivery and service by facsimile transmission.
To City:
Copy to:
To Contractor:
City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto
Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Sam Peiris, Project Manager
W. Bradley Electric, Inc.
90 Hill Road
Novato, CA 94945
Attn: Leslie Murphy, CEO
;,I' !~'
$
17. Appropriation of City Funds. This Contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of Article III, Section 12 of the Charter of
the City of Palo Alto. Any charges hereunder for labor, services, materials and equipment may accrue only after such
expenditures have been approved in advance in writing in accordance with applicable Laws, This Contract shall
terminate without penalty (I) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following
_~fts.~.l y~a!._ ~r.(iiL ~.i!rlY JLrl!e_\J{it~in .~.!l~C:CllY~.~.r.ir1. t~.~e\j~nt.thCltJlJrl.cj.~ilIEl. ot:1!Y ~ppr()p!i(;lt.Elcj!q~ ~p0r!i~r1.~f_thEl f~s_~al ,.
year and funds for this Contract are no longer available. This Section 17 shall control in the event of a conflict with any
other provision of this Contract.
18. Miscellaneous.
a. Bailee Disclaimer. The parties understand and agree that City does not purport to be Contractor's bailee, and
City is, therefore, not responsible for any damage to the personal property of Contractor.
b. Consent. Whenever in this Contract the approval or consent of a party is required, such approval or consent
shall be in writing and shall be executed by a person having the express authority to grant such approval or
consent.
c. Controlling Law. The parties agree that this Contract shalt be governed and construed by and in accordance
with the Laws of the State of California. '
d. Definitions. The definitions and terms set forth in Section 1 of the City of Palo Alto Dept. of Public Works
Standard Drawings and SpeCifications (1992) of this Contract are incorporated herein by reference.
e. Force Majeure. Neither party shalt be deemed to be in default on account of any delay or failure to perform its
obligations unde(this Contract which directly results from an Act of God or an act of a superior governmental
authority.
f. Headings. The paragraph headings are not a part of this Contract and shall have no effect upon the
construction or interpretation of any part of this Contract.
g. 'Incorporation of Documents. All documents constituting the Contract documents described in Section 3
hereof and all documents which may, from time to time, be referred to in any duly executed amendment
hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Contract and shall be deemed to be part of this Contract.
h. Integration. This Contract and any amendments hereto between the parties constitute the entire agreement
between the parties concerning the Project and Work, and there are no other prior oral or written agreements
between the parties that are not incorporated in this Contract.
I. Modification of Agreement. This Contract shall not be modified or be binding upon the parties, unless such
modification is agreed to in writing and signed by the parties.
j. Provision. Any agreement, covenant, condition, clause, qualification, restriction, reservation, term or other
stipulation in the Contract shall define or otherwise control, establish, or limit the performance required or
permitted or to be required of or permitted by either party. All prOVisions, whether covenants or conditions,
shall be deemed to be both covenants and conditions.
k. Resolution. Contractor shall submit with its Bid a copy of any corporate or partnership resolution or other
writing, which authorizes any director, officer or other employee or partner to act for or in behalf of Contractor
or which authorizes Contractor to enter into this Contract.
I. Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Contract is void or
unenforceable, the provisions of this Contract not so affected shall remain in full force and effect.
m. Status of Contractor. In the exercise of rights and obligations under this Contract, Contractor acts as an
independent contractor and not as an agent or employee of City. Contractor shall not be entitled to any rights
and benefits accorded or accruing to the City Council members, officers or employees of City, and Contractor
expressly waives any and all claims to such rights and benefits.
n. Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Contract shall inure to the benefit of, and shall apply to and
bind, the successors and assigns of the parties.
o. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Contract and each of its provisions. In the calculation of
time hereunder, the time in which an act is to be performed shall be computed by excluding the first Day and
including the last. If the time in which an act is to be performed falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or any Day
observed as a legal holiday by City, the time for performance shall be extended to the following Business Day,
p. Alternative Dispute Resolution. The parties shall. endeavor to resolve any disputes or claims arising out of or
relating to this Contract by mediation, which, unless the parties agree otherwise, shall be conducted under the
auspices of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service (JAMS), San Jose, California. The intent of the
parties is that the mediation shall proceed in advance Of litigation; however, if any party should commence
litigation before the conclusion of mediation, such litigation, including discovery, shall be stayed pending
completion of mediation, and by executing this Contract the parties stipulate to mediation in accordan~ with
Santa Clara County Superior Court Local Rule 1.15 or Rule 2-3(b) of the ADR Local Rules of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, as such rules may be amended from time to time. The parties
shall share the cost of the mediation, including the mediator's fee, equally. Any written agreement reached in
mediation shall be enforceablepursuanUo California Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6, as amended.
q. Venue. Unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, mediation shall take place in San Jose, California. In
the eVlilnt that litigation is commenced by any party hereunder, the parties agree that such action shail be
vested exclusively in the state courts orCalifomia in the County of Santa Clara Of in the Unit~ States District
Court for the Northern District of California. .
r. Recovery of Costs. Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney's fees, through the completion of
mediation. If the claim or di$pute is not resolved. through mediation, or if litigation is necessary to enforce a
settlement reached at mediatioll pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6, as amended, then the
prevailing party in any subsequlOlnt litigation may reCOver its reasoilable costs, including attorney's fees,
incurred subsequent to conclusion of the mediation.
s. Flow-down. Contractor agreesto include provisions of this Contract relating to Alternative Dispute Resolution,
Venue. and Rec()very of Costs in any subcontracts or major material purchase agreements which it enters into
in connection with this Contract, and to require it$ subcontractors to include those provisions in any sub-
contracts or majorrnateiialpurchase agreements, such thatany mediation or litigation of any claim or dispute
asserted by asubcontraqtor or major material supplier will be consolidated with any related claim or dispute
between the Contractor and the City. Should the Contractor fail to do so, such that the City is required to
defend an action. brought byasubconttactor or material supplier inconsistent with the Alternative Dispute and
Venue provisions of this Contract. Contractor shall indemnify City for City's costs of defense, including
reasonable attorney's fees.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly appointed representatives executed this Contract in the city of Palo Alto,
County of Santa Clara, State of California on the date first slated above.
CITY OF PALO ALTO W. BRADLEY ELECTRIC, INC.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
Name: ______ ---t'--_+-;-___ _
APPROVED: Title: _______ ~~;t;;~----
~.~'By:---
City Manag. r Name: _______________ _
Title: _______________ _
(Compliance with California Corporations Code') 313 is required if the
entity on whose behalf this contract is signed is a corporation. In the
alternative, a certified corporate resolution attesting to the signatory
authority of the individuals signing in their respective capacities is
acceptable)
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code 3 1189)
COUNTY OF __________ 1
On I before me, a notary
public in and for said County, personally appeared , personally known
to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed
to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s} on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature _________________ _ (Seal)
BID SUMMARY
Item No. Descril!tion Ouantity Unit
1 Labor, equipment, material, and transportation for traffic I L8 signal work
2 Labor, equipment, material, and transportation for I LS installation, removal, and relocation of all signange
3 Labor, equipment, material, and transportation for I L8 removal of existing striping and pavement markings
4 Labor, equipment, material, and transportation for 720 LF thermoplastic striping, Caltrans Detail 8
5 Labor, equipment, material, and transportation for 600 LF thermoplastic striping, Caltrans Detail 21
6 Labor, equipment, material, and transportation for 40 LF thermoplastic striping, Caltrans Detail 21B
7 Labor, equipment, material, and transportation for 220 LF thermoplastic striping, Caltrans Detail 38A
8 Labor, equipment, material, and transportation for 125 LF thermoplastic striping, White, 12" wide
Labor, equipment, material, and transportation for 9 166 LF thermoplastic striping, Yellow, 12" wide
10 Labor, equipment, material, and transportation for 47 EA thermoplastic pavement legend, per letter or symbol
11 Labor, equipment, material, and transportation for I L8 median island removal and pavement restoration
12 Labor, equipment, material, and transportation for' I L8 provision of traffic control
13 Allowance for additional signage and striping I LS
TOWN AND COUNTRY I PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
IFB NUMBER: 133624
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE MIKE BROWN ELECTRIC CO.
UNIT COST COST UNIT COST COST
$ 210,000.00 $ 210,000.00 $ 230,655.00 $ 230,655.00
$ 3,300.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 3,300,00
$ 3,000.00 $ 3,000,00 $ 2,500,00 $ 2,500,00
$ 1.00 $ 720.00 $ 1.00 $ 720.00
$ 1.00 $ 600.00 $ 1.00 $ 600.00
$ 1.00 $ 40.00 $ 1.00 $ 40.00
$ 1.00 $ 220.00 $ 1.00 $ 220.00
$ 5.00 $ 625.00 $ 4,00 $ 500,00
$ 5,00 $ 830.00 $ 4.00 $ 664.00 -
$ 80.00 $ 3,760.00 $ 75,00 $ 3,525.00
$ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
$ 18,000.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 19,950.00 $ 19,950.00
$ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00
$ 258,595.00 $ 275,174.00
ATTACHMENT B
TENNYSON ELECTRIC, INC. W.BRADLEY ELECTRIC, INC.
UNITCQST COST UNIT COST COST
$ 291,639.00 $ 291,639.00 $ 205,700.00 $ 205,700.00
$ 2,500,00 $ 2,500.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 3,300.00
$ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00
$ 1.00 $ 720.00 $ 1.00 $ 720.00
$ 1.00 $ 600.00 $ 1.00 $ 600.00
)-
$ 1.00 $ 40.00 $ 1.00 $ 40.00 ~ );I-
$ 1.00 $ 220.00 $ 1.00 $ 220.00 i
$ 1.00 $ 125.00 $ 4,00 $ 500.00 ~ t
$ 1.00 $ 166.00 $ 4.00 $ 664,00
$ 100.00 $ 4,700.00 $ 75.00 $ 3,525.00
$ 8,000,00 $ 8,000,00 $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00
$ 17,500.00 $ 17,500.00 $ 15,000,00 $ 15,000.00
$ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00
$ 331,210.00 $ 248,269.00
Low Bid vs. Estimate: -4%
10% Contingency: $ 24,827
Total Funding: $ 273,096
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C
Location Map
o
I
I
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2009
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
CMR: 353:09
SUBJECT: Approval of Contract with Prodigy Press in the amount not-to-exceed
$180,000 Annually for a Three-Year Period for Digital Imaging Services and
Printing Projects
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute
the attached contract with Prodigy Press in an amount not-to-exceed $180,000 annually for a
three year period for digital imaging and printing services.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto maintains an in-house printing facility. Occasionally, due to resource
and/or equipment limitations, the Print Shop cannot accommodate the workload or the
complexity of ptinting job orders generated by City departments. When the work load is
excessively heavy or of a specialty print nature, selected jobs are outsourced to local printers at
the discretion of Print Shop staff.
DISCUSSION
Scope of Services Description
Tbe City of Palo Alto solicited proposals from experienced qualified printers to provide digital
imaging outsolU'cing services for specialty City reprographic projects. Digital imaging projects
may include monthly utility bill inscrts, various size envelopes, forms, NCR forms, multi-color
brochures, programs and flyers, inserts and department stationcry, These projects require state-
of-the-art technology that can accommodate the processing and production of:
• Four color computer to press printing projects.
• Oversize (larger than 11x17) processed color and black and white projects,
CMR:353:09 Page 1 of 4
• Projects that require special bindery procedures such as cutting, folding, and
collating.
• Projects that require special inks, paper, laminating, numbering, labels, and
imprinting.
Several major digital imaging jobs are generated on an annually scheduled basis by the following
City departments:
• City of Palo Alto Utilities -Utility Marketing Services. Utility Marketing
Services provides the main point of contact between the Utilities Department and
its customers througb various media such as advertisements, newsletters, bill
inserts, brochures, newspaper articles, etc.
• Community Services Department. The Community Services Department requires
higb profile four color repro graphic projects that introduce classes, plays,
recreational activities, announcement cards, etc.
Summary of Solicitation Process
Proposal DescriptionlNumber NamelNumber of Proposals
Proposed Length of Contract One year with the option to renew for two
additional years
Number of Proposals Published 4
Pre-proposal conference held Ycs
Number of Company attendees at Pre-proposal 7
Meeting
Number of Proposals Received: 5
Range of Proposal Amounts Sllbmitted $8K -$243K annually
An evaluation committee consisting of seven representatives from various City departments
reviewed the four proposals. After careful consideration, two firms were invited to participate in
oral interviews. The committee reviewed each firm's qualifications and submittal in response to
the criteria identified in the RFP. Firms were evaluated on the qualifications and experience of
their management and support staff, their methodology and experience in the type of work
required, the completeness of their proposal in response to the City's RFP, their green business
sustainability processes and their fees relative to the services to be provided. After a thorough
evaluation, the committee determined that Prodigy Press was the best candidate to meet the
City's needs and thereby is recommended for award of the contract.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for this agreement is provided for in the Fiscal Year 2010 Operating Budget.
Compensation to be paid to Prodigy Press for services shall not exceed one hundred eigbty
CMR:353:09 Page 2 of4
thousand dollars ($180,000) annually. The primary users, the Utilities and Community Services
Departments, have adequate budgets to cover these services. There are no additional direct
impacts to the General Fund as a result of this contract. In concert with the City's green
initiative, Prodigy Press will provide cost estimates for 30 percent and 100 percent post
consumer recycled paper content for each project. Departments will make a choice based on
recycled paper content cost, and other marketing factors.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The contract with Prodigy Press is in support of the Palo Alto City Council initiative on Green
Purchasing and Sustainability Practices.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The actions described in this report do not constitute a project under section 21065 of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Contract/Scope of Service
CMR:353:09 Page 3 of4
PREPARED BY:
Super is
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPRO L: ~~~~=-~~~--
J>-....f:~nlinistrative Services
CITY MANAGER APPRO VAL: ----:-:-:-::=::-dl:::":c=---'-------'--fl---V--
JAMES
City M
CMR:353:09 Page 4 of4
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. S09129759-A
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF' PALO ALTO AND
PRODIGY PRESS
)!'ORDIGITAL IMAGING OUTSOURCING SERVICES
This AGREEMENT is entered into October 1, ~009 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a
charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California ("CITY"), and PRODIGY
PRESS, a Corpor'!tion located at 150 Grant Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 ("CONSULTANT").
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement.
A. CITY intends to contract with a Digital Imaging finn to provide digital imaging
outsourcing services for the City. (project") and desires to engage a contractor to handle the
City's digital imaging needs outside ofnonnaI business operating hours, Mondaythru Friday, 8
a.m. to 5 p.m. (after hours, Monday thru Friday, after 5 p.m.), weekends, mshjobs or
emergencies.
B. CONTRACTOR has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise,
. qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services.
C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONTRACTOR to provide the
Services as more fully described in Exhibit "A", attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, temls, and
conditions, this Agreement, the parties agree:
AGREEMENT
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONTRACTOR shall perfonn the Services described in
Exhibit BA" in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The
performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.
SECTION 2. TERM, The tenn of this Agreement is effective on October 1, 2009 through
September 30, 2010 unless tenninated earlier pursuant to Seetion 19 of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, Time is of the essence in the perfonnance of
Services under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall complete the Services within the tenn of this
Agreement and in accordanee with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "B", attached to and made a part
of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for perfonnance are not speeified in this Agreement
shall be commenced and completed by CONTRACTOR in a reasonably prompt and timely manner
based upon the circumstances and direetion communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY's
. agreement to extend the telm or the schedule for perfonnance shall not preclude reeovery of damages
1
09099
Professional Services
Revised 10/18/07
agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages
for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT.
SECTION~4.NOTTOEXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to~bepaidto
CONTRACTO R for performance of the Services described in Exhibit" A", including both payment
for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One hundred Eighty Thousand
Dollars GliSJ),OOO.OO). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit "C",
entitled "COMPENSATION," which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONTRACTOR shall submit monthly
invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an
identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable
expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT's billing rates (set forth in Exhibit "C"). If applicable, the
invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in
CONSULTANT's payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONTRACTOR shall
send all invoices to the City's project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City
will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt.
SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be
performed by CONTRACTOR or under CONSULTANT supervision. CONTRACTOR represents
that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required
by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perfomi the Services
assigned to them. CONTRACTOR represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted,
have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, penn its, qualifications,
insuranee and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services.
All of the services to be furnished by CONTRACTOR under this agreement shall meet the
professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of
similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar
cireumstances.
SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONTRACTOR shall keep itself informed of and
in eompliance with all federal, state and loeallaws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may
affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perfonn
Services under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all
charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services.
SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONTRACTOR shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and
all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives
notice to CONSULTANT. If CONTRACTOR has prepared plans and specifications or other design
documents to construct the Project, CONTRACTOR shall be obligated to correct any and all errors,
omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construetion of the Project.
This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement
SECTION 9. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing
2
09099
Professional Serv~ce$
Revised 10/18/07
the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with
CONTRACTOR to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an
independent contractor and .not an agent or employee of the CITY.
SECTION 10. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of
CONTRACTOR are material considerations for this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall not assign
or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor'the performance of any of CONSULTANT's
obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one
assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made
without the approval of the Project Manager will be void .
• SECTION 11. SUBCONTRACTING.
Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the
Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are:
(see list of names attached at end of contract).
CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any
compensatiiiln due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning
compensation. CONTRACTOR shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a
subconsultant. CONTRACTOR shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of
the city manager or his designee.
SECTION 12. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONTRACTOR will assign .Ray Azadan to
have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and as
the project coordinator to represent CONTRACTOR during the day,to,day work on the Project. If
circumstances cause the substitution of the project coordinator or any other key personnel for any
reason, the appointment of a substitute project coordinator and the assignment of any key new or
replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY's project manager.
CONSULTANT, at CITY's request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not
perfonn the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate
or timely completion of theProject or a threat to the safety of persons or property.
The City's project manager is Ty Campbe.11 Administrative Services Departm(Ol11, Printing and
Mailing Djy!§ion, 250 Hamilton Ave., Level A, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Telephone: 650,329,3504.
The project manager will be CONSULTANT's point of contact with respect to performance,
progress and execution oftlle Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from
time to time.
SECTION 13. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including
without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents,
other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the
exelusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONTRACTOR
agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall
3
09099
Professional Services
Revised 10/18/07
be vested in CITY, and CONTRACTOR waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other
intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONTRAcTOR nor its contractors, if
any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the
prior written approv\ll of the City Manager or designee. CONTRACTOR makes no
representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not
contemplated by the scope of work.
SECTION 15, AUDITS. CONTRACTOR will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time
during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT's records
pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONTRACTOR further agrees to maintain and
retain such records ,tor at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this
Agreement. .
SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.
16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONTRACTOR shall protect,
indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents
(each an "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any
nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs
and expens(ls of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements
("Claims") resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance ornonperformance
by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless
of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party.
16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to
require CONTRACTOR to indemnifY an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active
negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party.
16.3. The acceptance ofCONS1JLTANT's services and duties by CITY shall not
operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive
the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.,
SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party ofany breach or violation of any covenant,
term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not
be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or Jaw, or of
any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition,provision,
ordinance or law .
. SECTION 18. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES.
18.1. The city manager may suspend the performance ofthe Services, in whole or in
part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (l0) days prior written notice
thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONTRACTOR will immediately
discontinue its performance of the Services.
18.2. CONTRACTOR may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of
the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a
Professiona~ Services
Revised 10/1B/07
4
09099
substantial failure of perfonnance by CITY.
18.3. Upon such suspension or tennination, CONTRACTOR shall deliver to the
City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other
data, whether or not cOinpleted, prepared by CONTRACTOR or its contraetors, if any, or given to
CONTRACTOR or its contractors, if any, in cOImection with this Agreement. Such materials will
become the property of CITY.
18.4. Upon such suspension or tennination by CITY, CONTRACTOR will be paid
for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on
or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or tennination; provided,
however, if this Agreement is suspended or tenninated on account of a default by CONSULTANT,
CITY will be obligated to compensate CONTRACTOR only for that portion of CONSULTANT's
services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such detennination may be made by
the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of histher discretion
18.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will
operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement.
SECTION 19. NOTICES.
All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by
certified mail, addressed as follows:
To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
With a copy to the Purchasing Manager, Grcg Pustelnik
To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director
at the address of CONTRACTOR recited above
SECTION 20. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
20.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONTRACTOR covenants that it presently has
no interest, and will not aequire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would
conflict in any manner or degree with the perfonnance of the Services.
20.2. CONTRACTOR further covenants that, in the perfonnanceofthis Agreement,
it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONTRACTOR
certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer
or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in aceordance with the applicable provisions
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California.
20.3.. If the Project Manager detennines that CONTRACTOR is a "Consultant" as .
that tenn is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONTRACTOR
5
09Q831
Professional Services
ReviSed 10/18/07
shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the
Palo Alto Munieipal Code and the Political Reform Act.
SECTION 21. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section
2.30.510, CONTRACTOR certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not
discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion,
disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status,
weight or height of such person. CONTRACTOR acknowledges that it has read and understands the
provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination
Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section
2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment, including completing the form furnished by
CITY and set forth in Exhibit "E."
SECTION 22. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
22.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California.
22.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action
will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of
California.
22.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this
Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that
action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of
legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys' fees paid to third
parties.
22.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, represenfations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
22.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply
to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the
parties.
22.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
22.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices,
attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to tirne, may be referred to in any
duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be
deemed to be a part of this Agreement.
22.8. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter ofthe City of
Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a)
6
09{)83 1
Professional Services
Revis¢o 10/18/07
at the end of any fiscal year in the evertt that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year,
or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the
fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This Section 23.8 shall take
precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this
Agreement.
22.9. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have
the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives execqted
this Agreement on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
APPROVED:
City Manager (Required for contracts over
$85,000)
Purchasing Manager (Required for contracts
over $25,000
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Attachments:
EXHIBIT "A": SCOPE OF SERVICES
PRODIGY PRESS
BY:~~
Name:~c9~~8""""""'"
Title: ~~:::;;;:;, pg...-e/J
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "c"
EXHIBIT "D";
CONTRACT PRICING (Parts 1-4)
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CERTIFICATION OF NONDISCRIMINATION
7
09083l
Professional services
Revised 10/1S/07
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Contractor will handle the City's digital imaging needs during and outside of nonnal business
operating hours, Monday thru Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (after hours, Monday thru Friday, after 5
p.m.), weekends, rush jobs or emergencies.
Contractor will process job orders as assigned by the City's Supervisor of Printing and Mail
Services. Print quality must be sharp and clear with no bleeds or smears. Contractor will provide
all incidental and related work assoeiated with job order processing (Le., produce fihn, provide
plate(s), supply paper, provide soy-based ink and complete all required finishing).
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Specific Digital Imaging Tasks
Several major Digital hnaging Jobs are generated on an annually seheduled basis
by various City Departments, including the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CP AU) Utility
Marketing Services (UMS) and Utility Administration groups; Department of
Community Services, including Arts and Sciences, Open Space and Parks, Recreation and
Golf.
CPA U shall utilize the services of the Contractor to provide digital imaging production,
as well as advertising placement and mailing service coordination to assist in
communicating with its residential and business utility customers. Contractor will
coordinate and work with the City's graphic designer(s). CPAU will develop a calendar
of production. Contractor shall keep in mind that thc City uses sustainable products and
seeks to use paper with as much recycled and post consumer content as possible.
These Digital Imaging Projects may be simultaneous and/or require a fairly quick turn
around time.
A. City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) Utility Marketing Services (UMS) and Utility
Administration groups
CPAU is a full-service municipal utility that has been in operation for over 100 years. The
municipal utility system is owned anfl operated by the City (and therefore the City
residents and businesses). The customer segments CP AU serves include residential,
commercial, corporate, institutional and industrial classes. CPAU provides water,
electricity and natural gas to utility customers. The benefits CPAU provides include
competitive rates, fast response, local political control, reliable delivery and a positive
environmental focus.
8
EXHIBIT A
UMS is a main point of contact between thc Utilitics Department and customers. Through
various media such as advertisements, case studies, newsletters, bill inserts, envelope
bangtails and back of envelope graphics, brochures, email ads, newspaper artieles, and
program packets, customers are informed of current programs, educational, and technical
information, safety tips and required notifications, industry trends and updates. On an
annual basis, CPAU staff implements a.multitude of program and service marketing
along with customer education and outreach activities by leveraging outside graphic
designers and ad agencies to supplement staff resources. CP AU has developed a calendar
of production for use with its graphic design contractor.
B. Community Services Department
Community Services Department, including Arts and Sciences, Open Space and Parks,
Recreation and Golf often requires Digital Imaging Services for
various multicolor Flyers, Inserts Announcements, Catalogues and Brochures.
Other services required may inelude specialty oversized) documents such as
maps, engineering drawings and plans.
C. Specialty Items: Maps, Architectural and Engineering Plan Sets-
Large and Regular Format
Several departments within the City, such as Public Works, Utilities, Planning, Parks and
Golf, Recreation and Open Space and occasionally the Fire Department, require
reproduction of maps, drawings, etc. In addition, black/white and color copies of
specifications sometimes accompany plans. Black/white and color copying may be
required by any department for various projects.
III. CITY'S INTENT (ALTERNATE SOURCES)
Contractor is the preferred vendor for City of Palo Alto digital imaging job orders. Contractor
shall process job orders as assigned by the Supervisor of the Printing and Mailing Division.
Contractor is the City'S primary source for digital imaging work required by City Staff. In those
instances in which the Contractor is unable to meet the City's requirements, the City may use the
services of a secondary vendor as necessary. Contractor shall keep in mind that the City uses
sustainable products and seeks to use paper with as much recyeled and post consumer content as
possible.
Occasionally, City may refer small run overflow or rush offset jobs to Contractor for processing.
IV. GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
A. Vendor must provide pick-up and delivery service for all jobs submitted
B. Vendor guarantees turn around time of3-5 days
9
090831
Professional Services
Revised 10/18/07
EXHIBIT A
C. Vendor shall provide: Same day service: Ifreceived by 8:00 a.m., guaranteed complete
by 5:00 p.m. same day, or within 48 hours.
D. Contractor will submit items in person, electronically in Word or PDP format or by others
means as designated by Project Manager.
E. Vendor will provide dollar mark-up amount or specify hourly rate for rush jobs. Vendor
must define "RUSH" parameters.
F. Vendor will provide after-hours (after 5:00 pm) emergency or rush services (6-hour
turnaround
time) , week-end services (24-hour turnaround) and the fees for such services
G. Vendor will provide on-site Press Check for all jobs, unless other arrangements agreeable
to the City or its representatives are made,
H. Vendor shall only accept job requests from Print Shop Supervisor as Point of Contact,
unless other contact arrangements have been made for specific projects
L Vendor must accept eleetronic files for job order processing,
J. Vendor will include all COSTS, including all necessary materials (paper, ink, etc.) for all
jobs
K. Contractor shall be responsible for all finishing materials (bindery, sorting, etc.)
L. Contractor shall provide one specific sales representative to handle City's accounts. The
sales representative will inform City purchasing and user departments of new materials
and processes, handle billing problems, special orders, etc.
M. Contraetor will provide pick up and delivery service in local proximity
N. Contractor will send invoices for services to the attention of the Print Shop
SupervisorlManager, unless other contaet arrangements have been made for specific
projects
O. Contractor shall work with City of Palo Alto third party vendors or contacts.
P. Contractor shall perform mail merge function for mailed pieces with delivery to post
Office,
Q. Contractor's in-house graphics person shall update information in digital-format for maps
and other on-going documents.
R. Contractor shall discuss the maximum recycled content paper available for each print job
with each project manager and encourage the use of 100% post-consumer recycled-
content process chlorine free paper and/or Green Seal Certified paper
www.greenseal.orgifindaproductJprintedpap!lr.cfin when feasible, affordable, available
and when it will perform the needs of the print job. Specific recycled content requirement
details for designated print jobs are listed in the Contract Pricing section of this document
as well as information on higher recycled content alternatives.
S. Contractor shall use a minimum of 30% post-consumer content paper unless the need for
greater amount is specified.
T. Contractor shall use soy or other vegetable based inks for print jobs.
U. Contractor shall meet the City's reporting requirements for quantifying greenhouse gas
emission and waste reduction effOrts, and in consultation with the City's environmental
purchasing project manager or designee, through submission of an annual andlor upon
request report from Contractor quantifying environmental performance of materials and
products used for City print jobs (e.g., energy, water savings) using tools such as the
10
09083)
Professional Services
Rev{sed 10/18/07
EXHIBIT A
Environmental Defense Fund Paper Calculator http://www.edf.orglpaper9alculator/ or
similar with approval from the City. Contractor must provide the report within ten
business days of request at No Charge.
V. When shipping completed jobs, Contractor shall use products that contain recycled-
content materials that are recyclable in the City of Palo Alto's· Recycling Program and.
W. Contractor shall report how waste from the production and shipping of printed materials
will be minimized.
V. VENDOR REQUIREMENTS:
1. Capabilities:
A. Contractor shall handle originals and electronic artwork in varying states such as:
• Various materials;
• Various sizes;
• Various age and condition. Some originals are very old and must be handled with
great care;
• Where imprinting on back shows through to the front and must be captured when
reproduced.
• Various electronic file formats such as Acrobat, Illustrator, PageMaker, Corel
Draw, etc.
B. City will have the option of using blanket orders, purchase orders or a credit
card. Occasional users will use one-time purchase orders on an as-needed
basis. Contract pricing must be extended to each order.
C. Jobs must be picked up from and delivered to requesting City departments
unless another local address is specified.
D. Contractor shall notiry requestor immediately if the required deadline cannot be
met.
E. Contractor shall submit itemized invoices detailing labor and materials used for
each job produced.
F. Within ten working days of request, Contractor shall provide an electronic
summary of annual paper used and resources used/saved based on the
paper choice for City print jobs as outlined in Section VI.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL PURCHASING PREFERENCES
The City of Palo Alto is certified as a Bay Area Green Business through the association of Bay
Area Governments Green Business Program (www.greenbiz.ca.gov) and, as such, seeks to
11
09Qe3J
Professional Services
Revised 10/18/07
EXHIBIT A
purchase products and services in an environmentally preferred manner.
Preferences:
The City prefers:
090831
A. To conduct business with certified Bay Area Green Businesses (or those actively
enrolled in the program with the intention of completing the certification process)
when the business provides the service needed at a reasonable cost; proposer shall
provide the contact information of the Green Business coordinator if proposer is
seeking certification.
B. The use of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified paper that is "process chlorine
free".
C. The use of renewable energy at the Proposer's place of business and efforts to reduce
energy use and thus, the carbon footprint for the development, production and
delivery of final product(s).
12
Professional Services
Revised 10/18/01
EXHIBIT B
CONTRACT PRICING
Name of Company: Prodigy Press Inc. 650-566·1890
PART l. BASIC PRINTING SERVICES
liTEM
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE BILLING UNIT RATES FOR RATES FOR RUSH OR
OF MEASURE STD SERVICE EMERGENCY SVCS;
NO. REG HOURS; QUICK TURN or AFTER MON-FRI, HOURS·5 PMIWEEKENDS B TO 5
1. i Client Consultation . Per Hour No Charge No extra Charge , 2. Electronic file transfer Included No extra Charge
3. Press check i Included No extra Charge
4. Travel/mileage rate Per Mile No Charge No extra Charqe
5. Scanningnmaging Included No extra Charge
, 6. Assembling Included No extra Charge
7. Binding Per job No Setup Charge No extra Charge
8. Perforating Per job No Setup Charge No extra Charge
9. Foldinr:J Per job No Setup Charge No extra Charge
10. Die-Cutting Per job No Setup Charge No extra Charge
11. laminate Per job No Setup Charge No extra Charge
12. Graphic Design Service Per hour , $45.00 No extra Charge ---------
13a. Database cleanup/mail merge Per 1,000 pieces $125.00 No extra Charge
address_~sonto print pieces
13b. Database cleanup/mail merge Per 5,000 pieces $425.00 No extra Charge
addresses onto print pieces
13c. Database cleanup/mail merge Per 10,000 $725.00 No extra Cha1Jle
----addresses onto print pieces pieces
PART :2 -ENVELOPES, PAPER STOCK (INCLUDING NCR) TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY
13
(Include Minimum run quantities>
090831
EXHIBIT B
14
Professional Services
Revised 10/18/07
EXHIBIT B
005 20,000 I NCR Forms, 3 part
8 J;;" x 11"
Black soy based
006 5,000 I NCR Forms, 4 part
8 J;;" x 11"
Black soy based ink
PART 3 -UTILITY BILL INSERTS and MISC.
15
090831
1$0.088
1'011
I Printing 1/0
I
No Charge
I
No Charge
Professional Services
Revised lo/lS/O,
001
002
090831
EXHIBIT B
60,000 Utility Bill Inserts
60 lb. 30% post consumer
Two-Color
Process-color, 2-sided, cut to
size 5.75" x 7.25", bi-fold
1 bill insert, Sx a year, is
printed @ 30,000 copies each
Delivery for monthly Print run is
required on the 24th of designated
month.
City to provide artwork in
532,000 I Utility Bill Inserts
60 lb. 30% post consumer,
II" .x 17/f
2-color, 2-sided, cut to size 7 "
X 11", letter fold
2 bill inserts are printed each
month @ 30,000 copies each insert
16
$0.049
Printing
4/2
$0.042
Printing
2/2
$0.051
New Leaf
Frontier Offset
100% Post
Consumer Waste
92 Brigb,t
60# White
Ancient Forest
Friendly
FSC Certified
Acid Free CRE
$0.46
New Leaf
Frontier Offset
100% Post
Consumer Waste
92 Bright
60# White
No charge
No charge
Professional Services
Revised 10/1S/07
003 474,000
004 10,000
0'IIJ8Jl
EXHIBIT B
a} City to provide artwork in
electronic format.
Utility Bill Inserts
60 lb. 30% post consumer, 11" x
17" 4-color, 2-sided, cut to
size 7" x 11", letter fold
2 bill inserts are printed each
month @ 30,000 copies each
insert
Delivery for monthly print run
is required on the 24th of each
month.
a) City to provide artwork in
electronic format.
Brochures/ flyers /
17
$0.078
Printing
4/4
$0.055
Ancient Forest
Friendly
FSC Certified
Acid Free
$0.082
New Leaf
Frontier Offset
100% Post
Consumer Waste
92 Bright
60# White
Ancient Forest
Friendly
FSC Certified
Acid Free
CRE
$0.059
No
charge
No
Professional services
Revised 10/1S/07
005
090831
150,000
Print
Run of
1000 and
up
30% post consumer
Machine folding
8.S x 11
Black (one color)
soy based inks
Brochures/flyers/programs
30 % post consumer
Machine folding
8.S x 11
PMS color
soy based inks
EXHIBIT B
18
Printing
1/1
Standard
ink
$0.06
Printing
1/1
1 PMS
Standard
ink
New Leaf
Frontier Offset
100%" Post
Consumer Waste
92 Bright
60# White
Ancient Forest
Friendly
FSC Certified
Acid Free
CRE
$0.064
New Leaf
Frontier Offset
100% Post
Consumer Waste
92 Bright
60# White
Ancient Forest
No Charge
professional Services
Revised lO/IS/07
006 115,000
Print
Run of
1000 and
up
007 20,000
090831
EXHIBIT B
I White stock
8 1/2 " x 11"
20 lb. bond, 30% post consumer
Black, one-color soy based inks
White stock
8 1/2 " x 11"
20 lb. bond,
30% post consumer
19
1$0.17
Printing
2/2
1 PlVlS
Standard
ink
$0.06
FSC Certified
$0.174
New Leaf
Frontier Offset
100% Post
Consumer Waste
92 Bright
60# White
Ancient Forest
Friendly
FSC Certified
Acid Free CRE
$0.064
.:.L; ~.cc:·':I
No Charge
No Charge
Professional services
Revised 10/lS/07
PART 4 -SPECIFIC SAMPLES PROVIDED
090831
EXHIBIT B
LETTERHEAD, BROCHURES, UTILITY BILL INSERTS and MISC.
20
Professional Services
Revised 10/18/07
001
Sample
# 1
002
Sample
# 2
003
Sample
# 3
090831
20,000
10,000
Based on
past
history
2,500/
Order
20,000
1,000
per
order
LETTERHEAD -
Stationery, white,
8 ~ " xlI"
24 lb. 30% recycled chlorine
free Black and 1 PMS color
soy based inks
SPRING 2009 ART CLASSES -
Brochures/ programs
22.5" x 17.5" multiple
folds
30% post consumer
Machine folding
2 color, Black (+ PMS)
inks
-Brochures/ programs
A COMMUNITY CENTER FOR
SPORTS/MUSIC
7" x 8.24", 1 fold l
30% post consumer
Machine folding
4
EXHIBIT B
$0.055
Evergreen
24#
50% Waste Paper
30% Post
consumer
Acid free
$0.396
Enova Silk
50% Recycle
30% Post
Consumer .. Waste
Chlorine Free
$0.30
Enova
Silk
50% Recycle
30% Post
Consumer
21
$0.060
Environment
PCIOO / 24#
100% Recycle
100% Post
consumer
FSC
$0.426
New Leaf
Reincarnation
100 % Recycled
50% Post Consumer
Chlorine Free
CRE AFR
$0.309
New Leaf
Reincarnation
100 % Recycled
50% Post Consumer
Chlorine Free
No Charge
No Charge
No Charge
Professional Services
Revised 10/lS/07
EXHIBIT B
Soy based inks Waste CRE
AFR
f--------1-----+--------------j1 prlnt4/ ~ 1
POWER CONTENT LABEL -i $0.036 004 1150,000
Sample
# 4
005 160,000
Sample
# 5
090831
Utility Bill Inserts
60 lb. 30% post consumer,
11" x 17" One-Color, Soy
based inks
2-sided, cut to size 5.75" x
7.25", bi-fold 1 bill
insert, 5x a year, is i Print 1 / 1
printed @ 30,000 copies each
City to provide artwork in
electronic format.
QUALIFY FOR STORM DRAIN 1$0.042
REBATES -
Utility Bill Inserts
60 lb. 30% post consumer,
II" x 17"
2-color, Soy based inks, 2-
sided, cut to size 7 • x
11", letter fold
22
$0.040
New Leaf
Frontier Offset
100% Post
Consumer Waste
92 Bright
6D# White
Ancient Forest
Friendly
FSC Certified
Acid Free
$0.046
New Leaf
Frontier Offset
100% Post
Consumer Waste
92
No Charge
No Charge
Professional services
Revised 10/la/07
06
Sample
# 6
60,000
007 130,000
090831
2 bil
each month @
each insert
copies
City to provide artwork in
electronic format.
EXHIBIT B
FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE -1$0.078
Utility Bill Inserts
60 lb. 30% post consumer,
11" x 17"
4-color, Soy based inks ,
2-sided, cut to size 7 " x
11", letter fol~
2 bill inserts are printed
each month @ 30,000 copies
each·· insert
City to provide artwork in
format.
PALO ALTO SUSTAINABLE I $0.179
23
60#
Ancient Forest
Friendly
FSC Certified
Acid Free
CRE
$0.082
New Leaf
Frontier Offset
100% Post
Consumer Waste
92 Bright
60# White
Ancient Forest
Friendly
FSC Certified
Acid Free
CRE
$0.219
No Charge
No Charge
Professional Services
Revised 10/18/07
# 7
008 30,000
Sample
#8
090831
Based on
past
history
8,000
per
Order
Utility Bill
60 lb. 30% post consumer,
22" x 14"
4-color, Soy based inks,
2-sided, multiple-fold
City to provide artwork in
electronic format.
SAVE MONEY WITH EVERY
FLUSH -
Postcard
2 color, Soy based inks,
set up on 8.5x11 inch, finish size is
cut to 5.5 x 8.5",
90-lb cover. consumer
EXHIBIT B
$0.84
Enova silk
50% Recycle
30% Post
Consumer Waste
100# cover
24
Everest
100% Post
Consumer Waste
24 # NW
Forest
Friendly
FSC Certified
Acid Free
$0.92
New
Reincarnation
100 % Recycled
50% Post Consumer
Chlorine Free
Ancient Forest
Friendly
No Charge
Professional Services
Revised 10/18/07
City to provide artwork in
eleotronic format.
009 65,000 I TALES FROM AN IMAGINARY
Sample I
#9
I MENAGERIE-
Postcard
Based on 4 color soy inks, set up on 8.5x11
past inch, finish size is cut to 5.5 x 8.5",
history
8,000
per 90-lb cover
Order
30 % post consumer
City to provide artwork in
electronic
rmat.
010 32,000 I RESIDENTIAL EFFICIENCY
090831
EXHIBIT B
$0.11
! Enova silk
I 50% Recycle
30% Post
Consumer
Waste
100# cover
I Printing 4/4
1$0.207
25
cover
$0.118
New Leaf
Reincarnation
100 % Recycled
50% Post Consumer
Chlorine Free
Ancient Forest
Friendly
CRE
95# cover
$0.24
No Charge
No charge
Professional Services
Revised 10/15/07
Sample
#10
16 Page
Booklet
Self
cover
Brochure -4 color
4 color soy inks, for B.5x11 inch, 1
fold. saddle-stitched piece. finish
size is 4x7.5 inch
30% post consumer content
EXHIBIT B
Enova
Silk
50% Recycle
30% Post
Consumer
Waste
80 # gloss text
City to provide artwork inlprinting 4/4
electronic
011 20,000 I ALL ABOUT YOUR UTILITIES -1$
Samp e 44 page . . 1 I I Booklet, 2-color. except 4-color
#11 booklet I cover. saddle-stitched
plus machine fold cover
Base on Cut size Tx11"
past 100 % oost consumer
26
09()83 I
New Leaf
Primavera
80 % Recycle
60 % Post
Consumer
Chlorine Free
FSC CRE
Ancient Forest
Friendly
88#gloos text
$2.64
New Leaf
Reincarnation
100 % Recycled
50% Post Consumer
Chlorine Free
Ancient Forest
Friendly
No charge
Professional services
Revised 10/18/07
2500 per I Soy based ink
order
70-lb book
80-lb
012 '5,000 WALK-THRU ENERGY AUDI
Sample Booklet, 4-color, machine fold
# 12 16 page Cut size 8.5"x11" Booklet
.+
I cover I 100 % post consumer
perf on
text Soy based ink, pages saddle-stitched,
Base on
past 80-lb book
history 80-lb cover
1000
090831
EXHIBIT B
27
Matte Text
Matte Cover
$1. 74
1000
per Order
New Leaf
Reincarnation
100 % Recycled
50% Post Consumer
Chlorine Free
Ancient Forest
Friendly eRE
80# Silk text and
cover
No Charge
Profe$s~onal services
Revised 10/18/07
013
Sample
#B
090831
20,000
Based on
past
history
2000 per
order
FROM FIRE TO THE
FOREFRONT -Tri-fold, 4-color,
with 2 machine folds,
Cut size 25.5"x11"
30% post consumer
Soy based ink
80-lb cover
EXHIBIT B
$0.82
Mohawk 80#
Matte Cover
NW
15% post
consumer
Acid free
28
$0.84
New Leaf
Everest
100 % Recycled
100% Post
Consumer
Chlorine Free
Ancient Forest
Friendly
FSC
CRE
No charge
80# lk text and
cover
Professional Services
Revised 10/18/07
EXHIBIT B
29
090831
Professional Services
Revised 10/18/07
Name of Firm: ~W~&-;;?5 ./ct/C
Signature(s):
f~
~2-r8Dc'7~
> (Print name)
090831
I
30
24
Professional Services
Rev~sed 10/18/0?
090831
EXHIBIT D
Exhibit B: Certification 01 Nondiscrimination
I>.ttaahl1'lent C
CertlficatiQn of NQndlscrimination
All; suppl"'~ of Sloods Qf eervice. to the City of Palo Alto, the I1rm Md individuals listed
below certify \hat they do r'IOt dis(;rlmina!~ In employ"",n! 01 ;11'1'1 per."n because of
race, akin colOr, gander, age, religion, disabil"y, national migln, ance.hy, .exuel
arienls!l.:.n. housing s13tus, marit,,1 $I;>tu~, 1amilial .tatus, weight or height Dr such
person: lila! they .. re in compliance lIIIith .. II Federal, SMa and Iccal lJireotives and
eXElcutlve Qf<ier~ IlOgarding nondi.criminl!ll:ion in emr>loymant
4. If Propos"r ;s INOIVIDUAL, sign here:
Da.te:o¥/""'~kr ~~~ ____ _ ~s Signature ...
Proposer's typed name and title
5. If Proposer ia PARTNERSHIP or JOINT VENTURE, allea$1 (2:) ~aJ1ners Or
each of the Joint Ventuf&1¥ shall sign here:
Pl'rtnelship or Joint Venture Name (type or print)
Date: ______ --.. -;----,.;;-.. -:--:O:-c:--:-:-~:7T._:_:7:=_:
Member of the Partnership tit Joint Venlllr!t ~i9r;aiuM
0"".: _____ _
Memoor of the Par\n&l'ihlp QI Join! Venture signature
6. If Proposer is a CORPORATION, the duly ",lfI:I'lorlzed officer(s) shel! sign as
follows:
The Und .. r8lgned certify that they are respoollVe!y:
Of Ihe oOlT>oration ~amed below: that they are desi911ated to sign the Proposal Coot
Form by resolution (attach a ""rtlMed CClPY, with corporate seal, if applicable.
not!UiZ;ld as tl;! Its authentiCl1.y or Secretary's certiflcQ1& of llullloriZalio~) for and on
oolieilf Qf the below named CORPORATIOI>I, antl that IIH~Y rn authorized to llxeC\ftc
seme for and on behalf of said CORPORATION.
31
Professional Services
Revised 10/18/07
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2009
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
CMR: 354:09
SUBJECT: Recommendation from Finance Committee to Preliminarily Approve Fiscal
Year 2009 Reappropriation Requests to be Carried Fonvard into Fiscal Year
2010
RECOMMENDATION:
The Finance Committee recommends that the Council preliminarily approve the Fiscal Year
2009 reappropriations to be carried forward into Fiscal Year 20 I 0 (Attachment 1).
Reappropriation is defined as the inclusion of a balance from the prior year's budget as part of
the budget of the subsequent fiscal year. This year, General Fund proposed reappropriations
total $2,264,907. Enterprise Fund proposed reappropriations total $521,095. Internal Service
Fund proposed reappropriations total $180,365.
COMMITTEE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
On July 21, 2009, the Committee voted unanimously to accept staff's recommendation to carry
forward the Fiscal Year 2009 reappropriations into Fiscal Year 2010.
PREPARED BY: ~v. DALEWONG~
Senior Financial yst
DEPARTMENT HEAD: . ..i)
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: CMR 294:09, July 21 2009 Report to the Finance Committee
Attachment 2: Excerpt from July 21, 2009 Finance Committee Minutes
-=-=-=-::-:-c~------------------------.... --CMR:354:09 Page 1 of 1
TO:
ATTENTION:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FINANCE COMMITTEE
CITY MANAGER
JULY 21, 2009
ATTACHMENT 1
DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
CMR: 294:09
Request to Preliminarily Approve Fiscal Year 2009 Reappropriations
Requests
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee recommend that the Council preliminarily
approve the Fiscal Year 2009 reappropriations (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
As a part of the year-end process, staff reviews the City's unencumbered and unspent
. appropriations of the fiscal year just ended along with the City's spending plans. Encumbered
amounts are those subject to the legal claims of other parties due to contractual obligations (i.e.,
. commitments made through purchase ~~ders). The reappropriations process calls for
unencumbered and unspent amounts in one fiscal year to be carried forward into the following
fiscal year. Staff utilizes the reappropriation process if the adopted budget in the following fiscal
year cannot accommodate the expense. Council approves these reappropriations in the year-end
closing ordinance once the accounting books are closed.
In 1995, the Fiscal Procedures Chapter of the Municipal Code (Chapter 2.28, Section 2.28.090)
governing reappropriations was amended to allow Council to preliminarily authorize
reappropriations of non-capital budgets at the beginning of the fiscal year with final
authorization to be made at the time of adoption of the budget closing ordinance in January. The
purpose of this was to ease difficulties experienced by the departments caused by the late, final
approval of the reappropriations where the reappropriation was justified and sufficient funds
from the prior year were clearly available. Preliminary approval allows the department to
continue with normal operations and spend the funds as of the Council's preliminary approval
date rather than the year-end ordinance approval date.
DISCUSSION
As noted above, the Municipal Code allows the "preliminary" approval of reappropriations as
long as final approval is included with the normal year-end closing ordinance. The preliminary
reappropriation action allows for an early review of uncommitted funds in a just-concluded fiscal
CMR:294:09 Page 1 .of2
year. Attachment A identifies those reappropriation requests that staff recommends for
preliminary approval.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Staff has determined that sufficient uncommitted budgeted funds exist to allow for the
preliminary approval of the attached Fiscal Year 2009 reappropriations list (Attachment A).
General Ftmd proposed reappropriations total $2,264,907. Enterprise Fund proposed
reappropriations total $521,095. Internal Service Fund proposed reappropriations total $180,365.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation is consistent with adopted Council policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action recommended is not a project for the purposes of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENT
DALE WONG r
Senior Financial Analyst
LALQ.E~~
Director, Administrative Services
Attachment A: Fiscal Year 2009 Reappropriations List
CMR:294:09 Page 2 of2
Attachment A
FY 2009 REAPPROPRIATION J. .. ""''-,I u~"'u
$ COMMENTS/REASONS
AMOUNT INTENDED USE FOR NOT COMPLETING IN FY 2009 STATUS
City Manager's OffICe
$111,500 Senior Games This reappropriation is being requested for a Recommended $111,500, There is
Sponsorship sponsorship agreement for the 2009 National suffieient balance in the Fiscal Year
Senior Games as approved by Council. When 2009 budget that can be
Council approved the agreement in March reappropriated.
2009, there was no appropriation offunds
associated with the approval. The FY 2010
City Manager's Office budget does not have
the funds to cover these one-time expenditures.
As such, a reappropriation of savings is being
requested from the FY 2009 budget to cover
expenditures associated with the 2009 Senior
Games to be held August 1-15,2009,
Planning Department
$32,107 Comprehensive Plan This reappropriation is being requested for the Recommended $32,107. There is
Amendment Comprehensive Plan Amendment This project sufficient balancc in the Fiscal Year
was the result of a colleague's memo to update 2009 budget that can be
the Comprehensive Plan through 2020 to reappropriated.
identify future growth and ensure sufficient
services to serve existing and future needs and
address sustainability. The Comprehensive
Plan Amendment is a multi"year project and
this $32,107 budget balance needs to be
reappropriated into FY 2010 for Ihe ongoing
project costs.
$17,500 Alternative Modes This reappropriation is being requested for the Recommended $17,500. There is
Program City's Bicycle Transportation Plan input into sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year
the Comprehensive Plan. Due to workload 2009 budget that can be
issues, this project was not completed in FY reappropriated.
2009. This project will be implemented in the
Pall.
Page I of3
$ COMMENTSIREASONS
AMOUNT INTENDED USE FOR NOT COMPLETING IN FY 2009 STATUS
$53,800 Study of parking This reappropriation is being requested for the Recommended $53,800. There is
permit program for study of a residential parking permit program sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year
College Terrace in College Terrace. On October 25, 2001, as a 2009 budget that can be
condition of their General Use Permit with reappropriated.
Santa Clara, Stanford University paid $100,000
to the City for study of a residential parking
permit program in College Terrace. FUnds
were held in a deposit account until they were
ready for use. At mid· year FY 2009, the City
Councll authorized moving the fnnds into the
Transportation Section budget and proceeding
with the study. The $53,800 remaining is
reserved specifically for that project to
implement any recommendations adopted by
the City Council. Staff will obtain Council ! ! approval of the program in July 2009, and
implementation of the project will then begin.
$50.000 Speed Surveys This reappropriation is being requested for the Recommel1.ded $50,000. There is
completion of speed surveys to justify radar sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year
enforcement on Palo Alto streets. The 2009 budget that can be
California Traffic Control Device Committee reappropriated.
sets the guidelines on how to perform the
: survey analysis. Staff wanted to wait for their
• decision so that the testing analysis would not
i be obsolete. Staff will proceed with the speed
, surveys because the California Traffic Control
; Device Committee did not make a decision
i until this Spring,
NOII~Departlllelltal
$2,000,000 City Manager Housing This reappropriation is being requested for the Recommended $2,000,000. There is
purchase of a home for the City Manager. The sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year
City Manager has found a home to purchase, 2009 budget that can be
but the fuuds are not necessary until FY 20 I O. reappropriated.
Utilities Department-Fiber Optics FUlld
$11,000 Broadhand Project This reappropriation is being requested for the Recommended $11,000, There is
development of a broadband project to attract sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year
federal stimulus funds. Council originally 2009 budget that can be
appropriated $300,000 to support negotiations reappropriated,
with a consortium of firms that intended to
bring fiber to the premises. The remaining
balance of $ll,OOO is needed in the next fiscal ,
year for technical assistance to pursue federal
stimulus funds.
Page 2 of3
$ COMMENTSJREASONS
AMOUNT INTENDED USE FOR NOT COMPLETING IN FY 2009 STATUS
Public Works Department. Storm Droillage Fund
$510,095 Storm Drain Innovative This reappropriation is being requested for Recommended $510,695, There is
Impt'Ovements customer rebates for innovative storm drain suftlcient balance in the Fiscal Year
projects. Annually since FY 2006, CIP SD-2009 budget that can be
06105 Storm Drain Innovative Improvements reappropriated.
has been funded for innovative storm drain
projects on public and private property.
Rebates are provided for projects that protect
storm water quality and reduce the quantity of
storm runoff. Funding has been more
appropriately moved from the capital budget to
the operating budget, and the remaining
balance needs to be reappropriated to provide
funding for future rebates along with those in
process.
Administrative Services Department-Techllology Fuml
$180,365 Application Software This reappropriation is being requested for Recommended $180,365. There is
Replacement application software replacement. With the sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year
increased workload during the technical 2009 budget that can be
upgrade of SAP and the migration of the utility reappropriated.
billing system, some work needed to be
reprioritized as staff was' not able to complete
all of the plans for FY 2009. Among the items
that are planned to be addressed are the
migration of GIS data from the Utilities
. Engineering group to the Enterprise GIS, the
completion of tbe Information Technology
Strategic Plan updule, upgrading of software
for the Budget Division and polentially
performing modifications 10 the City's web site
as identified by the Public Web Committee.
Page 3 00
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Excerpt
ATTACHMENT 2
Regular Meeting
July 21, 2009
2. Request to Preliminarily Approve FY 2009 Reappropriations Requests.
Director of Administrative Services, Lalo Perez said as part of the year-end
process Staff brings FY 2009 reappropriations for the Finance Committee to
preliminarily approve. The term "reappropriations" refers to items that were
budgeted for and approved by the City Council for the previous FY year, but
Staff was not able to award contracts for those items. This process is
requesting those funds to be carried over from FY 2009 to FY 2010. The
total amount is about $3 million Citywide. Approximately $2.3 million is for
the General Fund. The majority of that Is $2 million which is the City
Manager's housing equity share and loan. The Enterprise Fund has about
$521,000, and the Internal Service Fund has $180,000.
Vice Mayor Morton asked Staff If it was their intent that Council "approves in
concept" these dollar amounts since each of these items were large
contracts that would eventually come to Council on the Consent Calendar.
Mr. Perez said that is one step. The other time Staff would request
appropriations for approval would be when the books are closed after the
audit.
Council Member Schmid said this is an opportunity for oversight on
spending. He stated that $32,000 was for the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. In January 2009, when the Committee was approving the
work program, there was a promise that a quarterly report to the Council
would be made, and that the Council would be engaged on policy, programs,
and vision statement issues. He stated the Council has not had any activity
in this. He questioned whether it would be appropriate to approve budget
expansions, or to have a statement about delivery of the work program
given this situation.
Mr. Perez explained that these reappropriations aren't additions. They are
carryovers from a previously approved budget.
FIN: 090721FIN 1
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Interim Planning & Community Director, Curtis Williams said that they are
trying to schedule a session In October to come to the Council with vision
statements, perhaps In a joint study session with the Planning and
Transportation Commission. He agreed that the format for the quarterly
reports has not been completed, but believed the study session would be a
good kick off for that process.
Chair Burt asked if these expenses were unencumbered expenses for Fiscal
Year 2009.
Mr. Perez confirmed that they were.
Chair Burt asked why the report was worded to suggest that they were
approving 2009 reappropriation requests. He asked If they were approving
requests from Fiscal Year 2009 to Fiscal Year 2010.
Mr. Perez said that they were FY 2009 to FY 2010. He then explained that
an encumbered expense Is one that is awarded to a vendor and assigned a
purchase order .. In a reappropriation request there is no assignment to a
purchase order, because ·Staff Is requesting preapproved money to be
carried over to the following year.
Chair Burt thought it might be confusing to the public the way it was
worded. He suggested "reappropriation of 2009 appropriations carried over
to 2010".
Mr. Perez agreed with Chair Burt's pOints that Staff should try to clarify the
process.
Herb Borock PO Box 632, spoke regarding the speed survey required to
justify radar enforcement, as one of the appropriation items. He stated the
law dictates that speed surveys are not enough for radar enforcement.
Areas near schools and senior centers don't require the surveys. Every
place else requires the survey and enactment of an ordinance to authorize
the use of the radar. The surveys must be done every 5 years. No
Ordinance has been passed in Palo Alto since 1995. There was an RFP
(126867) last year for speed surveys, yet no action was taken on the part of
the Council.
Mr. Williams stated that the issue of speed surveys came up at the budget
hearing. The surveys in use are still valid for the use of radar. There are
FIN: 090721FIN 2
FINANCE COMMITTEE
exceptions that the State grants that extend the period of time in between
surveys. He also stated that the surveys will expire soon, so new surveys
will have to be done and Staff will have to come back to the Council for an
Ordinance.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Morton moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid,
that the Finance Committee recommend that the City Council approve the
Fiscal Year 2009 reapproprlations into Fiscal Year 2010.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Klein absent
FIN: 090721FIN 3
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING ITS
APPRECIATION TO PAULA KIRKEBY FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS
A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Paula Kirkeby served the City of Palo Alto as a member of the Public Art
Commission from May 2003 to April 2008; and
WHEREAS, Paula Kirkeby has given unselfishly of her time and talents serving as Vice-Chair
from May 2005 to April 2008, and worked as a team with other commissioners in support of the
City of Palo Alto Art In Public Places Program; and
WHEREAS, Paula Kirkeby spearheaded the development and assessment of the condition of the
Public Art Collection, and policies to maintain and strengthen the quality of the Collection, and the
acquisition of a major sculpture by artist Fletcher Benton, Tilted Donut #5; and
WHEREAS, during Paula’s service, she was instrumental in bringing artwork by world class
artists into the City of Palo Alto’s Art in Public Places Permanent Collection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby
gratefully records its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community, for
the outstanding public service rendered by Paula Kirkeby.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: SEPTEMBER 14, 2009
ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________ ______________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________ ______________________
City Attorney City Manager
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO EXPRESSING ITS APPRECIATION TO BARBARA
MORTKOWITZ FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS
A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Barbara Mortkowitz served the City of Palo Alto as a member of the Public Art
Commission from June 2005 to April 2008; and
WHEREAS, Barbara Mortkowitz has given unselfishly of her time and talents in support of the
City of Palo Alto Art In Public Places Program; and
WHEREAS, Barbara Mortkowitz has made a significant personal contribution to the community
through her diligent and conscientious efforts while serving as a member of the Public Art
Commission; and
WHEREAS, Barbara Mortkowitz unfailingly supported the "First Friday Art Walks" program
in downtown Palo Alto, and
WHEREAS, Barbara Mortkowitz remains an advocate of arts-outreach and continues as a
dedicated artist in her own right.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby
gratefully records its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community, for
the outstanding public service rendered by Barbara Mortkowitz.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: SEPTEMBER 14, 2009
ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________ ______________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________ ______________________
City Attorney City Manager
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING ITS
APPRECIATION TO GERALD BRETT FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Gerald Brett served the City of Palo Alto as a member of the Public Art
Commission from May 1994 to October 2005; and
WHEREAS, Gerald Brett has given unselfishly of his time and talents in support of the City of
Palo Alto Art In Public Places Program; and
WHEREAS, Gerald Brett has made a significant personal contribution to the community
through his diligent and conscientious efforts while serving as a member of the Public Art
Commission and Chair, from February 2001 to May 2002, and May 2005 to October 2005, and
Vice-Chair from June 2003 to April 2005; and
WHEREAS, during Gerald’s service, he spearheaded the joint collaboration with the California
Avenue Area Development Association on developing California Avenue as an “art destination”
featuring many artists; acquisition of Digital DNA by artists Adriana Varella and Nilton Maltz, and
the temporary art installation by Korean artist Hong Seok Kang, working in collaboration with
Samsung Semiconductor Inc. and Korean Airlines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby
gratefully records its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community, for
the outstanding public service rendered by Gerald Brett.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: SEPTEMBER 14, 2009
ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________ ______________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________ ______________________
City Attorney City Manager
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNC][L
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 CMR:362:09
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Approval of a Storm Drain Enterprise Fund Contract With Peak
Engineering, ][nc. in the Amount of $573,004 for Alma Street Storm Drain
Improvement Project, Capital Improvement Program Project 8D-08101
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract
with Peak Engineering, Inc., in the amount of $573,004 for Alma Street Storm Drain
Improvement Project, Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project SD-08101.
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change
orders to the contract with Peak Engineering, Inc., for related, additional but unforeseen
work which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed
$57,300.
BACKGROUND
In 2005, the property owners of Palo Alto voted to increase their monthly storm drainage fee to
fund a set of seven high-priority storm drain-related capital improvement projects, including
improvements to drainage along southbound Alma Street. This project makes use of the funds
for storm drain capital improvements for FY 2009.
DISCUSSION
Project Description
A project location and overview map is shown on Attachment B. The major elements of the
work are installation of curb and gutter, asphalt berm, rock-filled infiltration ditches, storm water
retention chambers, and the replacement of selected catch basins along southbound Alma Street
between Homer Avenue and San Antonio A venue. Existing catch basins will be replaced with
higher-capacity drain inlets' between Homer Avenue and Oregon Expressway. Curb and gutter
shall be installed at certain locations between Oregon Expressway and Charleston Road to
promote better conveyance of storm water runoff. There are very few existing drainage
structures to handle the storm runoff along Alma Street between Matadero Creek and San
Antonio A venue: Therefore, runoff will be directed into rock-filled ditches and storm water
retention chambers in order to encourage infiltration of the runoff into the underlying soils prior
to discharge to a storm drain.
CMR:362:09 Page 1 of3
Proi ect Coordination
The work included in this project has been coordinated with the City's street maintenance
program. Alma Street between Colorado Avenue and San Antonio Avenue is tentatively
scheduled to be resurfaced in 2011, after the storm drain improvements have been completed.
S fB'dPr ummaryo I ocess
Bid NamelNumber Alma Street Storm Drain Improvement Project, Capital
Improvement Program Project SD-08101 I IFB #131628 _ .........
ted Length of Project 90 calendar days
r of Bids Mailed to 22
tors
Number of Bids Mailed to 11
Builder's Exchanges
Total Days to Respond to Bid 28
Pre-Bid Meeting? No
Number of Company Attendees at N/A
Pre-Bid Meeting
Number of Bids Received: 3
Bid Price Range * $573,004 to $905,271
*Bid summary provIded In Attachment C.
Staff has reviewed the bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $573,004 (which includes
Base Bid plus all bid alternates) submitted by Peak Engineering, Inc., be accepted and that Peak
Engineering, Inc., be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The bid is 22 percent below the
engineer's estimate of $731,010. In preparing the engineer's estimate, staff attempt to accmmt
for the declining economy. The change order amount of $57,300 (which equals 10% of the total
contract) is requested to resolve unforeseen problems and/or conflicts that may arise during the
construction period. Staff confirmed with the Contractor's State License Board that the
contractor has an active license on file. Staff also contacted the listed references for Peak
Engineering, Inc. and found that they have performed satisfactorily on past construction projects
for other clients.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for the Alma Street Storm Drain Improvement Project is available in Storm Drainage
Fund Capital Improvement Program Project SD-08101. The project is funded by the Storm
Drainage Fee increase approved by property owners in 2005.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation does not represent any changes to existing City policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the provlSlons of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301 ofthe CEQA Guidelines as
repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of an existing facility and no further environmental
review is necessary.
Page 2 of3
ATT~HMlENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
PREPARED BY:
Contract
Project Location Map
Bid Summary
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
JAME~/KpENE
City~ager
cc: Storm Drain Oversight Committee
CMR:362:09 Page 3 of 3
!FORMAL
CONTRACT NCll. C10131tS28
(Public Work)
Public Works Department
ATJfACHM]EN1f A
This Contract, number C10131628 dated _______ is entered into by and between the City of Palo Alto, a
charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California ("City"), and Peak Engineering. Inc. ("Contractor").
For and in consideration of the covenants, terms, and conditions (*the provisions') of this Contract, City and Contractor
("the parties") agree:
1. Term. This Contract shall commence and be binding on the parties on the Date of Execution of this Contract,
and shall expire on the date of recordation of the Notice of Substantial Completion, or, if no such notice is
required to be filed, on the date that final payment is made hereunder, subject to the earlier termination of this
Contract.
2. General Scope of Project and Work. Contractor shall furnish labor, services, materials and equipment in
connection with the construction of the Project and complete the Work in accordance with the covenants, terms
and conditions of this Contract to the satisfaction of City. The Project and Work is generally described as
follows:
Title of Project: Alma Street Storm Drain Improvement Project, invitation for Bids (IFB) No. 131628
Bid: $573,004.00 (Five hundred seventy~three thousand four dollars)
(Total includes Base Bid and all of the Add Alternate Bid Items)
3. Contract Documents. This Contract shall consist of the documents set forth below, which are on file with the
City Clerk and are hereby incorporated by reference. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving
inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, these documents and the provisions
thereof are set forth in the following descending order of precedence.
a. This Contract.
b. Invitation for Bid.
c. Project Specifications.
d. Drawings.
e. Change Orders.
f. Bid.
g. Supplementary Conditions.
h. General Conditions.
I. City of Palo Alto Dept. of Public Works Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version).
j. Certificate of Insurance, Performance Surety Bond, Labor & Materials (Payment) Surety Bond.
k. Other Specifications, or part thereof, not expressly incorporated in the Contract Specifications or the
City of Palo Alto Dept. of Public Works Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version).
I. Any other document not expressly mentioned herein which is issued by City or entered into by the
parties.
4. Compensation. In consideration of Contractor's performance of its obligations hereunder, City shall pay to
Contractor the amount set forth in Contractor's Bid in accordance with the provisions of this Contract and upon
the receipt of written invoices and all necessary supporting documentation within the time set forth in the
Contract Specifications and the City of Palo Alto Dept. of Public Works Standard Drawings and Specifications
(most current version), or, if no time is stated, within thirty (30) Days of the date of receipt of Contractor's
invoices.
5. Insurance. On or before the Date of Execution, Contractor shall obtain and maintain the policies of insurance
coverage described in the Invitation For Bid on terms and conditions and in amounts as may be required by the
Risk Manager. City shall not be obligated to take out insurance on Contractor's personal property or the
personal property of any person performing labor or services or supplying materials or equipment under the
Project. Contractor shall furnish City with the certificates of insurance and with original endorsements affecting
coverage required under this Contract on or before the Date of Execution. The certificates and endorsements
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT C10131628 PAGE 1 OF 7
rev. 12100
for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person who authorized by that insurer to bind coverage in its
behalf. Proof of insurance shall be mailed to the Project Manager to the address set forth in Section 16 of this
Contract.
6. Indemnification. Contractor agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold City, its Council members, officers,
employees, agents and representatives harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities,
losses, damages, costs, expenses,liens, penalties, suits, or judgments, arising, in whole or in part, directly or
indirectly, at any time from any injury to or death of persons or damage to property as a result of the willful acts
or the negligent acts or omissions of Contractor, or which results from Contractor's noncompliance with any Law
respecting the condition, use, occupation or safety of the Project site, or any part thereof, or which arises from
Contractor's failure to do anything required under this Contract or for doing anything which Contractor is
required not to do under this Contract, or which arises from conduct for which any Law may impose strict liability
on Contractor in the performance of or failure to perform the provisions of this Contract, except as may arise
from the sole willful acts or negligent acts or omissions of City or any of its Council members, officers,
employees, agents or representatives. This indemnification shall extend to any and aU claims, demands, or
liens made or filed by reason of any work performed by Contractor under this Contract at any time during the
term of this Contract, or arising thereafter.
To the extent Contractor will use hazardous materials in connection with the execution of its obligations under
this Contract, Contractor further expressly agrees to protect, indemnify, hold harmless and defend City, its City
Council members, officers and employees from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, losses,
damages, costs, expenses, liens, penalties, suits, or judgments City may incur, arising, in whole or in part, in
connection with or as a result of Contractor's willful acts or negligent acts or omissions under this Contract,
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 339601-6975,
as amended); the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 336901-6992k, as amended); the Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 332601-2692, as amended); the Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous
Substance Account Act (Health & Safety Code, 3325300-25395, as amended); the Hazardous Waste Control
Law (Health & Safety Code, 3325100-25250.25, as amended); the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement
Act (Health & Safety Code, 3325249.5-25249.13, as amended); the Underground Storage of Hazardous
Substances Act (Health & Safety Code, 3325280-25299.7, as amended); or under any other local, state or
federal law, statute or ordinance, or at common law.
7. Assumption of Risk. Contractor agrees to voluntarily assume any and all risk of loss, damage, or injury to the
property of Contractor which may occur in, on, or about the Project site at any time and in any manner,
excepting such loss, injury, or damage as may be caused by the sole willful act or negligent act or omission of
City or any of its Council members, officers, employees, agents or representatives.
8. Waiver. The acceptance of any payment or performance, or any part thereof, shall not operate as a waiver by
City of its rights under this Contract. A waiver by City of any breach of any part or provision of this Contract by
Contractor shall not operate as, a waiver or continuing waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any
other provision, nor shall any custom or practice which may arise between the parties in the administration of
any part or provision of this Contract be construed to waive or to lessen the right of City to insist upon the
performance of Contractor in strict compliance with the covenants, terms and conditions of this Contract.
9. No Exoneration By Inspection: The City has the right, but not the duty, to inspect Contractor's Work. The right
of inspection is solely for the benefit of City. Contractor has the obligation to complete the Work in a
satisfactory manner in compliance with Contract requirements. The presence of a City inspector does not shift
that obligation to the City or relieve Contractor from its obligations to complete the Work in a satisfactory
manner in compliance with the Contract requirements.
10. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all Laws now in force or which may hereafter be in force
pertaining to the Project and Work and this Contract, with the requirement of any bid security or fire
underwriters or other similar body now or hereafter constituted, with any discretionary license or permit issued
pursuant to any Law of any public agency or official as well as with any provision of all recorded documents
affecting the Project site, insofar as any are required by reason of the use or occupancy of the Project site, and
with all Laws pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment and hazardous materials.
11. Bid Security Bonds. As a condition precedent to City's obligation to pay compensation to Contractor, and on or
before the Date of Execution, Contractor shall furnish to the Project Manager the Bid Security as required under
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT C10131628 PAGE 2 OF 7
rev. 12/00
the Invitation For Bid.
12. Representations and Warranties. In the supply of any materials and equipment and the rendering of labor and
services during the course and scope of the Project and Work, Contractor represents and warrants:
a. Any materials and equipment which shall be used during the course and scope of the Project and
Work shall be vested in Contractor;
b. Any materials and eqUipment which shall be used during the course and scope of the Project and
Work shall be merchantable and fit to be used for the particular purpose for which the materials are
required;
c. Any labor and services rendered and materials and eqUipment used or employed during the course
and scope of the Project and Work shall be free of defects in workmanship for a period of one (1) year
. after the recordation of the Notice of Substantial Completion, or, if no such notice is required to be
filed, on the date that final payment is made hereunder;
d. Any manufacturer's warranty obtained by Contractor shall be obtained or shall be deemed obtained by
Contractor for and in behalf of City.
e. Any information submitted by Contractor prior to the award of Contract, or thereafter, upon request,
whether or not submitted under a continuing obligation by the terms of the Contract to do so, is true
and correct at the time such information is submitted or made available to the City;
f. Contractor has not colluded, conspired, or agreed, directly or indirectly, with any person in regard to
the terms and conditions of Contractor's Bid, except as may be permitted by the Invitation For Bid;
g. Contractor has the power and authority to enter into this Contract with City, that the individual
executing this Contract is duly authorized to do so by appropriate resolution, and that this Contract
shall be executed, delivered and performed pursuant to the power and authority conferred upon the
person or persons authorized to bind Contractor;
h. Contractor has not made an attempt to exert undue influence with the Purchasing Manager or Project
Manager or any other person who has directly contributed to City's decision to award the contract to
Contractor;
I. There are no unresolved claims or disputes between Contractor and City which would materially affect
Contractor's ability to perform under the Contract;
j. Contractor has furnished and will furnish true and accurate statements, records, reports, resolutions,
certifications, and other written information as may be requested of Contractor by City from time to
time during the term of this Contract;
k. Contractor and any person performing labor and services under this Project are duly licensed by the
State of California as required by California Business & Professions Code Section 7028, as amended;
and .
I. Contractor has fully examined and inspected the Project site and has full knowledge of the physical
conditions of the Project site.
13. Assignment. This Contract and the performance required hereunder is personal to Contractor, and it shall not
be assigned by Contractor. Any attempted assignment shall be null and void.
14. Claims of Contractor. All claims pertaining to extra work, additional charges, or delays within the Contract Time
or other disputes arising out of the Contract shalJ be submitted by Contractor to City in writing by certified or
registered mail within ten (10) Days after the claim arose or within such other time as may be permitted or
required by law, and shall be described in sufficient detail to give adequate notice of the .substance of the claim
to City.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
rev. 12100
CONTRACT C10131628 PAGE 3 OF7
15. Audits by City. During the term of this Contract and for a period of not less than three (3) years after the
expiration or earlier termination of this Contract, City shall have the right to audit Contractor's Project-related
and Work-related writings and business records, as such terms are defined in California Evidence Code
Sections 250 and 1271, as amended, during the regular business hours of Contractor, or, if Contractor has no
such hours, during the regular business hours of City.
16. Notices. All agreements, appointments, approvals, authorizations, claims, demands, Change Orders, consents,
designations, notices, offers, requests and statements given by either party to the other shall be in writing and
shall be sufficiently given and served upon the other party if (1) personally served, (2) sent by the United States
mail, postage prepaid, (3) sent by private express delivery service, or (4) in the case of a facsimile transmission,
if sent to the telephone F IV( number set forth below during regular business hours of the receiving party and
followed within two (2) Days by delivery of a hard copy of the material sent by facsimile transmission, in
accordance with (1), (2) or (3) above. Personal service shall include, without limitation, service by delivery and
service by facsimile transmission.
To City:
Copy to:
To Contractor:
City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton.Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto
Public Works Department
Engineering Division
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Joe Teresi, Project Manager
Peak Engineering, Inc.
477 Roland Way
Oakland, CA94621
Attn: Mike Fredenburg
17. Appropriation of City· Funds. This Contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of Article III, Section 12 of the
Charter of the City of Palo Alto. Any charges hereunder for labor, services, materials and equipment may
accrue only after such expenditures have been approved in advance in writing In accordance with applicable
Laws. This Contract shall terminate without penalty (I) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are
not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (ii) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are
only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Contract are no longer available. This
Section 17 shall control in the event of a conflict with any other provision of this Contract.
18. Miscellaneous .
. a. Bailee Disclaimer. The parties understand and agree that City does not purport to be Contractor's
bailee. and City is. therefore, not responsible for any damage to the personal property of Contractor.
b. Consent. Whenever in this Contract the approval or consent of a party is required, such approval or
consent shall be in writing and shall be executed by a person having the express authority to grant
such approval or consent.
c. Controlling Law. The parties agree that this Contract shall be governed and construed by and in
accordance with the Laws of the State of California.
d. Definitions. The definitions and terms set forth in Section 1 of the City of Palo Alto Dept. of Public
Works Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version) of this Contract are incorporated
herein by reference.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
rev. 12/00
CONTRACT C10131628 PAGE 4 OF7
e. Force Majeure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default on account of any delay or failure to
perform its obligations under this Contract which directly results from an Act of God or an act of a
superior governmental authority.
f. Headings. The paragraph headings are not a part of this Contract and shall have no effect upon the
construction or interpretation of any part of this Contract.
g. Incorporation of Documents. All documents constituting the Contract documents described in Section
3 hereof and all documents which may, from time to time, be referred to in any duly executed
amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Contract and shall be deemed to be part
of this Contract.
h. Integration. This Contract and any amendments hereto between the parties constitute the entire
agreement between the parties concerning the Project and Work, and there are no other prior oral or
written agreements between the parties that are not incorporated in this Contract.
)
I. Modification of Agreement. This Contract shall not be modified or be binding upon the parties, unless
such modification is agreed to in writing and signed by the parties.
j. Provision. Any agreement, covenant, condition, clause, qualification, restriction, reservation, term or
other stipulation in the Contract shall define or othelWise control, establish, or limit the performance
required or permitted or to be required of or permitted by either party. All provisions, whether
covenants or conditions, shall be deemed to be both covenants and conditions.
Ie Resolution. Contractor shall submit with its Bid a copy of any corporate or partnership resolution or
other writing, which authorizes any director, officer or other employee or partner to act for or in behalf
of Contractor or which authorizes Contractor to enter into this Contract.
I. Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Contract is void
or unenforceable, the provisions of this Contract not so affected shall remain in full force and effect.
m. Status of Contractor. In the exercise of rights and obligations under this Contract, Contractor acts as
an independent contractor and not as an agent or employee of City. Contractor shall not be entitled to
any rights and benefits accorded or accruing to the City Council members, officers or employees of
City, and Contractor expressly waives any and all claims to such rights and benefits.
n. Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Contract shall inure to the benefit of, and shall apply
to and bind, the successors and assigns of the parties.
o. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Contract and each of its provisions. In the
calculation of time hereunder, the time in which an act is to be performed shall be computed by
excluding the first Day and including the last. If the time in which an act is to be performed falls on a
Saturday, Sunday, or any Day observed as a legal holiday by City, the time for performance shall be
extended to the following Business Day.
p. Alternative Dispute Resolution. The parties shall endeavor to resolve any disputes or claims arising
out of or relating to this Contract by mediation, which, unless the parties agree othelWise, shall be
conducted under the auspices of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service (JAMS), San Jose,
California. The intent of the parties is that the mediation shall proceed in advance of litigation;
however, if any party should commence litigation before the conclusion of mediation, such litigation,
including discovery, shall be stayed pending completion of mediation, and by executing this Contract
the parties stipulate to mediation in accordance with Santa Clara County Superior Court Local Rule
1.15 or Rule 2-3(b) of the ADR Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, as such rules may be amended from time to time. The parties shall share the cost of the
mediation, including the mediator's fee, equally. Any written agreement reached in mediation shall be
enforceable pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6, as amended.
q. Venue. Unless the parties mutually agree othelWise, mediation shall take place in San Jose,
California. In the event that litigation is commenced by any party hereunder, the parties agree that
CITY OF PALO ALTO
rev. 12100
CONTRACT C10131628 PAGE 5 OF7
fORMAllr"ln''''TlCll
such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara or
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
r. Recovery of Costs. Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney's fees, through the
completion of mediation. If the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation, or if litigation is
necessary to enforce a settlement reached at mediation pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
§ 664.6, as amended, then the prevailing party in any subsequent litigation may recover its reasonable
costs, including attorney's fees, incurred subsequent to conclusion of the mediation.
s. Flow-down. Contractor agrees to include provisions of this Contract relating to Alternative Dispute
Resolution, Venue. and Recovery of Costs in any subcontracts or major material purchase
agreements which it enters into in connection with this Contract, and to require its subcontractors to
include those provisions in any sub-contracts or major material purchase agreements, such that any
mediation or litigation of any claim or dispute asserted by a subcontractor or major material supplier
will be consolidated with any related claim or dispute between the Contractor and the City. Should the
Contractor fail to do so, such that the City is required to defend an action brought by a subcontractor
or material supplier inconsistent with the Alternative Dispute and Venue provisions of this Contract,
Contractor shall indemnify City for City's costs of defense, including reasonable attorney's fees.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly appointed representatives executed this Contract in the city of
Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California on the date first stated above.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED:
Director of Public Works
CITY OF PALO ALTO
rev. 12100
CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Manager
CONTRACTOR:
Title: ___________________ _
CONTRACT C10131628 PAGE 6 OF7
fORMAL CO~1i"RAC1i" SIEC1i"~ON 500
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code;) 1189)
STATE OF ___________ _
COUNTY OF __________ _
On , before me, _______________ ,a
notary public in and for said County, personally appeared _______________ _
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose
name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature _________ ~ ________ _
CITY OF PALO ALTO
rev. 12100
CONTRACT C10131628
(Seal)
PAGE 7 OF7
PROJEdT
LOdATIONS
ALMA STREET STORM DRAIN
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
ATTACHIVIENT B
AlMASTREEJ STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
IFB 131628
BID SUMMARY ATTACHMENT C
Engineer's Peak Granite Stoloski &
BASE BID: Estimate Engineering, Inc Construction Company Gonzalez, Inc
BIDII DESCRIPTION II BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID
QTY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT
~
LS $10,000 $10,000 $26,000.00 $26,000.00 $4,800.00 $4,800.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
LS $10,000 $10,000 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $17,350.00 $17,350.00 $9,000.00 $9,000.00
LS $10,000 $10,000 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $17,000.00 $17,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00
(Includes Tree Remollal & ~ LS $20,000 $20,000 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00
Trees planting)
arthwork Excallation & Export CY $10 $7,850 $15.00 $11,775.00 $45.00 $35,325.00 $27.00 $21,195.00
chedule II -Street Works
rind & Ollerlay (Min. 1 1/2"-3" Grind & 1 1/2" Ollerlay) 2,801 SF $3.5 $9,804 $4.00 $11,204.00 $5.20 $14,565.20 $4.50 $12,604.501
nstall6" AC Oller 12" CL II AE 10,239 SF $10 $102,390 $10.00 $102,390.00 $9.15 $93,686.85 $11.00 $112,629.001
(At l' Saw Cut & Along 8" AC Berm, Including Saw Cut
II Complete)
8 "Remolle Ex. 6"_9" C & G & Install New 6" to 9" C & G ~ $4,736.00 $5,920.00 $6,660.00
(Including l' Saw Cut, All Complete At The Intersection
of Alma Street & Oregon Expressway)
9 IIRemolle ex. Sidewalk & Install City Std. Sidewalk (At II 27711 SF $101 $2,770 I $20.001 $5,540.001 $17.001 $4,709.001 $15.001 $4,155.00
Intersection of Alma Street & Oregon Expressway)
10 IIlnstall New City Std. C & G (Including l' Saw Cut, All II 33411 LF $501 $16,700 i $28.001 $9,352.001 $37.501 $12,525.001 $47.001 $15,698.00
Complete North of E. Meadow Dr.)
Remolle Ex. AC Berm and Install City Std. C & G II 16411 LF I $501 $8,200 I $30.001 $4,920.001 $56.001 $9,184.001 $45.001 $7,380.00
(Including l' Saw Cut, All Complete North of Charleston
Road)
~ 'ostall 8" AC 8e,m 5,744 LF $20 $114,880 $6.00 $34,464.00 $8.50 $48,824.00 $8.00 $45,952.00
13 Remolle Ex. Guard Rail 290 LF $25 $7,250 $5.00 $1,450.00 $26.50 $7,685.00 $1.5.00 $4,350.00
14 Install Signs & Striping WI Reflectors 1 LS $12,000 $12,000 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $8,500.00 $8,500.00
7 EA $100 $700 $200.00 $1,400.00 $200.00 $1,400.00 $400.00 $2,800.00
4 EA $1,500 $6,000 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 $2,000.00 $8,000.00 $1,200.00 $4,800.00
chedule III -Drainage Works
stall 2" AC Over 4" CL II AS (Over Drainage Ditch) 11,262 SF $6 $67,572 $5.00 $56,310.00 $10.001 $112,620.001 $12.001 $135,144.00
StormTech SC-31 0 Chamber (Including End Caps 85 EA $500 $42,500 $60.00 $5,100.00 $5C .1
500 CY $50 $25,000 $28.00 $14,000.00 $55.00
26,000 SF $1.5 $39,000 $0.50 $13,000.00 $0.25
nstall DeepRoot Water Barrier 9,315 SF $2,5 $23,288 $3.00 $27,945,00 $100
Iinstall 6" Perforated Polyvinyl Chlrodie Drain Pipe 477 LF $65 $31,005 $12.00 $5,724,00 $18.001 $8,586.001 $45.001 $21,465.00
(Including Fittings) i
3 Illnstall 6" Solid Polyvinyl Chlrodie Drain Pipe 24 LF $65 $1,560 $10,00 $240.00 $54.001 $1,296,001 $40,001 $960,00
(Including Fittings)
~ Install 12" Square Low Profile Drain (Including Fittings) 8] 20 $100 $2,000 $200.001 $4,000.001 $534.001 $10,680.001 $450.001 $9,000.00
25 Remove Ex, Catch Basin & Install Caltrans EA $3,500 $31,500 $3,500.001 $31,500.001 $4,675.001 $42,075,001 $8,500.001 $76,500.00
" OL-7 Drainage Inlet (Including Pavement, C & G
Restoration, Pipe Connections, All Complete)
26 URemove Ex. Catch Basin & Install City Std. II 111 EA I $3,5001 $3,500 I $3,200.001 $3,200,001 $4,310.001 $4,310.001 $2,900.001 $2,900.00
Catch Basin Dwg. No. 301 (Including Pavement, C & G
Restoration, Pipe Connections, All Complete
27 IIInstall City Std. Storm Drain Manhole 2 EA $3,000 $6,000 $3,200.00 $6,400.00 $3,000.001 $6,000.001 $3,200.001 $6,400.00i
Install 12" RCP Including Pipe Connections to 22 LF $120 $2,640 $120.00 $2,640.00 $145.001 $3,190.001 $200,001 $4,400.0~
(Homer Street & Addison Ave.) I I
:.8" Storm & Install 12' RCP (Including 11 LF $160 $1,760 $125.001 $1,375.001 $450.001 $4,950.001 $240.001 $2,640.00
ms to Ex. Inlets, Replacement of C&G, I I I
avement Conform, Conc. Ditch Restoration If Required R H
II Complete, N. of Matadero Creek)
ove Ex. 8" RCP and Install 12" RCP (Including $1,875.00 $3,675,00 $6,300.00
nection to Ex, 4' X 5' Box Culvert All Complete)
:reate Opening on 9" Thick Ret. Wall For 12" RCP WI 1 EA $1,000 $1,000 I $2,000,001 $2,000,001 $1,300,001 $1,300,001 $2,800,001 $2,800,00
IGrouting All Complete. (N, of Matadero Creek) m H u
ideo Inspect & Clean 10" ACP Pipe 856 LF $2.5 $2,140 $4,501 $3,852.001 $8.301 $7,104.801 $11,001 $9,416.001
Iinstall 4" PVC Sleeves ( Including Opening on Ex. RCC 4 LF $150 $600 $1,200.001 $4,800.001 $142.001 $568.001 $1,800,001 $7,200.001
Vall, Grouting All complete) I H
Iinstall City Std. Catch Basin Per Dwg. No. 304 WI 8 EA $3,000 $24,000 $2,200.001 $17,600,001 $2,380.001 $19,040001 $3,100,001 $24,800.00
n ,
"x18" Openings (Including Cutting Ex. 12" RCP &
king Connections to Catch Basin)
ove & Replace Ex. Drop Inlet WI City Std, Catch II 811 EA $3,0001 $24,000 I $2,500.001 $20,000.001 $2,880.001 $23,040,001 $4,800.001 $38,400,00
er Dwg. No. 304 W/6"x18" Openings (Including
Ex. 12" RCP & Making Connections to Catch
Basin)
~ Install City Std. Catch Basin Per Dwg. No. 304 2 EA $1,500 $3,000 $2,400.00 $4,800.00 $3,100.00 $6,200.00 $3,200.00 $6,400.00
Install 6" Rock Rip Rap (6" Depth, 32 SF) 1 LS $300 $300 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $850.00 $850.00 $800.00 $800.00
38 Install 1 1/2" Rock 6" Depth Foundation Below 2492 SF 1.5 $3,738 $26.00 $64,792.00 2.3 $5,731.60 $4.00 $9,968.00
StormTech 310 Barrel
BASE BID TOTAL: $687,296 $536,384.00 $649,505.45 $832,161.50
ALTERNATE BID:
BID DESCRIPTION BID UNIT BID
I"rEM QTY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
Intersection of Colorado Ave.
1 Min. 1 112" Grind & Overlay 406 SF $4 $1,421
(Sta: 85+43.24 -86+05.82)
2 Remove Ex. Curb Inlet & Install City Std Catch Basin 1 EA $3,000 $3,000
(Pavement Restoration, Replace Curb & Gutter as
Needed to Conform, Pipe Connection All Complete)
North of Matadero Creek
3 Min. 1 112" Grind & Overlay (Sta: 102+45 -104+95) 1,703 SF $4 $5,961
4 Remove Ex. Curb & Gutter and Replace WI New 186 LF $50 $9,300
City Std. Curp & Gutter, Including l' Saw Cut All
Complete (Sta: 102+45 -104+33)
5 Remove Ex. Pavement & Install 6" AC/12" CL II AB 186 LF $12 $2,232
at l' Saw Cut
Intersection of Melville Ave.
6 Remove Ex. 10" Storm Drain and Replace with 64 LF $200 $12,800
18" RCP WI Trench Restoration, 2" AC Over 6" PCC
on 4" CL II AB, Saw Cut, All Complete
(Including Connection to Ex. Catch Basin)
7 Install Handicap Ramp Replacement Per City Std. 1 EA $2,000 $2,000
WI Domes (Includes C & G Restoration All Complete)
Intersection of Churchill St.
8 Remove Ex. Curb Inlet and Install Caltrans Type 01-7 2 EA $3,500 $7,000
Drainage Inlet. (Replace Curb & Gutter and Pavement
Restoration as Needed to Conform)
ADD ALTERNATE BID TOTAL: $43,714
BID GRAND TOTAL: $731,010
~
UNIT BID UNIT
PRICE AMOUNT PRICE
$4.00 $1,624.00 $15.50
$2,500.00 $2,500.00 $3,760.00
$4.00 $6,812.00 $5.17
$32.00 $5,952.00 $42.10
$12.00 $2,232.00 $41.00
$125.00 $8,000.00 $197.00
$2,500.00 $2,500.00 $4,050.00
$3,500.00 $7,000.00 $3,935.00
$36,620.00
$573,004.00
BID UNIT
AMOUNT PRICE
$6,293.00 $10.00
$3,760.00 $6,500.00
$8,804.51 $10.00
$7,830.60 $48.00
$7,626.00 $12.00
$12,608.00 $165.00
$4,050.00 $4,800.00
$7,870.00 $9,500.00
$58,842.11
$708,347.56
BID
AMOUNT
$4,060.00
$6,500.00
$17,030.00
$8,928.00
$2,232.00
$10,560.00
$4,800.00
$19,000.00
$73,110.00
$905,271.50
page 2 of2
•
•
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 CMR:360:09
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Approval of a Contract With Valley Slurry Seal Company in an
Amount of $376,261 for the 2009 Street Maintenance Program Slurry
Seal Capital Improvement Program Project PE-86070
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract
with Valley Slurry Seal Company (Attachment A) in an amount not to exceed $376,261
for the 2009 Street Maintenance Program Slurry Seal Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) Project PE-86070; and
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change
orders to the contract with Valley Slurry Seal Company for related, additional but
unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not
exceed $37,626.
BACKGROUND
Public Works Engineering manages the annual resurfacing and reconstruction of various City
streets. The candidate streets are biannually surveyed by staff, rated by a computerized
pavement maintenance management system (PMMS) and certified by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC). This computerized software assists Public Works
Engineering staff in prioritizing the maintenance of the City of Palo Alto's pavement
infrastructure and developing cost-effective treatment strategies and schedules. The PMMS is a
successful planning tool that ensures the City of Palo Alto is maximizing the benefit of
improving the overall infrastructure within current budget availability and by utilizing cost
effective methods of preventive maintenance, while reconstructing older and deteriorated streets
with new asphalt overlays.
As a cost saving measure, staff has implemented a multi-phased approach to avoid the typical
15% mark-up on concrete and preventative maintenance work previously included in asphalt
resurfacing contracts. Whereas before the three types of work were included in one contract,
staff now prepares separate contracts for three types of street maintenance as part of the annual
street maintenance program. These contracts cover work on:
CMR:360:09 Page lof4
• concrete streets
• asphalt overlays
• slurry and cape seals (preventative maintenance)
DISCUSSION
The annual street maintenance projects typically encompass approximately eight lane miles of
asphalt concrete paving and eight lane miles of slurry sealing, with a program budget of
approximately $1.8 million for all project phases. This year, the street maintenance program
includes a concrete preparation project, the annual overlay resurfacing project, a Federally
funded stimulus overlay project and this slurry seal project for a total investment of $3,432,482.
This will fund resurfacing of approximately 40.3 total lane miles of streets which is 9% of all
Palo Alto roads. The difference between the local funding and the total project cost is made up
of contributions from State Proposition 1B, gas tax funds to local governments, and Federal
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) stimulus dollars. The slurry seal project will
utilize funding from State Proposition lB. The cost savings from running independent projects
and use of this additional State funding will allow staff to increase preventative maintenance
efforts and address additional backlog streets as recommended in the Audit of Street
Maintenance report (dated March 2006). For this project, all road repairs that needed to take
place before the slurry seal will be performed as part of the asphalt overlay contract. This
method saves money both by avoiding a subcontractor markup for the slurry seal contractor and
also by using the economy of scale by combining these repairs with the high volume of asphalt
repair work already included in the overlay contract.
Scope of Work
The Street Maintenance Program Slurry Seal Project will slurry seal 26.3 lane miles of City
streets which equates to 5.7% of the total 463 pavement lane miles in all of the City of Palo Alto.
See Attachments B and C for the list and map of the 123 blocks included in this preventative
maintenance contract. A slurry seal is the application of a thin layer of asphalt emulsion
combined with fine crushed aggregate spread on the surface of a road. It usually requires five to
six hours of roadway closure to cure but extends the life of a roadway approximately another 5-
10 years. In addition to slurry seal application, this project includes related work such as tree
trimming, crack sealing, replacement lane striping, and replacement crosswalk striping.
Project Coordination
Staff from the Public Works and the Utilities Departments continue to meet monthly to
coordinate projects city-wide. Streets planned for resurfacing are either postponed due to
planned utility projects or utility projects are accelerated as a result of obtaining federaVstate
funding for resurfacing. Staff has made it a priority to ensure newly paved streets are not
trenched unless there is a private development project and/or emergency work which could not
be scheduled in advance of street paving.
The preventative maintenance project is typically awarded in July after the annual budget is .
adopted by Council. However, this year, due to local jurisdictions potentially losing gas tax
funding during the State budget negotiations, staff delayed release of the project bid package
until the State budget was adopted to ensure sufficient revenue was available to fund the project.
CMR:360:09 Page 2 of4
Bid Process
A notice inviting formal bids for the 2009 Street Maintenance Program Slurry Seal project was
posted at City Hall, on the City website, and sent to 11 builders' exchanges and 10 potential
bidders on July 9, 2009. The bidding period was 26 days. Bids were received from three (3)
qualified contractors on August 4,2009 as listed on the attached bid summary (Attachment D).
Bids ranged from a total low bid of $376,261 to a high of $485,080.
The low bid is 18% percent under the engineer's estimate of $458,670. The additional funding
that was identified for this contract but was ultimately not needed due to the low bids will be
used on other street maintenance program priorities this year. The engineer's estimate was based
on reduced slurry seal and striping costs and came in between the amount of the second and third
lowest bidders. The estimate took in account that the current recession has driven down
construction costs including the cost of slurry seal. Staff will continue monitoring bid prices and
adjust future estimates accordingly. See a summary ofthe bid process in the table below.
ummarvo 1 rocess S fB'dP
Bid NamelNumber 2009 Street Maintenance Program Slurry Seal Project
IFB #132251
Proposed Length of Project 60 calendar days
Number of Bid Packages Mailed to 10 Contractors
Number of Bid Packages Mailed to 11 Builder's Exchanges
Total Days to Respond to Bid 26
Pre-Bid Meeting? No
Number of Company Attendees at N/A
Pre-Bid Meeting
Number of Bids Received: 3
Bid Price Range (including all 2 Low bid $376,261 to a high of $485,080
alternates)
Staff recommends that the bid in the amount of $376,261 submitted by Valley Slurry Seal
Company be accepted and that Valley Slurry Seal Company be declared the lowest responsible
bidder, The change order amount of $37,626 (which equals 10% of the total contract) is
requested to resolve unforeseen problems and/or conflicts that may arise during the construction
period, Staff checked references supplied by the contractor for previous work performed and
found no significant complaints. Staff also checked with the Contractor's State License Board
and found that the contractor has an active license on file,
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funds for this project are included in the FY 2010 Capital Improvement Program Project Street
Maintenance, PE-86070. This phase, preventative maintenance totaling $376,261, is specifically
funded by the Proposition 1 B dollars with the remaining funding available for a subsequent
phase. In FY 2009, the Street Maintenance Program received $930,856 from State Proposition
1 B. In FY 201 0, the City expects to receive $1.2M from the American Reinvestment and
Recovery Act (ARRA) which will be used to resurface San Antonio Avenue and North San
CMR:360:09 Page 3 of4
Antonio Avenue from Middlefield Road to Alma Street, Lytton Avenue from Florence Street to
Guinda Street, and Guinda Street from Lytton Avenue to University Avenue.
Due to the size of the annual street maintenance project, City staffing levels are not adequate to
accomplish the construction work in-house. In addition, staff believes that it is cost effective to
have the work performed by outside contractors.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project has been determined to be categorically exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as repair and maintenance of existing streets and similar
facilities pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301 (c).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Contract
Attachment B: List of Streets
Attachment C: Project Map
Attachment D: Bid Summary
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR:360:09
MATT BRUNNINGS
L,/1LA---
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
Page 4 of4
FORMAL CONTRACT
CONTRACT No. C10132251
(PubliC Work)
Public Works Department
ATTACHMENT A
SECTION 500
This Contract, number C10132251 dated _---,-_____ is entered into by and between the City of Palo Alto, a
California Charter City ("City"), and Valley Slurry Seal Company ("Contractor").
For and in consideration of the covenants, terms, and conditions (*the provisions*) of this Contract, City and Contractor
(tithe partie~tI) agree:
1. Term. This Contract shall commence and be binding on the parties on the Date of Execution of this Contract,
and shall expire on the date of recordation of the Notice of Substantial Completion, or, if no such notice is
required to be filed, on the date that final payment is made hereunder, subject to the earlier termination of this
Contract.
2. General Scope of Project and Work. Contractor shall furnish labor, services, materials and equipment in
connection with the construction of the Project and complete the Work in accordance with the covenants, terms
and conditions of this Contract to the satisfaction of City. The Project and Work is generally described as
follows:
Title of Project: 2009 Street Maintenance Program; Slurry Seal Project, Invitation for Bids (IFB)
Number 132251.
Bid: $376,261.48 (Three hundred seventy-six thousand two hundred sixty-one and 48/100)
3. Contract Documents. This Contract shall consist of the documents set forth below, which are on file with the
City Clerk and are hereby incorporated by reference. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving
inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, these documents and the provisions
thereof are set forth in the following descending order of precedence.
a. This Contract.
b. Invitation for Bid.
c. Project Specifications.
d. Drawings.
e. Change Orders.
f. Bid.
g. Supplementary Conditions.
h. General Conditions.
I. City of Palo Alto, Dept. of Public Works Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version).
j. Certificate of Insurance, Performance Bond, Labor & Materials (Payment) Bond.
k. Other Specifications, or part thereof, not expressly incorporated in the Contract Specifications or the
City of Palo Alto, Dept. of Public Works Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version).
I. Any other document not expressly mentioned herein which is issued by City or entered into by the
parties.
4. Compensation. In consideration of Contractor's performance of its obligations hereunder, City shall pay to
Contractor the amount set forth in Contractor's Bid in accordance with the provisions of this Contract and upon
the receipt of written invoices and all necessary supporting documentation within the time ,set forth in the
Contract Specifications and the City of Palo Alto, Dept. of Public Works Standard Drawings and Specifications
(most current version), or, if no time is stated, within thirty (30) Days of the date of receipt of Contractor's
invoices.
5.' Insurance. On or before the Date of Execution, Contractor shall obtain and mailltain the policies of insurance
coverage described in the Invitation For Bid on terms and conditions and in amounts as may be required by the
Risk Manager. City shall not be obligated to take out insurance on Contractor's personal property or the
personal property of any person performing labor or services or supplying materials or equipment under the
Project. Contractor shall furnish City with the certificates of insurance and with original endorsements affecting
coverage required under this Contract on or before the Date of Execution. The certificates and endorsements
for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person who is authorized by that insurer to bind coverage in its
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT C10132251 PAGE 1 OF7
rev. 12100
FORMAL CONTRACT SECTION 500
behalf. Proof of insurance shall be mailed to the Project Manager to the address set forth in Section 16 of this
Contract.
6. Indemnification. Contractor agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold City, its Council members, officers,
employees, agents and representatives harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities,
losses, damages, costs, expenses, liens, penalties, suits, or judgments, arising, in whole or in part, directly or
indirectly, at any time from any injury to or death of persons or damage to property as a result of the willful acts
or the negligent acts or omissions of Contractor, or which results from Contractor's noncompliance with any Law
respecting the condition, use, occupation or safety of the Project site, or any part thereof, or which arises from
Contractor's failure to do anything required under this Contract or for doing anything which Contractor is
required not to do under this Contract, or which arises from conduct for which any Law may impose strict liability
on Contractor in the performance of or failure to perform the provisions of this Contract, except as may arise
from the sole willful acts or negligent acts or omissions of City or any of its Council members, officers,
employees, agents or representatives. This indemnification shall extend to any and all claims, demands, or
liens made or filed by reason of any work performed by Contractor under this Contract at any time during the
term of this Contract, or arising thereafter.
To the extent Contractor will use hazardous materials in connection with the execution of its obligations under
this Contract, Contractor further expressly agrees to protect, indemnify, hold harmless and defend City, its City
Council members, officers and employees from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, losses,
damages, costs, expenses, liens, penalties, suits, or judgments City may incur, arising, in whole or in part, in
connection with or as a result of Contractor's willful acts or negligent acts or omissions under this Contract,
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. :n9601-6975,
as amended); the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 336901-6992k, as amended); the Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 332601-2692, as amended); the Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous
Substance Account Act (Health & Safety Code, 3325300-25395, as amended); the Hazardous Waste Control
Law (Health & Safety Code, 3325100-25250.25, as amended); the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement
Act (Health & Safety Code, 3325249.5-25249.13, as amended); the Underground Storage of Hazardous
Substances Act (Health & Safety Code, 3325280-25299.7, as amended); or under any other local, state or
federal law, statute or ordinance, or at common law.
7. Assumption of Risk. Contractor agrees to voluntarily assume any and all risk of loss, damage, or injury to the
property of Contractor which may occur in, on, or about the Project site at any time and in any manner,
excepting such loss, injury, or damage as may be caused by the sale willful act or negligent act or omission of
City or any of its Council members, officers, employees, agents or representatives.
8. Waiver. The acceptance of any payment or performance, or any part thereof, shall not operate as a waiver by
City of its rights under this Contract. A waiver by City of any breach of any part or provision of this Contract by
Contractor shall not operate as a waiver or continuing waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any
other provision, nor shall any custom or practice which may arise between the parties in the administration of
any part or provision of this Contract be construed to waive or to lessen the right of City to insist upon the
performance of Contractor in strict compliance with the covenants, terms and conditions of this Contract.
9. No Exoneration By Inspection: The City has the right, but not the duty, to inspect Contractor's Work. The right
of inspection is solely for the benefit of City. Contractor has the obligation to complete the Work in a
satisfactory manner in compliance with Contract requirements. The presence of a City inspector does not shift
that obligation to the City or relieve Contractor from its obligations to complete the Work in a satisfactory
manner in compliance with the Contract requirements.
10. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all Laws now in force or which may hereafter be in force
pertaining to the Project and Work and this Contract, with the requirement of any bond or fire underwriters or
other similar body now or hereafter constituted, with any discretionary license or permit issued pursuant to any
Law of any public agency or official as well as with any provision of all recorded documents affecting the Project
site, insofar as any are required by reason of the use or occupancy of the Project site, and with all Laws
pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment and hazardous materials.
11. Bonds. As a condition precedent to City's obligation to pay compensation to Contractor, and on or before the
Date of Execution, Contractor shall furnish to the Project Manager the Bonds as required under the Invitation for
Bid.
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT C10132251 PAGE 2 OF 7
rev. 12/00
FORMAL CONTRACT SECTION 500
12. Representations and Warranties. In the supply of any materials and equipment and the rendering of labor and
services during the course and scope of the Project and Work, Contractor represents and warrants:
a. Any materials and equipment which shall be used during the course and scope of the Project and
Work shall be vested in Contractor;
b. Any materials and equipment which shall be used during the course and scope of the Project and
Work shall be merchantable and fit to be used for the particular purpose for which the materials are
required;
c. Any labor and services rendered and materials and equipment used or employed during the course
and scope of the Project and Work shall be free of defects in workmanship for a period of one (1) year
after the recordation of the Notice of Substantial Completion, or, if no such notice is required to be
filed, on the date that final payment is made hereunder;
d. Any manufacturer's warranty obtained by Contractor shall be obtained or shall be deemed obtained by
Contractor for and in behalf of City.
e. Any information submitted by Contractor prior to the award of Contract, or thereafter, upon request,
whether or not submitted under a continuing obligation by the terms of the Contract to do so, is true
and correct at the time such information is submitted or made available to the City;
f. Contractor has not colluded, conspired, or agreed, directly or indirectly, with any person in regard to
the terms and conditions of Contractor's Bid, except as may be permitted by the Invitation For Bid;
g. Contractor has the power and authority to enter into this Contract with City, that the individual
executing this Contract is duly authorized to do so by appropriate resolution, and that this Contract
shall be executed, delivered and performed pursuant to the power and authority conferred upon the
person or persons authorized to bind Contractor;
h. Contractor has not made an attempt to exert undue influence with the Purchasing Manager or Project
Manager or any other person who has directly contributed to City's decision to award the contract to
Contractor;
I. There are no unresolved claims or disputes between Contractor and City which would materially affect
Contractor's ability to perform under the Contract;
j. Contractor has furnished and will furnish true and accurate statements, records, reports, resolutions,
certifications, and other written information as may be requested of Contractor by City from time to
time during the term of this Contract;
k. Contractor and any person performing labor and services under this Project are duly licensed by the
State of California as required by California Business & Professions Code Section 7028, as amended;
and
I. Contractor has fully examined and inspected the Project site and has full knowledge of the physical
conditions of the Project site.
13. Assignment. This Contract and the performance required hereunder is personal to Contractor, and it shall not
be assigned by Contractor. Any attempted assignment shall be null and void.
14. Claims of Contractor. All claims pertaining to extra work, additional charges, or delays within the Contract Time
or other disputes arising out of the Contract shall be submitted by Contractor to City in writing by certified or
registered mail within ten (10) Days after the claim arose or within such other time as may be permitted or
required by law, and shall be described insufficient detail to give adequate notice of the substance of the claim
to City.
15. Audits by City. During the term of this Contract and for a period of not less than three (3) years after the
CITY OF PALO ALTO
rev. 12100
CONTRACT C10132251 PAGE 3 OF7
FORMAL CONTRACT SECTION 500
expiration or earlier termination of this Contract, City shall have the right to audit Contractor's Project-related
and Work-related writings and business records, as such terms are defined in California Evidence Code
Sections 250 and 1271, as amended, during the regular business hours of Contractor, or, if Contractor has no
such hours, during the regular business hours of City.
16. Notices. All agreements, appointments, approvals, authorizations, claims, demands, Change Orders, consents,
designations, notices, offers, requests and statements given by either party to the other shall be in writing and
shall be sufficiently given and served upon the other party if (1) personally served, (2) sent by the United States
mail, postage prepaid, (3) sent by private express delivery service, or (4) in the case of a facsimile transmission,
if sent to the telephone FAX number set forth below during regular business hours of the receiving party and
followed within two (2) Days by delivery of a hard copy of the material sent by facsimile transmission, in
accordance with (1), (2) or (3) above. Personal service shall include, without limitation, service by delivery and
service by facsimile transmission.
To City:
Copy to:
To Contractor:
City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto
Public Works Department
Engineering Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Attn: Elizabeth Ames, Project Manager
Valley Slurry Seal Company
3785 Channel Drive
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Attn: Alan S. Berger
17. Appropriation of City Funds. This Contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of Article III, Section 12 of the
Charter of the City of Palo Alto. Any charges hereunder for labor, services, materials and equipment may
accrue only after such expenditures have been approved in advance in writing in accordance with applicable
Laws. This Contract shall terminate without penalty (I) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are
not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (ii) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are
only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Contract are no longer available. This
Section 17 shall control in the event of a conflict with any other provision of this Contract.
18. Miscellaneous.
a. Bailee Disclaimer. The parties understand and agree that City does not purport to be Contractor's
bailee, and City is, therefore, not responsible for any damage to the personal property of Contractor.
b. Consent. Whenever in this Contract the approval or consent of a party is required, such approval or
consent shall be in writing and shall be executed by a person having the express authority to grant
such approval or consent.
c. Controlling Law. The parties agree that this Contract shall be governed and construed by and in
accordance with the Laws of the State of California.
d. Definitions. The definitions and terms set forth in Section 1 of the City of Palo Alto, Dept. of Public
Works Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version) of this Contract are incorporated
herein by reference.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
rev. 12100
CONTRACT C10132251 PAGE40F7
FORMAL CONTRACT SECTION 500
e. Force Majeure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default on account of any delay or failure to
perform its obligations under this Contract which directly results from an Act of God or an act of a
superior governmental authority.
f. Headings. The paragraph headings are not a part of this Contract and shall have no effect upon the
construction or interpretation of any part of this Contract.
g. Incorporation of Documents. All documents constituting the Contract documents described in Section
3 hereof and all documents which may, from time to time, be referred to in any duly executed
amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Contract and shall be deemed to be part
of this Contract.
h. Integration. This Contract and any amendments hereto between the parties constitute the entire
agreement between the parties concerning the Project and Work, and there are no other prior oral or
written agreements between the parties that are not incorporated in this Contract.
I. Modification of Agreement. This Contract shall not be modified or be binding upon the parties, unless
such modification is agreed to in writing and signed by the parties.
j. Provision. Any agreement, covenant, condition, clause, qualification, restriction, reservation, term or
other stipulation in the Contract shall define or otherwise control, establish, or limit the performance
required or permitted or to be required of or permitted by either party. All provisions, whether
covenants or conditions, shall be deemed to be both covenants and conditions.
k. Resolution. Contractor shall submit with its Bid a copy of any corporate or partnership resolution or
other writing, which authorizes any director, officer or other employee or partner to act for or in behalf
of Contractor or which authorizes Contractor to enter into this Contract.
I. Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Contract is void
or unenforceable, the provisions of this Contract not so affected shall remain in full force and effect.
m. Status of Contractor. In the exercise of rights and obligations under this Contract, Contractor acts as
an independent contractor and not as an agent or employee of City. Contractor shall not be entitled to
any rights and benefits accorded or accruing to the City Council members, officers or employees of
City, and Contractor expressly waives any and all claims to such rights and benefits.
n. Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Contract shall inure to the benefit of, and shall apply
to and bind, the successors and assigns of the parties.
o. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Contract and each of its provisions. In the
calculation of time hereunder, the time in which an act is to be performed shall be computed by
excluding the first Day and including the last. If the time in which an act is to be performed falls on a
Saturday, Sunday, or any Day observed as a legal holiday by City, the time for performance shall be
extended to the following Business Day.
p. Alternative Dispute Resolution. The parties shall endeavor to resolve any disputes or claims arising
out of or relating to this Contract by mediation, which, unless the parties agree otherwise, shall be
conducted under the auspices of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service (JAMS), San Jose,
California. The intent of the parties is that the mediation shall proceed in advance of litigation;
however, if any party should commence litigation before the conclusion of mediation, such litigation,
including discovery, shall be stayed pending completion of mediation, and by executing this Contract
the parties stipulate to mediation in accordance with Santa Clara County Superior Court Local Rule
1.15 or Rule 2-3(b) of the ADR Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, as such rules may be amended from time to time. The parties shall share the cost of the
mediation, including the mediator's fee, equally. Any written agreement reached in mediation shall be
enforceable pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6, as amended.
q. Venue. Unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, mediation shall take place in San Jose,
CITY OF PALO ALTO
rev. 12100
CONTRACT C10132251 PAGES OF7
FORMAL CONTRACT SECTION 500
California. In the event that litigation is commenced by any party hereunder, the parties agree that
such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara or
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
r. Recovery of Costs. Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney's fees, through the
completion of mediation. If the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation, or if litigation is
necessary to enforce a settlement reached at mediation pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
§ 664.6, as amended, then the prevailing party in any subsequent litigation may recover its reasonable
costs, including attorney's fees, incurred subs.equent to conclusion of the mediation.
s. Flow-down. Contractor agrees to include provisions of this Contract relating to Alternative Dispute
Resolution, Venue, and Recovery of Costs in any subcontracts or major material purchase
agreements which it enters into in connection with this Contract, and to require its subcontractors to
include those provisions in any sub-contracts or major material purchase agreements, such that any
mediation or litigation of any claim or dispute asserted by a subcontractor or major material supplier
will be consolidated with any related claim or dispute between the Contractor and the City. Should the
Contractor fail to do so, such that the City is required to defend an action brought by a subcontractor
or material supplier inconsistent with the Alternative Dispute and Venue provisions of this Contract,
Contractor shall indemnify City for City's costs of defense, including reasonable attorney's fees.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly appointed representatives executed this Contract in the city of
Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California on the date first stated above.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
APPROVED:
Director of Public Works
CITY OF PALO ALTO
rev. 12/00
CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Manager
CONTRACTOR: VALLEY SLURRY SEAL COMPANY
8y: _________________ _
Name:, ___________________ _
Title: __________________ _
CONTRACT C10132251 PAGE 6 OF7
FORMAL CONTRACT SECTION 500
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code;:) 1189)
STATE OF ___________ 1
COUNTY OF __________ )
On ,before me, ______________ _
a notary public in and for said County, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose
name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature _________________ _
CITY OF PALO ALTO
rev. 12/00
CON"rRACT C10132251
(Seal)
PAGE70F7
STREET NAME
Ames Avenue
2 Ames Avenue
3 Ames Avenue
Avenue
Avenue
Ash Street
12 Avalon Court
13 Birch Street
14 Birch Street
Birch Street
venue
20 California Avenue
21 California Avenue
22 Chestnut Avenue
23 Chestnut Avenue
24 Clara Drive
25 Clara Drive
e
28 Clara Drive
29 Clara Drive
30 Clara Cul-de-Sac1
31 Clara Cul-de-Sac2
32 Coastland Drive
33 Colorado Avenue
34 Colorado Avenue
35 Cork Oak Way
36 Cowper Street
37 Cowper Street
38 Cowper Street
39 Cowper Street
40 Cowper Street
41 Cowper Street
ATTACHMENT B
2009 STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
SLURRY SEAL PROJECT
LIST OF STREETS
SLURRY SEAL STREETS
BEGIN END
Middlefield Road Holly Oak Drive
Holly Oak Drive Cork Oak Way
Cork Oak Way Holly Oak Drive
Holly Oak Drive Ross Road
Louis Road Greer Road
Greer Road Tanland Drive
Tanland Drive Tanland Drive
Tanland Drive West Bayshore Road
Lambert Avenue Chestnut Avenue
Page Mill Road Pepper Avenue
Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue
Loma Verde Avenue End
College Street Barricades
Lambert Avenue Chestnut Avenue
Chestnut Avenue Avenue
Marshall Drive d
Colorado Avenue END
Amherst Street Bowdoin Street
Bowdoin Street Columbia Street
Columbia Street Dartmouth Street
Dartmouth Street Hanover Street
Ash Avenue Birch Street
Birch Street Park Blvd
ue d
e-Sac1
Sandra Place Colorado Avenue
Clara Drive End
Clara Drive End
Marion Avenue Marion Avenue
Cowper Street Byron Street
Byron Street Middlefield Road
Avenue nue
ressway nue
Marion Avenue Colorado Avenue
Colorado Avenue Colorado Avenue
Colorado Avenue EI Dorado Avenue
STREET NAME
42 ~owper Street
43 Cowper Street
44 Cowper Street
45 Desoto Drive
46 Elmdale Place
47 e
48 Fife Avenue
49 Fife Avenue
50 Flowers Lane
51 Gaspar Court
52 Holly Oak Way
53 Kipling Street
54 Lorna Verde Avenue
55 Lorna Verde Avenue
56 eAvenue
57 Lorna Verde Avenue
58 Lorna Verde Avenue
59 Lorna Verde Avenue
60 Lorna Verde Avenue
61 Lorna Verde Avenue
62 Lorna Verde Avenue
63 Lorna Verde Avenue
64 Lorna Verde Avenue
65 Mackall Way
66 Maddux Drive
67 Maddux Drive
68 Maddux Drive
69 Maddux Drive
70 Maddux Drive
71 Maddux Cul-de-Sac
72 Marion Avenue
73 Marion Avenue
74 Marion Avenue
75 Marion Avenue
76 Marion Avenue
77 Marion Avenue
78 Marion Place
79 Marshall Drive
80 Marshall Drive
81 Marshall Drive
82 Middlefield Road
ATTACHMENT B
2009 STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
SLURRY SEAL PROJECT
LIST OF STREETS
SLURRY SEAL STREETS
BEGIN END
EI Dorado Avenue Gary Court
Gary Court Martinsen Court
Martinsen Court Lorna Verde Avenue
Channing Avenue
Moreno Avenue
EI Camino Real d
Boyce Avenue Avenue
Addison Avenue Avenue
Lorna Verde Avenue End
Colorado Avenue End
Ames Avenue Ames Avenue
Lorna Verde Avenue EI Verano
Alma Street Emerson Street
Emerson Street Ramona Street
Ramona Street Bryant Street
Bryant Street South Court
South Court Waverley Street
Waverley Street Kipling Street
Kipling Street Cowper Street
Cowper Street Mackall Way
Mackall Way Avalon Court
rt Flowers Lane
e Middlefield Road
Avenue End
ce Morris Drive
Morris Drive Greer Road
Greer Road Genevieve Court
Genevieve Court Maddux Cul-de-Sac
Maddux Cul-de-Sac Lorna Verde Avenue
Maddux Drive = Cowper Street
Tasso Street
Webster Street arion Place
Marion Place iddlefield Road
Middlefield Road oastland Drive
Coastland Drive Coastland Drive
Marion Avenue End
Ross Road Bruce Drive
Bruce Drive Moreno Avenue
Moreno Avenue Lpuis Road
Embarcadero Road Lowell Avenue
2
STREET NAME
83 Middlefield Road
84 Middlefield Road
85 Middlefield Road
86 Middlefield Road
87 Middlefield Road
88 Moreno Avenue
89 Moreno Avenue
90 Moreno Avenue
91 Moreno Avenue
92 Moreno Avenue
93 Moreno Avenue
94 Moreno Avenue
95 Moreno Avenue
96 Moreno Avenue
97 Murray Way
98 Newell Road
99 Newell Road
100 Newell Road
101 Newell Road
102 Olive Avenue
103 Olive Avenue
104 Park Boulevard
105 Park Boulevard
106 Park Boulevard
107 Park Boulevard
108 Park Boulevard
109 Park Boulevard
110 Park Boulevard
111 Pepper Avenue
112 Richardson Court
113 Saint Francis Drive
114 Sandra Place
115 Stanford Avenue
116 Stanford Avenue
117 Stanford Avenue
118 Stanford Avenue
119 Sutter Avenue
120 Sutter Avenue
121 Sutter Avenue
122 Tanland Drive
123 Wildwood lane
ATTACHMENT B
2009 STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
SLURRY SEAL PROJECT
LIST OF STREETS
SLURRY SEAL STREETS
BEGIN END
Lowell Avenue Tennyson Avenue
Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue
Seale Avenue Portal Place
Portal Place Santa Rita Avenue
Santa Rita Avenue North California Avenue
Middlefield Road Rosewood Drive
Rosewood Drive Coastland Drive
Coastland Drive Ross Road
Ross Road Marshall Drive
Marshall Drive Fielding Drive
Fielding Drive Louis Road
Louis Road Colonial Lane
Colonial Lane Greer Road
Greer Road End
Lorna Verde Avenue Richardson Court
Embarcadero Road Seale Avenue
Seale Avenue Northampton Drive
Northampton Drive Greenwich Avenue
Greenwich Avenue Southampton Drive
EI Camino Ash Street
Ash Street Park Boulevard
Lambert Avenue Chestnut Avenue
Chestnut Avenue Fernando Avenue
Fernando Avenue Margarita Avenue
Margarita Avenue Matadero Avenue
Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue
Wilton Avenue Curtner Avenue
Curtner Avenue Ventura Avenue
EI Camino Ash Street
Ross Road end
Embarcadero Road Oregon Avenue
Colorado Avenue Clara Drive
Amherst Street Bowdoin Street
Bowdoin Street Columbia Street
Columbia Street Dartmouth Street
Darmouth Street Hanover Street
Middlefield Road Clara Drive
Clara Drive Ross Road
Ross Road End
Amarillo Avenue Amarillo Avenue
Channing Avenue Embarcadero Road
3
#C09132251
# BASE BID A DESCRIPTION QUANTITY
1 Slurry Seal Type II 2,080,400
2 Blue Markers 92
3 Themo 12" White 2,227
4 Thermo 12" Yellow 1,270
5 Thermo Detail 2 3,865
6 Thermo Detail 4 1,840
7 Themo Detail 10 2,784
8 Thermo Detail 21 190
9 Thermo Detail 22 64
10 Thermo Detail 23 156
11 Thermo Detail 38C 9,350
12 Thermo Detail 39 9,190
13 Thermo Detail 39A 1,620
14 Themo 4" White 310
15 Thermo Legends 364
16 Crack Sealant 77,250
17 Traffic Control 1
18 Trim Street Trees 60
19 Notification 1
BID TOTAL:
2009 STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
SLURRY SEAL PROJECT
BID SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT C
UNITS ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE GRAHAM CONTRACTORS AMERICAN ASPHALT VALLEY SLURRY
SF $ 0.12 $249,648.00 $ 0.14 $ 295,416.80
EA $ 20.00 $ 1,840.00 $ 20.00 $ 1,840.00
LF $ 3.50 $ 7,794.50 $ 3.00 $ 6,681.00
LF $ 3.50 $ 4,445.00 $ 4.50 $ 5,715.00
LF $ 1.50 $ 5,797.50 $ 0.60 $ 2,319.00
LF $ 1.50 $ 2,760.00 $ 0.78 $ 1,435.20
LF $ 1.00 $ 2,784.00 $ 0.78 $ 2,171.52
LF $ 1.20 $ 228.00 $ 3.00 $ 570.00
LF $ 1.45 $ 92.80 $ 3.50 $ 224.00
LF $ 1.05 $ 163.80 $ 2.00 $ 312.00
LF $ 1.00 $ 9,350.00 $ 1.95 $ 18,232.50
LF $ 1.20 $ 11,028.00 $ 0.80 $ 7,352.00
LF $ 1.10 $ 1,782.00 $ 0.80 $ 1,296.00
LF $ 0.95 $ 294.50 $ 1.50 $ 465.00
EA $ 50.00 $ 18,200.00 $ 20.00 $ 7,280.00
LF $ 0.65 $ 50,212.50 $ 0.52 $ 40,170.00
LS $61,500.00 $ 61,500.00 $ 52,800.00 $ 52,800.00
HOURS $ 205.00 $ 12,300.00 $ 180.00 $ 10,800.00
LS $18,450.00 $ 18,450.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00
$458,670.60 $ 485,080.02
$ 0.15
$ 15.00
$ 3.00
$ 4.50
$ 0.60
$ 0.78
$ 0.78
$ 3.00
$ 3.50
$ 2.00
$ 1.95
$ 0.80
$ 0.80
$ 1.50
$ 15.00
$ 0.62
$15,000.00
$ 187.00
$10,000.00
$301,658.00 $ 0.12
$ 1,380.00 $ 5.25
$ 6,681.00 $ 4.20
$ 5,715.00 $ 6.30
$ 2,319.00 $ 1.05
$ 1,435.20 $ 0.52
$ 2,171.52 $ 0.52
$ 570.00 $ 7.35
$ 224.00 $ 7.35
$ 312.00 $ 5.25
$ 18,232.50 $ 1.57
$ 7,352.00 $ 0.63
$ 1,296.00 $ 0.63
$ 465.00 $ 5.25
$ 5,460.00 $ 28.35
$ 47,895.00 $ 0.65
$ 15,000.00 $ 3,000.00
$ 11,220.00 $ 178.50
$ 10,000.00 $ 2,500.00
$439,386.22
Low Bidder vs. Estimate:
$249,648.00
$ 483.00
$ 9,353.40
$ 8,001.00
$ 4,058.25
$ 956.80
$ 1,447.68
$ 1,396.50
$ 470.40
$ 819.00
$ 14,679.50
$ 5,789.70
$ 1,020.60
$ 1,627.50
$ 10,319.40
$ 49,980.75
$ 3,000.00
$ 10,710.00
$ 2,500.00
$376,261.48
ALB
-18.0%
10 % Contingency: $ 37,626.15
Total Project Funding: $413,887.63 I
Tho City of
Palo Alto
mnlool$,2009..(17.Q715:08:16
(\'c<:>map$\gi$$~I$\admr(llPel'l$Onal\Pavementrndb)
ATTACHMENT D
2009 Slurry Seal Program ~
Project Map '-V -. 0' 2361'
This document is a graphic representation only 0' best available-$OUI'IXI$,
The-City of Palo. Alto assumes no responsibility tor any errors 01989 to 2009 City of PalO Alb
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 CMR:361:09
REPORT TYPE: REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2010 to
Accept $1,085,000 in Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act "Stimulus" Funding and Approval of a Contract With A. Ruiz
Construction Company & Associates, in the Amount of $1,105,648 for
the 2009 Street Maintenance Program San Antonio and Lytton
Asphalt Overlay Capital Improvement Program Project PE·86070
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Adopt the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of $1,085,000
(Attachment A) to accept American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus
funding for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project PE·86070 2009 Street
Maintenance Program San Antonio and Lytton Asphalt Overlay Project;
2. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract
with A. Ruiz Construction Company & Associates (Attachment B) in an amount not to
exceed $1,105,648 for the 2009 Street Maintenance Program San Antonio and Lytton
Asphalt Overlay Capital Improvement Project PE-86070; and
3. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change
orders to the contract with A. Ruiz Construction Company & Associates, for related,
additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total value of
which shall not exceed $110,565.
BACKGROUND
The Public Works Engineering Division manages construction contracts for concrete pavement
repair, preventative maintenance, resurfacing and reconstruction of various city streets on an
annual basis. The candidate streets are surveyed biannually by Public Works Engineering staff
and then rated by a computerized pavement management system (PMMS). In past years, the
annual projects have typically encompassed approximately eight lane miles of asphalt concrete
paving and eight lane miles of preventative maintenance in the form of slurry or cape seals. The
annual budget for these past contracts averaged approximately $2.8 million and included all
phases of the project. Since 2003, the Public Works Engineering Division has implemented
multi-phased resurfacing projects by bidding one phase for concrete repairs and preparation, a
second phase for preventative maintenance and a third phase for asphalt concrete resurfacing.
CMR:361:09 Page 1 of4
This method of phasing has proved to be more cost effective by avoiding the typical 15%
markup on concrete work and preventative maintenance work previously included in asphalt
resurfacing contracts because the work was subcontracted out. This contract is for a
supplemental overlay project in addition to the annually schedule phase due to the additional
funding received from the ARRA. This funding will allow for an additional 5.6 lane miles to be
resurfaced and will create approximately 65 new jobs.
In April 2009, Council approved a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to
submit an application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for a grant from
the first cycle of federal ARRA Program funding for local streets and roads rehabilitation
projects (CMR 225:09). The funding was subsequently granted and approval of a BAO is
needed to accept the funding awarded by the Federal government stimulus program.
DISCUSSION
Project Description
Per ARRA guidelines, all ARRA funds shall be used on arterial or collector streets. Arterial and
collector streets make up 37% of all lane miles within the City of Palo Alto. Of this 37%,
approximately one third are backlog streets in need of reconstruction. A federal grant of
approximately $15 million would be needed to resurface all of these streets. In order to make the
decision on which streets to allocate the grant funding, Public Works Engineering staff reviewed
the list of eligible streets, their pavement conditions, and all planned utility projects. It was then
recommended that the available funding be requested for San Antonio Avenue and North San
Antonio Avenue (the frontage road) from Middlefield Road to Alma Street, Lytton Avenue from
Florence Street to Guinda Street, and Guinda Street from Lytton Avenue to University Avenue.
The work included in this contract includes asphalt milling and paving, asphalt base repairs,
concrete base repairs, placement of interlayer membranes, crack filling, sidewalk, driveway,
curb, and catch basin replacements, street restriping, raising of manholes and utility vaults to the
new pavement elevations and asphalt recycling. The work locations for this project are shown
on the Project Location Map (Attachment C).
The resurfacing of San Antonio Road follows completion of the San Antonio Avenue Median
Improvement Project (PE-00I04) and will repair and resurface the roadway adjacent to the
medians.
This contract also includes the construction of seven (7) new curb ramps with detectable warning
surfaces and the installation of thirty-one (31) detectable warning surfaces on existing ramps
throughout the project streets in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A
detectable warning surface is a standardized surface feature built in or applied to walking
surfaces or other elements to warn visually impaired people of hazards on a circulation path.
Truncated dome detectable warning surfaces are required on curb ramps by ADA guidelines and
in accordance with the 2007 Public Works Standard Drawings and Specifications.
Bid Process
On July 7, 2009, a notice inviting formal bids for the 2009 Street Maintenance Program San
Antonio and Lytton Asphalt Overlay Capital Improvement Project was posted at City Hall, and
was sent to twelve (12) builder's exchanges and sixteen (16) contractors. The bidding period
CMR:361:09 Page 2 of4
was 35 calendar days. Bids were received from six (6) qualified contractors on August 11,2009
as listed on the attached Bid Summary (Attachment D).
ummaryo 1 S fB'd P rocess
Bid NamelNumber 2009 Street Maintenance Program San Antonio and
Lytton Asphalt Overlay Project
Proposed Length of Project 95 calendar days
Number of Bid Packages Mailed to 16 Contractors
• Number of Bid Packages Mailed to 12 Builder's Exchanges
• Total Days to Respond to Bid 35
Pre-Bid Meeting? Yes
Number of Bids Received: 6
Bid Price Range (Base bid plus From a low of$I,105,647.80 to a high of $1,471,03.1.20 i three alternates
Bids ranged from a high of $1,471,031.20 to a low bid of $1,105,647.80 and ranged from 15%
above to 14% below the engineer's estimate. The engineer's estimate ranked exactly in the
middle of the six bids received. Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the
bid totaling $1,105,647.80 submitted by A. Ruiz Construction Company & Associates be
accepted and that A. Ruiz Construction Company & Associates be declared the lowest
responsible bidder. The change order amount of $110,564.78, which equals 10 percent of the
total contract, is requested for related, additional, but unforeseen work which may develop
during the project.
The lowest responsible bidder, A. Ruiz Construction Company & Associates, has not worked
with the city on previous asphalt projects. Staff investigated the references and found no
significant complaints. Staff also checked with the Contractor's State License Board and found
that the contractor has an active license on file.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funds for this project are from two funding sources. The $1,085,000 of stimulus funding comes
from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the remaining $131,212.58 is
included in the FY 2010 Capital Improvement Program Street Maintenance Project, PE-86070.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
under Section 15301c of the CEQA Guidelines as repair, maintenance and/or minor alteration of
the existing facilities and no further environmental review is necessary.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Budget Amendment Ordinance
Attachment B: Contract
Attachment C: Location Map
Attachment D: Bid
CMR:361:09 Page 3 of4
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR:361:09
MATT BRUNNINGS
Engineer
IL J j{jJ --
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
Page 4
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 TO ACCEPT
$1,085,000 IN FEDERAL AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT
ACT STIMULUS FUNDING
The Council of the City
follows:
Palo Al to does ORDAIN as
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palo Al to
finds and determines as fol
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 Article III of
the Charter the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 15, 2009
did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2010; and
B. In scal Year 2010, the City Council approved an
appropriation of $1,803,635 for the Capital Improvement Program
Project PE-86070, Street Maintenance to be funded from the Gas Tax
Fund and the Infrastructure Reserve of the Capital Project Fund;
and
C. Subsequent to the approval of the Fiscal Year 2010 capital
budget, the received a grant of $1,085,000 from the Federal
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Stimulus Funding to fund
additional street maintenance programs; and
D. Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 capit budget is
necessary to accept the funding awarded by the federal government
and increase appropriation to the street maintenance programs;
and
E. City Council authorization is needed to amend
Year 2010 budget as hereinafter set forth.
scal
SECTION 2. Grant revenue of One Million Eighty Five Thousand
Dollars ($1,085,000) from the Fede American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act Stimulus Funding is hereby received.
SECTION 3. The sum of One Million Eighty Five Thousand
Dollars ($1,085,000) is hereby appropriated to CIP Project PE-
86070, Street Maintenance bringing total appropriation Fiscal
Year 2010 to Two Million Eight Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Six
Hundred Thirty Dollars ($2,888,635).
SECTION 4. The transactions above will have no impact on the
General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve and Capital Project Fund
Infrastructure Reserve.
SECTION 5. As specified in Section 2.2B.OBO(a) of the Palo
Al to Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is
required to adopt this ordinance.
SECTION 6. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds
that this is not a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is
necessary.
SECTION 7.
Municipal Code,
adoption.
As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto
this ordinance shall become effective upon
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
C ty Attorney
APPROVED:
Mayor
y Manager
rector of
Department
rector of
Services
Works
strative
FORMAL CONTRACT
CONTRACT No. C10132889
(Public Work)
Public Works Department
ATTACHMENT B
SECTION 500
This Contract, number C10132889 dated ______ is entered into by and between the City of Palo Alto, a
California Charter City ("City"), and A. Ruiz Construction Company & Associates, Inc. ("Contractor').
For and in consideration of the covenants, terms, and conditions (*the provisions*) of this Contract, City and Contractor
("the parties") agree:
1. Term. This Contract shall commence and be binding on the parties on the Date of Execution of this Contract,
and shall expire on the date of recordation of the Notice of Substantial Completion, or, if no such notice is
required to be filed, on the date thatfinal payment is made hereunder, subject to the earlier termination of this
Contract.
2. General Scope of Project and Work. Contractor shall furnish labor, services, materials and equipment in
connection with the construction of the Project and complete the Work in accordance with the covenants, terms
and conditions of this Contract to the satisfaction of City. The Project and Work is generally described as
follows:
Title of Project: 2009 Street Maintenance Program· San Antonio and Lytton Asphalt Overlay
Project, Invitation for Bids (IFB) Number 132889.
Bid: $1,105,647.80 (One million one hundred five thousand six hundred forty-seven and
80/100 dollars)
3. Contract Documents. This Contract shall consist of the documents set forth below, which are on file with the
City Clerk and are hereby incorporated by reference. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving
inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, these documents and the provisions
thereof are set forth in the following descending order of precedence.
a. This Contract.
b. Invitation for Bid.
c. Project Specifications.
d. Drawings.
e. Change Orders.
f. Bid.
g. Supplementary Conditions.
h. General Conditions.
I. City of Palo Alto, Dept. of Public Works Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version).
j. Certificate of Insurance, Performance Bond, Labor & Materials (Payment) Bond.
k. Other Specifications, or part thereof, not expressly incorporated in the Contract SpeCifications or the
City of Palo Alto, Dept. of Public Works Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version).
I. Any other document not expressly mentioned herein which is issued by City or entered into by the
parties.
4. Compensation. In consideration of Contractor's performance of its obligations hereunder, City shall pay to
Contractor the amount set forth in Contractor's Bid in accordance with the provisions of this Contract and upon
the receipt of written invoices and all necessary supporting documentation within the time set forth in the
Contract Specifications and the City of Palo Alto, Dept. of Public Works Standard Drawings and Specifications
(most current version), or, if no time is stated, within thirty (30) Days of the date of receipt of Contractor's
invoices.
5. Insurance. On or before the Date of Execution, Contractor shall obtain and maintain the policies of insurance
coverage described in the Invitation For Bid on terms and conditions and in amounts as may be required by the
Risk Manager. City shall not be obligated to take out insurance on Contractor's personal property or the
personal property of any person performing labor or services or supplying materials or equipment under the
Project. Contractor shall furnish City with the certificates of insurance and with original endorsements affecting
coverage required under this Contract on or before the Date of Execution. The certificates and endorsements
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT C10132889 PAGE 1 OF 7
rev. 12100
FORMAL CONTRACT SECTION 500
for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person who is authorized by that insurer to bind coverage in its
behalf. Proof of insurance shall be mailed to the Project Manager to the address set forth in Section 16 of this
Contract.
6. Indemnification. Contractor agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold City, its Council members, officers,
employees, agents and representatives harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities,
losses, damages, costs, expenses, liens, penalties, suits, or judgments, arising, in whole or in part, directly or
indirectly, at any time from any injury to or death of persons or damage to property as a result of the willful acts
or the negligent acts or omissions of Contractor, or which results from Contractor's noncompliance with any Law
respecting the condition, use, occupation or safety of the Project site, or any part thereof, or which arises from
Contractor's failure to do anything required under this Contract or for doing anything which Contractor is
required not to do under this Contract, or which arises from conduct for which any Law may impose strict liability
on Contractor in the performance of or failure to perform the provisions of this Contract, except as may arise
from the sole willful acts or negligent acts or omissions of City or any of its Council members, officers,
employees, agents or representatives. This indemnification shall extend to any and all claims, demands, or
liens made or filed by reason of any work performed by Contractor under this Contract at any time during the
term of this Contract, or arising thereafter.
To the extent Contractor will use hazardous materials in connection with the execution of its obligations under
this Contract, Contractor further expressly agrees to protect, indemnify, hold harmless and defend City, its City
Council members, officers and employees from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, losses,
damages, costs, expenses, liens, penalties, suits, or judgments City may incur, arising, in whole or in part, in
connection with or as a result of Contractor's willful acts or negligent acts or omissions under this Contract,
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 339601-6975,
as amended); the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 336901-6992k, as amended); the Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 332601-2692, as amended); the Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous
Substance Account Act (Health & Safety Code, 3325300-25395, as amended); the Hazardous Waste Control
Law (Health & Safety Code, 3325100-25250.25, as amended); the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement
Act (Health & Safety Code, 3325249.5-25249.13, as amended); the Underground Storage of Hazardous
Substances Act (Health & Safety Code, 3325280-25299.7, as amended); or under any other local, state or
federal law, statute or ordinance, or at common law.
7. Assumption of Risk. Contractor agrees to voluntarily assume any and all risk of loss, damage, or injury to the
property of Contractor which may occur in, on, or about the Project site at any time and in any manner,
excepting such loss, injury, or damage as may be caused by the sole willful act or negligent act or omission of
City or any of its Council members, officers, employees, agents or representatives.
8. Waiver. The acceptance of any payment or performance, or any part thereof, shall not operate as a waiver by
City of its rights under this Contract. A waiver by City of any breach of any part or provision of this Contract by
Contractor shall not operate as a waiver or continuing waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any
other provision, nor shall any custom or practice which may arise between the parties in the administration of
any part or provision of this Contract be construed to waive or to lessen the right of City to insist upon the
performance of Contractor in strict compliance with the covenants, terms and conditions of this Contract.
9. No Exoneration By Inspection: The City has the right, but not the duty, to inspect Contractor's Work. The right
of inspection is solely for the benefit of City. Contractor has the obligation to complete the Work in a
satisfactory manner in compliance with Contract requirements. The presence of a City inspector does not shift
that obligation to the City or relieve Contractor from its obligations to complete the Work in a satisfactory
manner in compliance with the Contract requirements.
10. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all Laws now in force or which may hereafter be in force
pertaining to the Project and Work and this Contract, with the requirement of any bond or fire underwriters or
other similar body now or hereafter constituted, with any discretionary license or permit issued pursuant to any
Law of any public agency or official as well as with any provision of all recorded documents affecting the Project
site, insofar as any are required by reason of the use or occupancy of the Project site, and with all Laws
pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment and hazardous materials.
11. Bonds. As a condition precedent to City's obligation to pay compensation to Contractor, and on or before the
Date of Execution, Contractor shall furnish to the Project Manager the Bonds as required under the Invitation for
CITY OF PALO ALTO
rev. 12100
CONTRACT C10132889 PAGE 2 OF7
FORMAL CONTRACT SECTION 500
Bid.
12. Representations and Warranties. In the supply of any materials and equipment and the rendering of labor and
services during the course and scope of the Project and Work, Contractor represents and warrants:
a. Any materials and equipment which shall be used during the course and scope of the Project and
Work shall be vested in Contractor;
b. Any materials and equipment which shall be used during the course and scope of the Project and
Work shall be merchantable and fit to be used for the particular purpose for which the materials are
required;
c. Any labor and services rendered and materials and equipment used or employed during the course
and scope of the Project and Work shall be free of defects in workmanship for a period of one (1) year
after the recordation of the Notice of Substantial Completion, or, if no such notice is required to be
filed, on the date that final payment is made hereunder;
d. Any manufacturers warranty obtained by Contractor shall be obtained or shall be deemed obtained by
Contractor for and in behalf of City.
e. Any information submitted by Contractor prior to the award of Contract, or thereafter, upon request,
whether or not submitted under a continuing obligation by the terms of the Contract to do so, is true
and correct at the time such information is submitted or made available to the City;
f. Contractor has not colluded, conspired, or agreed, directly or indirectly, with any person in regard to
the terms and conditions of Contractor's Bid, except as may be permitted by the Invitation For Bid;
g. Contractor has the power and authority to enter into this Contract with City, that the individual
executing this Contract is duly authorized to do so by appropriate resolution, and that this Contract
shall be executed, delivered and performed pursuant to the power and authority conferred upon the
person or persons authorized to bind Contractor;
h. Contractor has not made an attempt to exert undue influence with the Purchasing Manager or Project
Manager or any other person who has directly contributed to City's decision to award the contract to
Contractor;
I. There are no unresolved claims or disputes between Contractor and City which would materially affect
Contractor's ability to perform under the Contract;
j. Contractor has furnished and will furnish true and accurate statements, records, reports, resolutions,
certifications, and other written information as may be requested of Contractor by City from time to
time during the term of this Contract;
k. Contractor and any person performing labor and services under this Project are duly licensed by the
State of California as required by California Business & Professions Code Section 7028, as amended;
and
I. Contractor has fully examined and inspected the Project site and has full knowledge of the physical
conditions of the Project site.
13. Assignment. This Contract and the performance required hereunder is personal to Contractor, and it shall not
be assigned by Contractor. Any attempted assignment shall be null and void.
14. Claims of Contractor. All claims pertaining to extra work, additional charges, or delays within the Contract Time
or other disputes arising out of the Contract shall be submitted by Contractor to City in writing by certified or
registered mail within ten (10) Days after the claim arose or within such other time as may be permitted or
required by law, and shall be described in sufficient detail to give adequate notice of the substance of the claim
to City.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
rev. 12100
CONTRACT C10132889 PAGE30F7
FORMAL CONTRACT SECTION 500
15. Audits by City. During the term of this Contract and for a period of not less than three (3) years after the
expiration or earlier termination of this Contract, City shall have the right to audit Contractor's Project-related
and Work-related writings and business records, as such terms are defined in California Evidence Code
Sections 250 and 1271, as amended, during the regular business hours of Contractor, or, if Contractor has no
such hours, during the regular business hours of City.
16. Notices. All agreements, appointments, approvals, authorizations, claims, demands, Change Orders, consents,
designations, notices, offers, requests and statements given by either party to the other shall be in writing and
shall be sufficiently given and served upon the other party if (1) personally served, (2) sent by the United States
mail, postage prepaid, (3) sent by private express delivery service, or (4) in the case of a facsimile transmission,
if senUo the telephone FAX number set forth below during regular business hours of the receiving party and
followed within two (2) Days by delivery of a hard copy of the material sent by facsimile transmission, in
accordance with (1), (2) or (3) above. Personal service shall include, without limitation, service by delivery and
service by facsimile transmission.
To City:
Copy to:
To Contractor:
City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto
Public Works Department
Engineering Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Attn: Elizabeth Ames, Project Manager
A. Ruiz Construction Company & Associates, Inc.
1601 Cortland Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94110
Attn: Antonio Ruiz
17. Appropriation of City Funds. This Contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of Article III, Section 12 of the
Charter of the City of Palo Alto. Any charges hereunder for labor, services, materials and equipment may
accrue only after such expenditures have been approved in advance in writing in accordance with applicable
Laws. This Contract shall terminate without penalty (I) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are
not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (ii) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are
only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Contract are no longer available. This
Section 17 shall control in the event of a conflict with any other provision of this Contract.
18. Miscellaneous.
a. Bailee Disclaimer. The parties understand and agree that City does not purport to be Contractor's
bailee, and City is, therefore, not responsible for any damage to the personal property of Contractor.
b. Consent. Whenever in this Contract the approval or consent of a party is required, such approval or
consent shall be in writing and shall be executed by a person having the express authority to grant
such approval or consent.
c. Controlling Law. The parties agree that this Contract shall be governed and construed by and in
accordance with the Laws of the State of California.
d. Definitions. The definitions and terms set forth in Section 1 of the City of Palo Alto, Dept. of Public
Works Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version) ofthis Contract are incorporated
herein by reference.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
rev. 12/00
CONTRACT C10132889 PAGE40F7
FORMAL CONTRACT SECTION 500
e. Force Majeure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default on account of any delay or failure to
perform its obligations under this Contract which directly results from an Act of God or an act of a
superior governmental authority.
f. Headings. The paragraph headings are not a part of this Contract and shall have no effect upon the
construction or interpretation of any part of this Contract.
g. Incorporation of Documents. All documents constituting the Contract documents described in Section
3 hereof and all documents which may, from time to time, be referred to in any duly executed
amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Contract and shall be deemed to be part
of this Contract.
h. Integration. This Contract and any amendments hereto between the parties constitute the entire
agreement between the parties concerning the Project and Work, and there are no other prior oral or
written agreements between the parties that are not incorporated in this Contract.
L Modification of Agreement. This Contract shall not be modified or be binding upon the parties, unless
such modification is agreed to in writing and signed by the parties.
j. Provision. Any agreement, covenant, condition, clause, qualification, restriction, reservation, term or
other stipulation in the Contract shall define or otherwise control, establish, or limit the performance
required or permitted or to be required of or permitted by either party. All provisions, whether
covenants or conditions, shall be deemed to be both covenants and conditions.
k. Resolution. Contractor shall submit with its Bid a copy of any corporate or partnership resolution or
other writing, which authorizes any director, officer or other employee or partner to act for or in behalf
of Contractor or which authorizes Contractor to enter into this Contract.
I. Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Contract is void
or unenforceable, the provisions of this Contract not so affected shall remain in full force and effect.
m. Status of Contractor. In the exercise of rights and obligations under this Contract, Contractor acts as
an independent contractor and not as an agent or employee of City. Contractor shall not be entitled to
any rights and benefits accorded or accruing to the City Council members, officers or employees of
City, and Contractor expressly waives any and all claims to such rights and benefits.
n. Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Contract shall inure to the benefit of, and shall apply
to and bind, the successors and assigns of the parties.
o. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Contract and each of its provisions. In the
calculation of time hereunder, the time in which an act is to be performed shall be computed by
excluding the first Day and including the last. If the time in which an act is to be performed falls on a
Saturday, Sunday, or any Day observed as a legal holiday by City, the time for performance shall be
extended to the following Business Day.
p. Alternative Dispute Resolution. The parties shall endeavor to resolve any disputes or claims arising
out of or relating to this Contract by mediation, which, unless the parties agree otherwise, shall be
conducted under the auspices of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service (JAMS), San Jose,
California. The intent of the parties is that the mediation shall proceed in advance of litigation;
however, if any party should commence litigation before the conclusion of mediation, such litigation,
including discovery, shall be stayed pending completion of mediation, and by executing this Contract
the parties stipulate to mediation in accordance with Santa Clara County Superior Court Local Rule
1.15 or Rule 2-3(b) of the ADR Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, as such rules may be amended from time to time. The parties shall share the cost of the
mediation, including the mediator's fee, equally. Any written agreement reached in mediation shall be
enforceable pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6, as amended.
q. Venue. Unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, mediation shall take place in San Jose,
CITY OF PALO ALTO
rev. 12100
CONTRACT C10132889 PAGE 5 OF7
FORMAL CONTRACT SECTION 500
California. In the event that litigation is commenced by any party hereunder, the parties agree that
such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara or
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
r. Recovery of Costs. Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney's fees, through the
completion of mediation. If the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation, or if litigation is
necessary to enforce a settlement reached at mediation pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
§ 664.6, as amended, then the prevailing party in any subsequent litigation may recover its reasonable
costs, including attorney's fees, incurred subsequent to conclusion of the mediation.
s. Flow-down. Contractor agrees to include provisions of this Contract relating to Alternative Dispute
Resolution, Venue, and Recovery of Costs in any subcontracts or major material purchase
agreements which it enters into in connection with this Contract, and to require its subcontractors to
include those provisions in any sub-contracts or major material purchase agreements, such that any
mediation or litigation of any claim or dispute asserted by a subcontractor or major material supplier
will be consolidated with any related claim or dispute between the Contractor and the City. Should the
ContractorfaiJ to do so, such that the City is required to defend an action brought by a subcontractor
or material supplier inconsistent with the Alternative Dispute and Venue provisions of this Contract,
Contractor shall indemnify City for City's costs of defense, including reasonable attorney's fees.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly appOinted representatives executed this Contract in the city of
Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California on the date first stated above.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
APPROVED:
Director of Public Works
CITY OF PALO ALTO
rev. 12/00
CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Manager
CONTRACTOR:
Name: ______________________________________ _
Title:, __________________ _
CONTRACT C10132889 PAGE 6 OF7
FORMAL CONTRACT SECTION 500
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code" 1189)
STATE OF ___________ ,
COUNTY OF __________ ,
On _______________ , before
a notary public in and for said County. personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose
name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature _________________ _
CITY OF PALO ALTO
rev. 12100
CONTRACT C10132889
(Seal)
PAGE 7 OF7
Stanford
University
I , , ,
I
Legend
_ ARRA WORK LIMITS
The City of
Palo Alto
mnlccls,2OO9<I&-26 14;42;55
(\~&$~madmin\P&rsonaN>avementmdb)
~Los .2 ~
ARRA
ATTACHMENT C
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
2009 PROJECT MAP -. 0'
ThiS doooInel'lt 19 a graphic toptosent1ltion only 0' best avallabkl sourees..
The City of Palo Alto 3$SUM6s no fe$pOflSl"bllity for any ertOfsot9a9 to 2009 C1ty of PaltJ Alto
BID SUMMARY
~ ~ Quantity l!!ll!
I Asphalt concrete overlay (AC), 2"-3", Y:" maximum. Type A 7.000 TON $
2 Portland cement concrete (pCC) pavement repair, 6" depth 15.000 SF $
3 AC Base Repair, 6" depth 450 TON $
4 Wedge Cutting 6' width minimum 9.180 LF $
5 Asphalt Concrete milling 2"-3" 198.000 SF $
6 Intcrlayer membrane 10.800 LF $
7 Crack sealant 50.000 LF $
8 Adjust utility box (cathodes. anodes, valves) to grade 73 EA $
9 Adjusting manhole frame to grade 42 EA $
10 Remove and replace reflective blue pavement marker 15 EA $
11 Install Type A Y Raised Markers 150 EA $
12 Thermoplastic striping, Caltrans Detail I 1.440 LF $
13 Thermoplastic striping, Caltl'am Detail 9 5.000 LF $
14 Thermoplastic striping, Calrrans Detail 21 1.525 LF $
15 Thermoplastic striping, Caltl'am Detail 27 200 LF $
16 Thermoplastic striping, Caltl'am Detail 38 1.120 LF $
17 Thermoplastic striping. Calrrans Detail 38A 300 LF $
18 Thermoplastic striping, Caltnms Detail 38C 456 LF $
19 Thermoplastic striping, Calrrans Dewl39139A 2.220 LF $
20 Thermoplastic striping. white. 4" wide 2.425 LF $
21 Thennopiastic striping. yellow, 4-wide 80 LF $
22 Thennoplastic striping. white. Ir wide 2.820 LF $
23 Pavement thermoplastic legend P~R LETrEB, QR SYMBQ~ 99 EA $
24 Remove and replace Type A vertical curb and gutter 1.000 LF $
25 Remove and replace Type A vertical curb and gutter with 6' gutter pan 250 LF $
26 Remove and replace Type A vcrtical curb and gutter with 8' gutter pan 100 LF $
27 City standard curb ramp, typical 7 EA $
28 Install detectable warning surface to existing curb ramp 31 EA $
29 Remove and replace concrete sidewalk 3.395 SF $
30 Remove and replaee conerete driveway 1.400 SF $
31 Install traffic signal detector loops 42 EA $
32 Reset catch basin, complete in place 12 EA $
33 Asphalt Concrete Speed Hump 1 EA $
34 Recycle inen construction material. 2.715 TON $
35 Trim street trees (40 hrs max) 40 HR $
36 Notification of businesses and residents 1 LS $
37 Traffic Control 1 LS $
2009 STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
ARRA -SAN ANTONIO AND LYTTON RESURFACING
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE A RUIZ CONSTRUCTION
UNIT COST COST UNIT COST J;Q§!
86.00 $ 602.000.00 $ 88.50 $ 619,500.00 $
10.00 $ 150.000.00 $ 7.00 $ 105.000.00 $
130.00 $ 58.500.00 $ 89.00 $ 40.050.00 $
2.50 $ 22.950.00 $ 3.00 $ 27.540.00 $
0.35 $ 69.300.00 $ 0.50 $ 99.000.00 $
2.50 $ 27.000.00 $ 0.35 $ 3.780.00 $
0.40 $ 20.000.00 $ 0.28 $ 14.000.00 $
280.00 $ 20.440.00 $ 100.00 $ 7.300.00 $
380.00 $ 15.960.00 $ 300.00 $ 12.600.00 $
25.00 $ 375.00 $ 17.00 $ 255.00 $
7.50 $ 1.125.00 $ 2.20 $ 330.00 $
1.00 $ 1.440.00 $ 0.45 $ 648.00 $
5.00 $ 25.000.00 $ 0.55 $ 2.750.00 $
1.00 $ 1.525.00 $ 1.22 $ 1.860.50 $
1.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.60 $ 120.00 $
3.00 $ 3.360.00 $ 1.25 $ 1.400.00 $
3.00 $ 900.00 $ 1.10 $ 330.00 $
3.50 $ 1.596.00 $ 2.10 $ 957.60 $
1.00 $ 2,220.00 $ 0.56 $ 1.243.20 $
1.50 $ 3.637.50 $ 0.70 $ 1.697.50 $
2.50 $ 200.00 $ 0.70 $ 56.00 $
2.50 $ 7.050.00 $ 2.20 $ 6.204.00 $
35.00 $ 3.465.00 $ 22.00 $ 2.178.00 $
40.00 $ 40.000.00 $ 18.00 $ 18.000.00 $
50.00 $ 12.500.00 $ 19.00 $ 4.750.00 $
60.00 $ 6.000.00 $ 21.00 $ 2.100.00 $
2.000.00 $ 14.000.00 $ 2.000.00 $ 14,000.00 $
375.00 $ 11.625.00 $ 178.00 $ 5.518.00 $
9.00 $ 30.555.00 $ 6.00 $ 20.370.00 $
10.00 $ 14.000.00 $ 12.50 $ 17.500.00 $
380.00 $ 15.960.00 $ 450.00 $ 18.900.00 $
1.500.00 $ 18.000.00 $ 300.00 $ 3.600.00 $
2.500.00 $ 2.500.00 $ 1.100.00 $ 1.100.00 $
5.00 $ 13.575.00 $ 6.00 $ 16.290.00 $
220.00 $ 8.800.00 $ 68.00 $ 2.720.00 $
8.000.00 $ 8.000.00 $ 10.000.00 $ 10.000.00 $
48.000.00 $ 48.000.00 $ 22.000.00 $ 22.000.00 $
$ 1,281,758,50 Apparent Low Bidder. $ 1,105,647.80
Low Bid VS. Estimate: ·14%
10% Contingency: $ 110.564.78
Total Funding: $ 1,216,212.58
ATTACHMENT D
O'GRADY PAVING INC CF ARCHIBALD PAVING INC
UNIT COST COST UNIT COST J;Q§!
73.00 $ 511,000.00 $ 79.50 $ 556.500.00
13.00 $ 195.000.00 $ 11.00 $ 165.000.00
100.00 $ 45.000.00 $ 1.40 $ 630.00
1.60 $ 14.688.00 $ 1.00 $ 9.180.00
0.24 $ 47.520.00 $ 0.35 $ 69.300.00
2.00 $ 21.600.00 $ 2.40 $ 25.920.00
0.30 $ 15.000.00 $ 0.35 $ 17,500.00
300.00 $ 21.900.00 $ 300.00 $ 21.900.00
500.00 $ 21.000.00 $ 450.00 $ 18.900.00
15.00 $ 225.00 $ 15.00 $ 225.00
2.00 $ 300.00 $ 2.00 $ 300.00
0.40 $ 576.00 $ 0.50 $ 720.00
0.50 $ 2.500.00 $ 0.50 $ 2.500.00
1.00 $ 1.525.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.525.00
0.50 $ 100.00 $ 0.50 $ 100.00
1.20 $ 1.344.00 $ 1.50 $ 1.680.00
1.00 $ 300.00 $ 1.00 $ 300.00
2.00 $ 912.00 $ 2.00 $ 912.00
0.50 $ 1,110.00 $ 0.70 $ 1.554.00
0.65 $ 1.576.25 $ 0.75 $ 1.818.75
0.65 $ 52.00 $ 0.75 $ 60.00
2.00 $ 5.640.00 $ 2.50 $ 7.050.00
20.00 $ 1.980.00 $ 25.00 $ 2,475.00
44.00 $ 44.000.00 $ 45.00 $ 45.000.00
80.00 $ 20.000.00 $ 80.00 $ 20,000.00
95.00 $ 9.500.00 $ 95.00 $ 9.500.00
2.400.00 $ 16.800.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 16.800.00
400.00 $ 12.400.00 $ 400.00 $ 12.400.00
8.00 $ 27.160.00 $ 8.00 $ 27.160.00
11.00 $ 15.400.00 $ 11.00 $ 15.400.00
275.00 $ 11.550.00 $ 300.00 $ 12.600.00
2.300.00 $ 27.600.00 $ 2.300.00 $ 27.600.00
3.000.00 $ 3.000.00 $ 3.000.00 $ 3.000.00
1.00 $ 2,715.00 $ 5.00 $ 13.575.00
200.00 $ 8.000.00 $ 300.00 $ 12.000.00
13.000.00 $ 13.000.00 $ 5.000.00 $ 5.000.00
36.000.00 $ 36.000.00 $ 50.000.00 $ 50.000.00
$ 1,157,973,25 $ 1,176,064.75
BID SUMMARY
!!l:!!!l!!2,. ~ !".!l!m!li!Y Unit
1 Asphalt eonerete overlay (AC), r -3", Yi" moximwn. Type A 7,000 TON $
2 Porrland cement concrete (PeC) pal'ement repair, 6'" depth 15,000 SF $
3 AC Base Repair, 6" depth 450 TON $
4 Wedge Cutting 6" width minimum 9,180 LF $
5 Asphalt Concrete milling 2"-3" 198,000 SF $
6 Intcrlayer membrane 10,800 LF $
7 Crack sealant 50,000 LF $
8 AdjllSt utility box (cathodes, anodes, valves) to grode 73 EA $
9 Adjusting manhole fuIme '" grode 42 EA $
10 Remove and replace reflective blue pavement marker 15 EA $
II Install Type AY _ Markers 150 EA $
12 Thcnneplastie sttiping, Cal""", Detail 1 1,440 LF $
13 Thermoplastic striping, CaJtrans Deta:il 9-5,000 LF $
14 Thermoplastic striping, Caltrnns Detai121 1,525 LF $
15 Thcnnoplastic striping, Caltrans Detail 27 200 LF $
16 Thermoplastic striping, Caltrnns Detail 38 1,120 LF $
17 Thermoplastic striping, Caltrans Detail 38A 300 LF $
18 Thermoplastic striping, Caltrans Deta.il38C 456 LF $
19 Thermoplastic sttiping, Calnans Detail 39/39A 2,220 LF $
20 Thetmoplnstie striping. white. 4" wide 2,425 LF $
21 ThcnnopIastie striping. yellow. 4-wide 80 LF $
22 ThcnnopIastie striping, White, IT wide 2,820 LF $
23 Pavement lhennopIastie legell<l.lER LETTER Q!\ ~XMBQL 99 EA $
24 Remove and repJuce Type A vertical curb and gutter 1,000 LF $
25 Remove and replace Type A venic.al curb uod gutter with 6' gutter pan 250 LF $
26 Remove and replace Type A vertical curb and gutter with 8' gutter pan 100 LF $
27 City standard curb ramp, typical 7 EA $
28 wtan detectable warning swface to e.'Cistmg curb nu::np 31 EA $
29 Remove and replace concrete sid~vaLk 3,395 SF $
30 Remove and replace concrete driveway 1,400 SF $
31 Install traffic signal detector loops 42 EA $ r---32 Reset catch basin, complete in place 12 EA $
33 ~t Coneretc Speed Hump 1 EA $
34 Recycle inert construction material, 2,715 TON $
35 Trim street trees (40 brs max) 40 HR $ -36 Notification of businesses and residents 1 LS $
37 Tmffic Control I LS $
2009 STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
ARRA -SAN ANTONIO AND LYTTON RESURFACING
GRANITE CONSTRUC'l10N G BORTOLOTTO & co INC
~ !.lW: ~ !.lW:
89,00 $ 623,000,00 $ 95.00 $ 885,000,00 $
12.00 $ 187,500.00 $ 10,50 $ 157,500,00 $
114.00 $ 51,300,00 $ 175.00 $ 78,750,00 $
2.70 $ 24,786.00 $ 1.71 $ 15,697,80 $
0,39 $ 77,220,00 $ 0,39 $ 77,220,00 S
1.30 $ 14,040,00 $ 3,00 $ 32,400,00 $
0,28 $ 14,000.00 $ 0,39 $ 19,500,00 $
340,00 $ 24,620.00 $ 350,00 $ 25,550,00 $
460,00 $ 19,320,00 $ 470,00 $ 19,740,00 $
15.00 $ 225.00 $ 17.00 $ 255.00 $
2,00 $ 300.00 $ 2,00 $ 300,00 $
0,40 $ 576.00 $ 0.40 $ 576,00 $
0.50 $ 2,500.00 $ 0.50 $ 2.500.00 $
1,00 $ 1,525.00 $ 1.00 $ 1,525.00 $
0,50 $ 100.00 $ 1,00 $ 200,00 $
1,20 $ 1,344.00 $ 1,20 $ 1,344,00 $
1,00 $ 300.00 $ 1,00 $ 300.00 $
2,00 $ 912,00 $ 2.00 $ 912,00 $
0,50 $ 1,110.00 $ 0.50 $ 1,110,00 $
0,65 $ 1,576,2$ $ 0.70 $ 1,697.50 $
0.65 $ 52,00 $ 1.00 $ 50.00 $
2.00 $ 5,640,00 $ 2.00 $ 5,640,00 $
20.00 $ 1,980.00 $ 20,00 $ 1,960,00 $
42,50 $ 42.500.00 $ 37.00 $ 37,000,00 $
76,00 $ 19,000,00 $ 76.00 $ 19,000,00 $
92,00 $ 9,200,00 $ 96,00 $ 9,600,00 $
2,300.00 $ 16,100,00 $ 2,000,00 $ 14,000.00 $
386.00 $ 11,966.00 $ 468,00 $ 14,508.00 $
7,50 $ 25,462.50 $ 9.00 $ 30,555,00 $
10,75 $ 15,050.00 $ 10,00 $ 14,000.00 $
265.00 $ 11,130,00 $ 300,00 $ 12,600.00 $
2,200.00 $ 26,400,00 $ 2,000.00 $ 24,000.00 $
1,900.00 $ 1,900.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $
2,60 $ 7,059.00 $ 4,00 $ 10,860.00 $
240,00 $ 9,600.00 $ 200,00 $ 8,000,00 $
14,000,00 $ 14,000,00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $
29,120,00 $ 29,120.00 $ 61,000,00 $ 61,000,00 $
$ 1,292,613.75 $ 1,378,900.30
ATTACHMENT D
INTERSTATE GRADIi'lG& PAllli'lG
~ !.lW:
98,00 $ 686,000,00
11.00 $ 165,000.00
135,00 $ 60,750.00
2,00 $ 18,360,00
0.45 $ 89,100.00
1,00 $ 10,800.00
0,30 $ 15,000,00
470,00 $ 34,310.00
700,00 $ 29.400.00
16.00 $ 240,00
2,20 $ 330,00
0,46 $ 646.00
0,55 $ 2,750.00
1.10 $ 1,677,50
0.55 $ 110,00
1.30 $ 1,456,00
1.10 $ 330,00
2.20 $ 1,003,20
0,55 $ 1,221.00
0,70 $ 1,697,50
0,70 $ 56.00
2.20 $ 6,204.00
22.00 $ 2,178.00
39.00 $ 39,000.00
79,00 $ 19,750.00
100,00 $ 10,000,00
2,100,00 $ 14,700,00
500,00 $ 15,500,00
8.00 $ 27,160,00
10,00 $ 14,000,00
250,00 $ 10,500.00
2,400,00 $ 28,800.00
6,000.00 $ 6,000.00
20,00 $ 54,300.00
80.00 $ 3,200,00
2,500.00 $ 2,500.00
97,000,00 $ 97,000.00
$ 1,471 ,031.20
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14,2009
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
DEPARTMENT:ADMINISTRATIVE
SERYICES
CMR: 359:09
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Approving Revisions to the City of Palo Alto
Energy Risk Management Policy
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that Council approve the
updated Energy Risk Management Policy and Resolution as attached (Attachments A and C).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Palo Alto's Energy Risk Management Policy serves as the overriding document for
the management, monitoring and hedging of risks associated with commodity transactions by the
Utilities Department. The key changes included in the new version of the Policy include
enhancements to the applicability, roles and responsibilities, types of contracts permitted and
conflict of interest sections. In addition, each type of permitted transaction is more fully
detailed. Products added to the permitted transaction list include purchase of Congestion
Revenue Rights. Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission recommend approval of the
revised Policy.
BACKGROUND
The City'S Energy Risk Management Policy requires that staff update the Policy rumually. The
Utiliti<eS Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC) has reviewed and approved the
updated Policy. The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) voted to approve the Policy at the
August 10, 2009 meeting.
The Energy Risk Management Policy was prepared by staff to take into account new regulatory
requirements, as well as updated risk management best practices. Before consideration by the
UAC, the Risk Management Policies were also reviewed by two outside municipal utilities.
DISCUSSION
Electricity and gas prices are extremely volatile, and purchasing these commodities carries
inherent risks. The Energy Risk Management Policy is the overarching document for the
CMR 359:09 Page I of5
management of the City's risks associated with purchasing of electric and gas commodities. In
addition to the Policy, energy risk management activities in the City are managed by two more
detailed sets of documents: the Risk Management Guidelines and Risk Management Proeedures.
The Guidelines detail the roles and responsibilities of the Front, Middle and Back Offices, as
well how to manage and measure risks, and establish credit limits. In addition, the Guidelines
detail transaction control principles involved in the trade capture and risk reporting. The Risk
Management Procedures provide explicit step-by-step instructions for use by cmployees in
performing specific tasks within the risk management framework. The Guidelines are prepared
by staff and approved by the Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC).
The Risk Management Procedures are approved by the Utilities and Administrative Services
Directors, and provided to the UROCC. The voting members of the UROCC are the Director of
Utilities, Director of Administrative Services, Director of Public Works, and thc Assistant to the
City Manager. The UROCC has two advisory, non-voting members who are the City Auditor
and the Senior Assistant City Attorney.
The City's Energy Risk Management Policy codifies policies designed to minimize risks, define
segregation of duties, provide organi71ltional structure for risk controls, set aceeptable risk
parameters and limits, ensure transparent and appropriate purchasing procedures, and protect the
City from excessive risk exposure.
The updated Policy's scope is restricted to transactions carried out uuder the electric and gas
master agreements. All contract transactions, whether carried out under the master agreements
or not, must be fully in compliance with the Municipal Code. Transactions with the Northern
Califomia Power Agency, iucluding scheduling, are covered uuder a separate Member Services
Agreement.
The updated Policy also reflect changes to the composition of the UROCC. The Policy now
reflects the current composition of the UROCC to include the Director of Public Works as a
voting member and increasing the quorum to three voting members. The City Attorney and the
City Auditor serve as non-voting advisory members. The Policy also notes that the City
Auditor's participation as an advisor to the UROCC does not impair the City Auditor's ability to
audit the Utilities Department.
The updatcd Policy is most clearly differentiated from previous versions with regard to the types
of transactions covered by the policy and the specific authorized transaeting products allowed.
The new Policy lists all approved transaction products in detail, rather than types of products
listed in previous versions. Added to the approved transaction products list are ancillary
serviees, local and system capacity, and transmissions products. These products are required for
the efficient operation of the Utility or for regulatory purposes.
An addition to the approved products list is financial transactions related to the nomination,
purchasing and selling of Congestion Revenue Rights (CRR) through the Califomia Independent
System Operator (CAISO). These products are by CAISO definition "financial products" and it
has been the risk management policy of the City of Palo Alto that financial products are
prohibited without approval by the City Council. This prohibition remains for all transactions
except for the Congestion Revenue Rights which are an integral element in CAISO's
CMR359:09 Page 2 ofS
transmission market (launched on April I, 2009 as the Market Redesign and Technology
Upgrade). Failing to participate in the CRR market would increase the City's risks and costs
associated with transmission congestion, hence the inclusion ofCRR's in the City's Policy.
The updated Policy includes an improved conflict of interest section to correspond to the City's
Municipal Code (Section 2.09.0 I 0) which reflects the conflict of interest section of the Political
Reform Act of 1974, California Government Code Section 81000, et seq.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) discussed the proposed Energy Risk Management
Policy at its August 10,2009 meeting. Notes from this meeting are provided in Attachment B.
The UAC focused its discussion on Section IX, the Commodity Pricing Policy section of the
Energy Risk Management Policy. This original section discussed by the UAC is presented in its
entirety below:
IX. COMMODITY PRICING POLICY
Retail prices for eriergy supplies will be fair and equitable to all customers and will recover all
incurred costs. The commodity pricing policy will be used both for the development of
standardized commodity tariffs and for long-term, or customized, customer contract rates. The
City Manager is responsible for implementing this policy and overseeing the process for all
commodity rate development and ensuring that all procedures are followed consistently and that all
calculations are appropriately documented.
The commodity pricing policy is composed of tbe following five principles with the first principle
having priority over the remaining four:
a. Direct Cost Recovery
All direct costs of providing commodity service will be recovered in commodity rates
and/or through the use of Utilities' reserves.
h. Risk Management
To the extent practicable contract terms must protect CPAU from major contingencies. To
the extent that CPAU assumes risk to provide commodity products to customers, the
customer shall pay reasonable compensation for bearing that risk.
c. Indirect Cost Recovery
To the extent practicable, it is an objective to recover all indirect costs of commodity
service from commodity customers.
d. Nondiscrimination
All customers within a customer class shall be treated in a fair and impartial manner and be
entitled to acquire commodities at the same or substantially similar terms and conditions.
e. Nonsubsidization
To tbe extent practicable, costs will be allocated to customers and customer classes
according to how those costs are incurred. Thus, commodity rates will not be established in
a manner that permits one class of customers to be subsidized by another.
The regulations for oversight, review, approval, pricing and reporting of customer contracts and
fixed-term commodity rates are contained within the Council-approved Rules and Regulations of
the City of Palo Alto Utilities.
The UAC expressed concern that the subsections in Section IX could potentially conflict with a
future Rates Policy yet to be developed as they could be interpreted as being contrary to the
encouragement of efficient use of resources. Additionally, the UAC questioned if the
nondiscrimination and subsidization principles could be called in to question for many new
initiatives for efficiency and feed-in tariffs. Some members of the UAC felt that paragraphs (d)
and (e) were not required in the Energy Risk Management Policy, but should be included in a
future Rates Policy that staff is developing.
Following additional discussion the UAC took the following action: Commissioner Waldfogel
moved the staff recommendation to recommend Council approve the updated Energy Risk
Management Policy with the deletion of paragraphs (d) and (e) in Section IX -Commodity
Pricing Policy. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Foster. The motion carried by a
vote of3-1, with Chair Melton voting no.
Following the vote, staff amended the Policy as approved by the UAC. This amended Policy is
attached.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This updated Policy represents a change in City Policy. The changes relate to updating the
Policy to reflect industry best practices and the need for business practices to correspond with
new regulatory requirements.
RESOURCE IMPACT
There are no resource impacts of the updated Policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This policy update does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
ATTACHMENT
A Energy Risk Management Policy as approved by the UAC on August 10, 2009
B Minutes of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting on August 10, 2009
C Resolution Approving Revisions to the City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy
CMR359:09 Page 4 of5
PREPARED BY:
Energy Risk Manag r
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
Dire-"'-" dminis ative Services
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR359:09 Page 5 of5
Attachment A.
City of Palo Alto
Energy Risk Management
Policy
August 10,2009
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTI LlTI ES
City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1
II. APPLICABILITY ............................................................................................................................................. 1
III. ENERGY RISK MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY ...................................................................................... 2
IV. ENERGY RISK MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................... 2
I. RETAIL RATE STABILITy .................................................................................................................................. 2
2. PRESERVE A SUPPLY COST ADVANTAGE ......................................................................................................... 3
3. EFFICIENT AND COST EFFECTIVE BUSINESS PROCESSES .................................................................................. 3
V. OVERSIGHT BODIES ....................... " ........................................................................................................... 3
1. CITY COUNCIL ................................................................................................................................................. 3
2. UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION ................................................................................................................. .3
. 3. CITY MANAGER .............................................................................................................................................. .4
4. UTILITIES RISK OVERSIGHT AND COORDINATING COMMfITEE ....................................................................... ,4
5. MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT .............................................................................................................................. 4
a. Front Office .. · Planning and Procurement .............................................................................................. 4
b. Middle Offlce -'Risk Management Controls and Reporting ....................................................................... 5
c. Back Offlce -Settlement and Recol'ding ........................................................................... : ........................ 6
VI. SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................................... 6
VII. TRANSACTING POLICY .............................................................................................................................. 6
1. ANTI·SPECULATION ......................................................................................................................................... 7
2. MAXIMUM TRANSACTION TERM ...................................................................................................................... 7
3. PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE AND VALUE REpORTING ....................................................................................... 7
4. COMPETlTIVEPROCESS .................................................................................................................................... 7
VIII. COUNTERPARTY CREDIT POLICY .......................................................................................................... 7
IX. COMMODITY PRICING POLICY ..................................................................... ,,' ........................................ 8
X. RISK MANAGEMENT REPORTING POLICY .......................................................................................... 9
XI. AUTHORIZED PRODUCTS POLiCy .......................................................................................................... 9
XU. TRANSACTING AUTHORITY POLICY ................................................................................................... 10
XIII. CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY ......................................................................................................... 11
XIV. GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................................................................... 12
c:rr'f DrPAlO .AUO
UTILITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto Utilities to provide reliable and affordable energy
and energy services to its industrial, commercial and residential customers in an
environmentally sustainable manner. Furthermore, this policy is consistent with the
City's business objectives of making financially sound and timely investments in the
capital infrastructure of the Utilities to ensure tbe reliable delivery of energy and energy
services to its customers.
The City of Palo Alto's Energy Risk Management Policy ("Policy") details the key
contro I structures and policies for prudent risk management processes based on sound
energy risk management principles while ensuring adherence to financial requirements
set forth by City Council and Director of Administrative Services as well as all pertinent
legal requirements. The control structures and policies are focused on the following
issues:
• Clearly defined segregation of duties and delegation of authority
• Organizational structure for risk management controls
• Policies related to setting acceptable risk parameters and risk limits.
• Policies for risk reporting.
• Permitted transaction and product types.
The Energy Risk Management Policy serves as the key policy level document on energy
risk management. This Policy is supported by more detailed operational-level
documents: the Energy Risk Management Guidelines and the Energy Risk Management
Procedures for the Front, Middle and Back Offices.
II. APPLICABIltITy
This Energy Risk Management Policy applies to all City of Palo Alto employees engaged
directly or indirectly in h'ansacting in the energy markets. The first objective of this
Policy is to build risk awareness within the City. Consistent with the City Council's
desire for the City to be an active manager of risk, the organization must maintain
awareness of the risks faced. It is critical that all members of the organization have
awareness that participation in tbe energy business entails a host of risks and that all
members have knowledge of the Energy Risk Management Policy
1
ClIl' Of PAU) t,L \0
UTILITIES
III. ENERGY RISK MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY
The mission statement of the Utilities Depaltment is to "Provide valued utility services to
customers and dependable returns to the City." The Utilities Strategic Plan, delivered to
the City Council! contains four supporting objectives: I) Provide valued utility services
to customers and dependable returns to the City, 2) employ balanced environmental
solutions, 3) provide fair and reasonable returns to the City and competitive rates to
customers through municipal ownership; and 4) ensure a safe and engaged workforce.
Palo Alto recognizes that certain risks are inherent in the energy business environment.
The City seeks to minimize risks in order to provide rate stability to its customers and a
stable financial return to the City's General Fund. The basic premise underlying the
City's Energy Risk Management Policy is that no activities related to energy purchases
and sales should unduly expose the City to the possibility of financial losses in relation to
the size of the electricity and gas reserve funds.
IV. ENERGY RISK MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives of energy risk management activities are to balance the business
goals of: (I) providing stable gas and electric rates to end users, (2) preserving a supply
cost advantage through obtaining the best available price, and (3) managing business
processes to allow the City to work efficiently and cost effectively.
1. Retail Rate Stability
Stable rates are of high value to the citizens and businesses in Palo Alto. However,
energy commodity market prices are extremely volatile. Therefore, a primary objective
is to manage the risks inherent in the energy commodity markets in which CPAU
participates. The rate stability objective is to mitigate market risk, weather risk, volume
risk, and credit risks to avoid frequent rate changes.
Reserye balances maintained by the gas and electric utilities provide financial liquidity
and flexibility for entering into long-term contracts and for purchases of energy in the
spot and forward market as needed to meet the projected load. Reserve funds are
designed to cover short-term price exposure due to market changes or hydro risk, and to
avoid rapidly changing rates to cover those events. Maintaining the adequacy of these
reserve funds in accordance with Council approved reserve policies and guidelines is a
matter of the highest priority for CP AU and the City.
I (CMR:148:05)
~11Y Of' PAll) All"Q
UTILITIES
2
2. Preserve a Supply Cost Advantage
City staff will endeavor to: (a) reduce exposure to potential adverse energy price
movements; (b) enhance value by taking advantage offlexibHity inherent in CPAU
contracts and resources; and (c) enhance value by offering cost-effective commodity
products that address customer needs.
3. Efficient and Cost Effective Business Processes
City staff will utilize business practices and controls that are sufficient to identify,
evaluate, and manage risks through appropriate recording, analysis and reporting
requirements. The Energy Risk Manager, in collaboration with CPAU, will determine
the sufficiency of control and reporting requirements. Staff will strive to improve the risk
management procedures to enhance productivity, reduce the cost of conducting risk
management activities, and maintain transparency and the value of the risk management
process.
When the above goals are in conflict, the Energy Risk Manager will collaborate with
CPA U and the Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC) to
resolve the conflict.
V. OVERSIGHT BODIES
1. City Co uncil
The City Council is responsible for making high-level broad policy and strategy
statements as contained in this Policy document and as such approves the Policy. The
Policy shall guide the general vision ofCPAU business practices, articulating the City's
risk philosophy, and establishing risk tolerances. The City COtmcii reviews and adopts
the Energy Risk Management Policy as developed and recommended by the UROCe and
delegates the City Manager to implement it. The City Council will review the Policy
annually or more frequently if the DROCC recommends significant changes.
Additionally, the City Council shall receive reports quarterly from the City Manager
regarding energy risk management activities.
2. Utilities Advisory Commission
The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAG) is responsible for advising the City Council
on long-range planning and policy matters relating to the electricity, gas and water
utilities. While it has no formal responsibility in energy risk management, the UAC does
receive and review regular management reports prepared by the Risk Manager for the
City Council. In addition, the UAC can serve as an importsnt source of advice and
comment to the City Council on risk management.
3
CIl'YOfPIlU.,)AlfO
UTILITIES
3. City Manager
The City Manager has overall responsibility for executing and ensuring compliance with
policy adopted by the City Council. The City Manager reports quarterly to the City
Council regarding energy risk management aetivities.
4. Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee
The Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC) consists of the
Director of Utilities (Chairperson), the Director of Administrative Services, the Director
of Public Works and a delegated representative ofthe City Manager. The Senior
Assistant City Attorney assigned to Utilities and the City Auditor act as non-voting
advisors for the UROCC. In accordance with 2007 Government Auditing Standards, the
City Auditor's participation as an advisor to the UROCC is not considered an audit
service and does not impair the City Auditor's ability to audit the Utilities Department.
The Energy Risk Manager serves as the Secretary to the UROCC. A quorum consists of
at least three voting members of the UROCC.
The UROCC is responsible for overseeing a sound approach to managing risks which is
consistent with the business strategy and risk tolerance of the organization, as defined by
the City Council. The UROCC is the primary body responsible forappl'oving and the
implementation of guidelines consistent with Council-approved energy risk management
policies. As such, the UROCC is critical to overseeing and reviewing the risk
management process and infrastructure and ensuring proper management of the Utilities'
risk exposure.
5. Management Oversight
Risk management oversight at an operational level is accomplished through supervisory
review and approval and appropriate separation of duties. The functions of the Front
Office, Middle Office and Back Office are detailed in the Energy Risk Management
Guidelines. Risk management functions are separated as follows:
a. Front Office -Planning and Procurement-
Reporting to the Director of Utilities, the Front Office is primarily responsible for
resource planning and procuring energy supplies and services. The Front Office, by
delegation of the City Manager, has a critical role in risk management through its
transacting operations. The Front Office has the authority to commit the capital of the
City of Palo Alto to energy transactions with counterparties. As such, the Front Office is
a central clearing point for risk assumption and risk mitigation.
The Front Office roles in risk management include:
• Develop and implement Utility Director-approved, Front Office procedures
consistent with Council approved Policy and UROCC approved Guidelines.
4
CITy (If· Vi\L(I Al '-0
UTILITIES
• Develop and implement energy portfolio management plans, strategies and
guidelines in support of CPAD objectives and in accordance with the City's
Energy Risk Management Policy and legal and regulatory requirements.
• Develop and recommend for annual approval retail rates and financial plans
including gas and electric reserves in support of CPA D objectives.
• Ensure adherence to Energy Risk Management Policy, Guidelines and
Procedures including proper recording of transactions, monitoring and
valuation of risk.
• Report position, valuation and market conditions and energy portfolio risk
and report to the DROCC.
• Ensure proper reporting of contractual commitments to the City financial
reporting system.
Front Office Procedures are developed by staff, approved by the Utilities Director, and
provided to the DROCC for information.
b. Middle Office -Risk Management Controls and Reporting
Reporting to the Director of Administrative Services, the Middle Office provides the
primary independent oversight role. The Middle Office consists of the Risk Manager,
and institutes, supervises, and reviews all risk management activities including
portfolio exposure, credit exposure, transaction compliance and on-going approval of
counterparties and transacting limits. The Middle Office responsibilities include
monitoring CPAD's risk exposures and ensuring compliance with policies, guidelines,
and procedures. Additionally, the Middle Office is responsible for reporting to the
DROCC on risk management issues, and recommending when changes in policy or
operating procedure are required. These recommendations may relate to the temporary
or permanent halting of transactions with one or more counterparties, exceptions to
rules and procedures, other operational exceptions, and any other topic the Risk
Manager believes represents an unacceptable risk exposure.
1ne Middle Office recommends as necessary updates to the Energy Risk Management
Policy, Guidelines and Procedures so that portfolio management functions occur in
compliance with the Council-adopted Energy Risk Management Policy and DROCe -
adopted Energy Risk Management Guidelines.
Middle Office Procedures are developed by staff, approved by the Administrative
Services Director, and provided to the DROCC for information.
CIlYCfPALOAuO .
UTILITIES
5
c. Back Office -Settlement and Recording
The Back Office is primarily responsible for settlement ofbiIJs, recording transactions,
bookkeeping and accounting, and contract administration. The Back Office roles in
oversight are ensuring that bills reflect orders, independently monitoring and recording
transactions into a tracking database, and verifying and reporting on compliance with
procedures as reflected in the deal tracking documentation. Functions within the Back
Office are performed by both ASD and CPA U personnel and are detailed in the Risk
Management Guidelines.
Back Office Procedures are collectively developed by staff from Administrative Services
and Utilities, jointly approved by the Administrative Services Director and the Utilities
Director, and providcd to the UROCC for information.
VI. SCOPE
The Energy Risk Management Policy shall apply to the electric and natural gas supply
business units. The clcctric and natural gas supply business units are the part of the
electric and natural gas enterprise funds that deal directly willi the acquisition of energy
supply resources.
The Energy Risk Management Policy prescribes the management, organization,
authority, processes, tools and systems to monit()r, measure, and control risks to which
the City is exposed in its normal course ()f business, including wholesale and retail
()perations, capital pr()jects (related to generati()n, transmission, transp()rtation, and
storage), and participation in joint p()wers authorities.
The Policy does not address general business risks such as fire, accident, casualty, worker
health and safety, and general liability. Neither does the policy cover the water fund, the
electric and natural gas distribution business units, or the telecommunications business
unit.
The Policy does not apply to transactions executed ()n behalf of the City by joint agencies
such and the Northern California Power Agency (NCP A). The NCPA Commission
approves its ()wn energy risk management policies and procedures.
VII. TRANSACTING POLICY
The City of Palo Alt()'s transacting policy is to ensure transactions carried out under the
electric and gas master agreements are done in a manner consistent with the authority
granted by Council to transact under these contracts; the City ofPal() Alto's Municipal
Code; and are carried out to manage risk which is inherent to the energy supply portfolio
en)' OF !'AU) AUO
UTILITIES
6
,
and to ensure the City is not exposed to unnecessary risk. The policy is based on four
key elements:
1. Antl'..speculalion
Speculative buying and selling of energy products is prohibited. Speculation is defined
as buying energy not needed for meeting forecasted load or selling energy that is not
owned, In no event shall transactions be entered into in order to speculate on market
conditions. The volume limits for forward purchases are listed in the Energy Risk
Management Guidelines,
2. Maximum Transaction Term
The maximum term of any supply resource transaction (purchase or sale) is ten years,
unless specifically approved by the City Council, to meet long-term portfolio planning
objectives,
3. Portfolio Performance and Value Reporting
Front and Middle Office staff shall prepare performance reports containing an analysis of
physical and financial positions of all electric and gas commodity contracts, The
frequency and content of performance reports for each oversight body shaH be prescribed
in the Energy Risk Management Guidelines, Should the risks associated with the
portfolio, or a specific transaction within the portfolio, fall outside of the risk limits
prescribed in the Energy Risk Management Guidelines, the Risk Manager will report this
fact to the UROCC and the City Council within a reasonable period and evaluate the risk
ofhoJding any of the contracts in the portfolio to delivery,
4. Competitive Process
Whenever possible, CPAU will obtain three or more quotations when making a purchase
or sale transaction and select the best price from a creditworthy bidder.
VIII. COUNTERPARTY CREDIT POLICY
The Counterparty Credit Policy is designed to minimize the potential adverse financial
impacts on the City in the event of a defaulting counterparty, The policy is to minimize
the City's credit exposure and potential adverse financial impacts related to wholesale
commodity transactions by:
• Establishing a credit risk management governance and oversight structure within
the existing energy risk management program;
• Providing a framework to enable the City to qualify energy suppliers and transact
with approved counterparties;
7
crty Of' f'ALQ Al'FO
UTILITIES
• Providing counterparty transacting parameters (limits) to control and measure the
City's exposure to any onc supplier; and
• Implementing a mechanism to monitor and report on supply portfolio related
counterparty credit exposures.
All transactions must adhere to Chapter 2.30 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Contracts
and Purchasing Procedures) which sets creditworthiness standards and certain contractual
provision required for wholesale commodity transactions. As such, transactions carried
out under the Electric and Gas Master Agreements are limited to counterparties with a
Standard and Poor's Rating ofBBB-or better, or a Moody's Investor Services Rating of
Baa3 or better. Only the City Council can approve exemptions to this requirement.
Counterparty credit limits and controls are set forth in the Energy Risk Management
Guidelines.
IX. COMMODITY PRICING POLICY
Retail prices for energy supplies will be fair and equitable to all customers and will
recover all incurred costs. The commodity pricing policy will be used both for the
development of standardized commodity tariffs and for long-term, or customized,
customer contract rates. The City Manager is responsible for implementing this policy
and overseeing the process for all commodity rate development and ensuring that all
procedures are followed consistently and that all calculations are appropriately
documented.
The commodity pricing policy is composed of the following tbree principles with the first
principle having priority over the remaining two:
a. Direct Cost Recovery
All direct costs of providing commodity service will be recovered in commodity
rates and/or through the use of Utilities' reserves.
b. Risk Management
To the extent practicable contract terms must protect CPAU from major
contingencies. To the extent that CPAU assumes risk to provide commodity
products to customers, the customer shall pay reasonable compensation for
bearing that risk.
e. Indirect Cost Recovery
To the extent practicable, it is an objective to recover all indirect costs of
commodity service from commodity customers.
~\f/t? --~.
CIl"'l' or: r,\l,QALTO
UTILITIES
8
The regulations for oversight, review, approval, pricing and reporting of customer
contracts and fixed-term commodity rates are contained within the Council-approved
Rules and Regulations of the City of Palo Alto Utilities.
X. RISK MANAGEMENT REPORTING POLICY
Key to energy risk management is the monitoring of risks and the accurate and timely
information that must be provided to all parties involved in any aspects of energy risk
management to allow them to perform their functions appropriately. Quarterly reports
will be provided for distribution to the DROCC, the UAC, and the City Council which
provide detliils on the City's forward purchases, market exposure, credit exposure,
counterparly credit ratings, transaction compliance and other relevant data.
XI. AUTHORIZED PRODUCTS POLICY
The purpose of the Authorized Product Policy is to ensure proper controls are in place to
minimize risk when transacting under the Electric and Gas Master Agreements.
Transactions not covered by the Master agreements must conform to the Municipal Code
and must be approved by City Council In general the types of pro duets to be purchased
include electricity, capacity, transmission, ancillary services, congestion, renewable
energy, natural gas, transportation, and storage.
The Council is responsible for authorizing all products and commodity types to be
executed under the Electric and Gas Master Agreements. The DROCC is responsible for
understanding and communicating the risks associated with each transaction and making
recommendations to Council for approving products. Further the UROCC ensures that
the necessary processes and controls are in place for proper execution of authorized
products as further detailed in the Energy Risk Management Guidelines. Transactions of
products not allProved by the Council are strictly prollll)ited. All transactions must be
consistent with Energy Risk Management Policies, Guidelines and Procedures. Key
elements of the Authorized Products Policy are as follows:
• Policy applies to transactions executed under the Council-approved Electric and
Gas Mastcr Agreements
• Policy applies to transactions carried out by City of Palo Alto staff
• All transactions must be committed to by an authorized trader.
• All transactions must be with eligible counterpatties with adequate available
credit.
• All transactions must be committed over a recorded phone lines; via electronic
mail; or through a signed confirmation from both parties ..
ern Of.-PAl. 0 AtTO
UTILITIES
9
• All transactions must be on the Approved Products/Transaction Type List.
Amlroved ProductslTransaction TYPe~List
Approved products are limited to purchases to meet load and/or sales incidental to load
for the following:
A. Purchase of physical fixed price, index-based price, call options, capped-price or
collar-priced energy, natural gas, capacity, transportation, basis and transmission
products
B. Sale of physical fixed price or index-based price energy, natural gas, capacity,
storage, and transmission
C. Electric heat rate pro duets
D. Renewable Energy Credits with or without bundled energy to meet the City's
Renewable Portfolio Standards;
E. Gas storage
F. Eleetric Ancillary Services
G. Local and system capacity to meet the City's Resource Adequaey Program;
H. Fixed price or index-priced purchases and sales to substitute the use of higher cost
resources with lower cost market alternatives.
1. Fixed price or index-priced forward purchases and sales of transmission and
transmission rights to meet contractual obligations or to dispose of surplus capacity.
J. Purchase of physical call options and physical collars.
K. Financial transactions related to the nomination, purchasing and selling of
Congestion Revenue Rights
XII. TRANSACTING AUTHORITY POLICY
The City Manager has the authority to purchase and sell wholesale energy commodities
for terms of up to three years under open purchase contraets. City Manager authorities
may be delegated by the City Manager to the Director of Utilities. Purchases and sales are
subject to signature authority limits as defined in the Municipal Code. Currently, energy
purchases exceeding $250,000 per year and exceeding a three-year term require City
Council approval (Municipal Code Sec 2.30.210 (I)). Authority to enter into transactions
must be based on City Council approved contracts such as master agreements, purchase
agreements, or other contractual forms. In all cases the Municipal Code provides the
final authorization rules and regulations for energy purchases.
10
----------------------------~--------------------------
c:ny Of' J-II\LO 1>1. YO
UTILITIES
Authorization levels for City staff as delegated are maintained in the Risk Management
Guidelines by the Middle Office. The City Clerk maintains the list of individuals
authorized to make wholesale transactions.
XIII. CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY
In accordance with the Municipal Code and California law, personnel involved in
transacting and oversight of the City of Palo Alto Utilities supply resource acquisition,
contract negotiation, risk management, and back office programs may not participate in
decisions in which they have a financial conflict of interest. All personnel are required to
complete, on an annUliI basis, the Form 700 Disclosure forms and submit these forms to
the City Clerk. Each staff member engaged in energy transacting, risk management, or
energy back office operations has the sole responsibility of identifying and reporting any
potential conflict of interest, and ensuring that he or she does not participate in decisions
when a financial conflict of interest exists. If the employee has a reportable interest, it is
their responsibility to disclose the interest and have their supervisor sign-off on the form
so that their supervisor is aware of the potential conflict. Supervisors should ensure
employees are not involved in a decision-making capacity with respect to any of their
reportable interest. An employee who has a potential conflict should contact the Fair
Political Practices Commission at 1-866-ASK-FPPC for advice and notify his or her
supervisor of the potential conflict. If questions remain after talking to the FPPC, contact
the City Attorney's Office and your Department Director for further assistance.
11
------------------------~---------------------~\\IJt? -" \~
ell'( C~ J>AU)hLTG
UTILITIES
XIV. Glossary of Terrns
• Back Office A set of business functions in Utilities and Administrative Services
Departments including trade confirmation, accounting and other
c-::-;-:_-:-_______ -+-'~r~oc~e~s~se~s~t~h,f!lt support the transaction of commodities.
Call options An option that allows the owner the right to purchase energy at the
,'--:::_---::--_______ +sp~if1ed strike price.
Cap price A structured product that contains a strip of multiple call option
contracts with identical but sta ered ex irations.
Collar A combination of a rice with a maximum and minimum value.
Congestion Revenue Rights A CRR is a hedging tool or a financial instrument that entitles the
holder to a CRR payment when Congestion (a characteristic of the
transmission system produced when constraints on the system
prevent the optimum economic dispatch of generation to meet
demand) is in the direction of the CRR Source (a node or a trading
hub where generation is scheduled into the electric grid) to the CRR
. Sink (a node or a trading hub specified as the point of withdrawal
i for consumption).
Credit risk The probable change in the value of a contract due to a counterparty
, defaulting.
Electric Ancillary Services Those services necessary to support the transmission of electric
power from seller to purchaser given the obligations of control areas
and transmitting utilities within those control areas to maintain
reliable operations of the interconnected transmission system.
Electric heat rate product A contract based on how efficiently a generator uses heat energy in
fuel (ie naturall4as) to l4enerate electricity.
Financial Position The total dollar amount of contracts that setting with counterparties
excllanging cash.
Front Office The sector of energy procurement operations in utilities where
trading occurs.
Hydro risk The risk that altered precipitation pattems result in less than normal
hydro electric generation.
Index-based price
!
A price that varies based onJ)lJ.plished index prices. .. -~
Market risk The probable change in value of (or sensitivity to) a contract,
position or portfolio due to general changes in market conditions.
12
----------~--------------------------~\\l/i:. -
Crt't Of' PALO AL TO
UTILITIES
: Master Agreement
l-
I Middle Office
Physical fixed price
Physical Position
Portfolio eXllosure
Risk Management
A standardized agreement to which oth
are referred.
The set ofbnsiness functions in Admin
er agreements and purchases:
~-~::--:----:-~~---1 istrative Services that carries
out the risk management activities inc! uding measuring, controlling
other risks. and hedging market, credit, h;,:dro and
I A contract for a fixed price which settl
. deEvers the commodit;,: to another who
es when one counterparty
~11cash settlement
The volumetric sum of all physical tral1 sactions . .. _-_ ..... _--
The monetar;,: sllm of all llositions that
The set of skills and processes for mea
.hedgingrisk·m
are subject to chc:;:a",ll=c,:-, __ -I
suring, controlling and
I Supply Portfolio The composition and amo\1nl of all pur chased power.
[Trans.,mlsslOn roduct • The sale or purchase ora non-energy asset to transpo":rt",e",n,,,e,",r= __ -i
i Volume risk The risk of the volume of a contract or position changing from
i __ + cutrent expectations.-;-----;-_
I Weath .... errisk The risk of weather changing from current expectations and causing
________ --' .... c=:;:h<lJ1ges to expected load or gelleration.
13
----------------------~----------------------~\1/~ -....; ,
C(lY Of PALO At Tt)
UTILITIES
ATTACHMENT B
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Melton called to order at 7:00 p.m. the special meeting of the Utilities Advisory Commission
(UAC).
Present: Commissioners Eglash, Foster, Melton, and Waldfogel, Council Member Yeh
Absent: Commissioner Keller.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
The minutes from the June 3, 2009 UAC meeting were unanimously approved.
AGENDA REVIEW
. No changes were proposed.
REPORT FROM COMMISSION MEETINGSIEVENTS
No report.
UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT
Utilities Director Valerie Fong delivered an oral report on the following items:
1. Water Supply Conditions: According to the hydrologic conditions report from the San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission for July, the water year for the regional water system is near or above
average with the total amount of water in storage as of the end of July 2009 at a nine year high for the
end of July. Part of this good news is that customers from all agencies receiving the water have been
effectively conserving water use. We congratulate our customers for helping in this regard.
2. Economic Stimulus Funding Application & Awards:
a. Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant (EECBG): We anticipate this award for $663k to be
made in September. Of the $663,000, the City expects to spend $458,000 on LED street light
project and $205,000 on Home Energy Reports project.
b. People Power: People Power Company, a Palo Alto start up, in partnership with Cities of Palo
Alto, Santa Clara, Alameda, Acterra, and Ennovation Z applied for stimulus grants to help evaluate
the energy savings that could be achieved by customers changing behavior triggered by having in-
home real time energy monitoring devices. We expect to know if we qualify for the award in the
October time frame
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: September 2, 2009 Page 1 of?
c. EV Funding Requests: The City's application with Better Places for EV charging stations was
turned down by DoE. We are still awaiting results on the application through BAAQMD.
3. Street Light Pilot: Test LED street lights and Induction street lights have been installed around City
Hall and along Colorado and Amarillo Avenue. With technical assistance from Pacific Northwest
National Labs (PNL) we have taken lighting measurement and now in the process of analyzing the data
and seeking community input.
4. Smart Grid Evaluation: Following up on the May 11 th joint Council/UAC study session, staff is
developing a Request for Proposals (RFP) to retain a consultant to help develop a long term Smart
Grid Strategic Plan and do a cost-benefit analysis related to smart meter deployment. The RFP will be
issued in early September and a consultant is expected to be on board in late Fall. The timeline for the
evaluation is yet to be determined.
5. Renewable Electric Supplies: On August 3, Council approved two long-term power purchase
agreements for renewable electricity. One is with Ameresco for a landfill gas to energy plant in
Johnson Canyon (in Gonzales, California), which will provide about 1.1 % of the City's electric needs
with rights to any expansion plants built at the landfill. The other was to amend the contract for a
higher price for the Western GeoPower geothermal power and to increase Palo Alto's potential
maximum participation level to provide about 6% of the City's electric needs.
Both contracts are for power at near the Market Price Referent, a benchmark price for renewable
power established by the California Public Utilities Commission. Other proposals received in the City's
RFP for renewable power (besides the Ameresco Johnson Canyon proposal) are also around or above
the Market Price Referent. Discussion at the Council Finance Committee on July 21 when it reviewed
the Ameresco Johnson Canyon contract, and at the Council on August 3 when it approved the Western
GeoPower contract amendment, noted that staff should ensure that energy efficiency programs reflect
the marginal cost of renewable power when determining cost-effectiveness.
6. Biomethane RFP: Palo Alto issued an RFP for pipeline-quality biomethane supplies and expects to
have results back in mid-August. The biomethane is intended to serve gas customers who voluntarily
opt for a non-fossil fuel gas supply.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM 1: ACTION ITEM: Election of Officers
ACTION: Commissioner Eglash nominated Commissioner Melton to be the Chair of the UAC. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Foster. The motion carried unanimously (4-0).
ACTION: Commissioner Foster nominated Commissioner Waldfogel to be the Vice Chair of the UAC. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Eglash. The motion carried unanimously (4-0).
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: September 2, 2009 Page 2 of7
ITEM 2: ACTION ITEM: Designate Spokeperson(s) for FY 2010
ACTION: Commissioner Foster nominated Chair Melton to be the UAC's spokesperson for Fiscal Year
2010 and the Vice Chair Waldfogel to be the alternate. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Eglash. The motion carried unanimously (4-0).
Commissioner Waldfogel commented that designating the Chair and Vice Chair as spokesperson and
alternate, respectively, could be something that would go into the UAC bylaws.
ITEM 3: Intentionally Omitted
ITEM 4: INFORMA nON ITEM: City of Palo Alto's Energy Risk Management Report for the Third Quarter,
Fiscal Year 2009
Energy Risk Manager Karl Van Orsdol provided a presentation on this report to the UAC as there are new
commissioners who are not familiar with the informational report that he provides to the Council and UAC
on a quarterly basis.
In summary, Van Orsdol stated that, for the third quarter of FY 2009:
• All transactions were complete within limits -there were no exceptions to report.
• The 36-month Mark-to-Market value of Electric contracts is negative $1.5 million.
• The 36-month Mark-to-Market value of Gas contracts is negative $10.6 million.
• The prompt 12-month Mark-to-Market value of renewable energy is negative $8.3 million compared to
wholesale "brown" market.
• The prompt 12-month Mark-to-Market value of the Western Base Resource hydro contract is $1.2
million and that for the Calaveras hydroelectric project is negative $5.7 million.
• All counterparties with whom Palo Alto actively trades maintain excellent credit rating.
Van Orsdol described the electric portfolio as consisting of hydroelectric power that is generated primarily in
the spring and summer months with lower production in the winter months. Renewable resources such as
landfill gas generation and geothermal power produce the same generation monthly, but wind generation
also has a seasonal generation profile, producing the most in the summer. Purchases from the market are
used to fill in resources to meet the City's relatively flat load. The gas load, on the other hand, is seasonal
in nature and purchases from the market are layered in according to the City's laddering strategy over the
next 36 months.
Van Orsdol defined Mark-to-Market (MTM) as equal to the market value of an asset or contract less the
cost of the asset or contract so that a positive MTM means that the resource is more valuable than its cost
while a negative MTM indicates that the resource costs more than it's currently worth in the market.
Commissioner Eglash asked how renewable contracts are marked to market -is the value compared to
renewable market prices or market prices for brown power. Van Orsdol explained that in the past, the MTM
for renewable resources were based on the brown market value, but in the future, they will be marked to
the forward curve for renewable power. The proxy for this renewable forward curve is the "Market Price
Referent" that has been estabtished by the Catifornia Public Utilities Commission.
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: September 2,2009 Page 30f7
Van Orsdol noted that MTM valuations figure into credit risk calculations as the City could stand to lose if a
supplier defaulted on a contract that had a positive MTM, Credit risk is calculated by multiplying MTM by
the Expected Default Frequency (EDF), which is a measure of the likelihood that particular supplier will
default within a 12-month time period, Calculation of the EDF for rated entities is done by a proprietary
model from Moody's KMV, EDF is estimated for unrated entities, or private firms, using KMV's RiskCalc
and Risk Analyst algorithms based on confidential financial information.
The counterparties with which the City has negotiated Electric and/or Gas Master Agreements (EMAs and
GMAs), like many other businesses, have had significant declines in credit worthiness over the past 12
months. Even so, the electric suppliers with whom the City is currently transacting are rated no lower than
A-and, due to the currently negative MTM for most contracts, the expected loss (MTM times EDF) is very
low.
Van Orsdol noted that the reserves are evaluated on a quarterly basis to determine if they are sufficient to
cover risks, As of the end of FY 2009, the electric and gas supply rate stabilization reserves were well
funded and above portfolio risks for the next 12 months.
ITEM 5: ACTtON ITEM: Energy Risk Management Policy
Energy Risk Manager Karl Van Orsdol provided a presentation on the updated Energy Risk Management
Policy. He provided an overview of the three sets of documents involved in risk management: 1) Risk
Management Policy -the highest level document is approved by City Council outlines the City's approach
to managing risks associated with the purchasing of electricity and gas commodities; 2) Risk Management
Guidelines approved by the UROCC to provide more detailed information on establishing rate limits,
transacting authority limits, credit limits and overall risk management techniques; and 3) Risk Management
Procedures which provide step by step instructions on carrying out key risk management activities.
Van Orsdol noted that the key changes in the updated policy from the existing policy were:
• Specific listing of all approved products (Page 9-1 0)
• Inclusion of financial instruments in the approved products limited solely to (Page 10):
-nomination, purchasing and selling of Congestion Revenue Rights
• Specifically noting that the UROCC is the body to resolve conflicts related to the managing three
risk management objectives (page 3):
-Retail rate stability
-Supply Cost Advantage
-Efficient and Cost Effective Business Processes
• Strengthens priority of reserve fund adequacy (page 2)
• Greater detail on Front Office roles and responsibilities (Page 4)
• Inclusion of Public Works Director in LlROCC (Page 4)
• Replacement of Risk Oversight Committee (ROC) with Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating
Committee (UROCC) to reflect the expanded scope of the committee (Page 4)
• Strengthened applicability wording to include all staff involved directly or indirectly as needing to be
aware of Energy Risk Management Policy (Page 1).
• Revised and Improved Conflict of Interest statement (Page 11, Section XII).
• Role of City Auditor on the UROCC does not impair the Auditor's ability to audit the Utilities
Department. (Page 4, Section 4. Paragraph 2),
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: September 2, Page 4 of7
Commissioner Waldfogel described the policy as a well thought-through document. He asked how the list
of approved products (Section XI -Authorized Products Policy) can be expanded, if needed. Van Orsdol
explained that the Energy Risk Management Guidelines provide a uniform process for developing and
analyzing the benefits and risks of new approved products and presenting that information to the UROCC,
the UAC for recommendation to Council and to Council for approval.
Commissioner Waldfogel also questioned the relevance of some parts of Section IX, the Commodity
Pricing Policy. Van Orsdol explained that the risks covered are not just on the cost side, but also on the
revenue side. Commissioner Waldfogel asked whether all subsections, especially subsections (d) and (e)
should be included in the Risk Management Policy. Section IX states: "The commodity pricing policy is
composed of the following five principles with the first principle having priority over the remaining four:" a)
direct cost recovery; b) risk management; c) indirect cost recovery; d) nondiscrimination; and e)
nonsubsidization.
Subsections (d) and (e) in the draft policy are:
d. Nondiscrimination
All customers within a customer class shall be treated in a fair and impartial manner
and be entitled to acquire commodities at the same or substantially similar terms and
conditions
e. Nonsubsidization
To the extent practicable, costs will be allocated to customers and customer classes
according to how those costs are incurred. Thus, commodity rates will not be
established in a manner that permits one class of customers to be subsidized by
another.
Commissioner Waldfogel expressed concern that these subsections could be out of line with a future Rates
Policy as they could be interpreted as being contrary to the encouragement of efficient use of resources.
Commissioner Foster asked about renewable power pricing, noting that the document was silent on the fact
that there is a policy on purchasing renewable power, but document talks more about low and equitable
rates. Utilities Director Valerie Fong noted that there is not contradiction and that there are other policies,
not just the Energy Risk Management Policy. Foster noted that in Section IV -Energy Risk Management
Objectives, one goal listed is to preserve a supply cost advantage, but this could be in conflict with the
Renewable Portfolio Standard.
Commissioner Foster also wondered if the nondiscrimination and subsidization principles could be called in
to question for many new initiatives for efficiency and feed-in tariffs. Commissioner Eglash asked if an
example could be provided where some initiative could be contrary to those two principles. Foster
responded that one example is if you are encouraging customers to conserve energy and designed a rate
structure to charge higher users more per energy unit consumed, then you may be vulnerable to charges
that higher users are being discriminated against or are subsidizing other others. Eglash suggested that
this situation could be interpreted as being nondiscriminatory since the rate schedule would be available to
all users, but it could be viewed as higher use customers are subsidizing lower use customers by covering
a larger part of the costs of the system so he considers (e) as more of a problem than (d). Assistant
Director Jane Ratchye noted that the intention of nondiscrimination and nonsubsidization sections was so
that one customer class (e.g. residential customers) would not bear the costs of another class (e.g.
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: September 2, 2009 Page 5 of7
commercial customers). However, she noted that the way it is written ("costs will be allocated to customers
and customer classes according to how those costs are incurred") could indeed be construed to mean that
inclining block rates where higher usage amounts were charged at a higher rate would not be appropriate.
Chair Melton recalled an earlier UAC discussion where all fixed costs are not recovered from fixed charges
in rates, but a balance needs to be struck between competing objectives such as cost recovery and
incenting efficient use of resources.
Commissioner Eglash asked if (d) and/or (e) could be modified to ensure that the intention of supporting
efficient use of resources could be clarified so that it would not apply in certain situations. Commissioner
Waldfogel noted that the section did prioritize the first principle (direct cost recovery) over the remaining
four.
Commissioner Waldfogel noted that he wanted to bring this issue up as the UAC will shortly be considering
Rates Policies and would prefer that this is an input into rates design coming up. Eglash said that if the
UAC in the future makes recommendations that may slightly be in conflict with the policy, then we might
wish it had been worded differently or be accused of being inconsistent. He asked if staff had the same
conflicts when developing this policy. Ratchye stated that Council adopted the Commodity Pricing Policy
over 10 years ago and it was simply incorporated into the Energy Risk Management Policy at this time.
Eglash stated that the Utilities Strategic Plan and one of the supporting objectives is to employ balanced
environmental solutions so that it's stated there, but not incorporated into this policy only implicitly.
Commissioner Foster suggested that (e) could be changed to say that it does not mean to relate to pricing
that encourages efficient pricing. Waldfogel suggested that maybe a sixth principle on environmental
protection could be added.
Chair Melton suggested that a change could be made after the development of the rates for FY 2010 or of
a new Rates Policy.
Commissioner Foster would rather modify (e) than delete (d) and (e) since that may be perceived as the
UAC not being supportive of the principles of nondiscrimination and nonsubsidization. Commissioner
Eglash stated that it may not be the best way to try to wordsmith this complex document at this time. For
example, under Section IV we may want to add a new objective related to the acquisition of renewable
resources. However, the document has been prepared carefully and he doesn't want to inadvertently
create a problem. Foster said that we could approve this unchanged and make adjustments in the future.
Eglash asked if the UAC comments will be communicated to Council. Fong ensured that the Commission's
comments would be forwarded to the Council. Ratchye added that deleting (d) and (e) would not be a
problem for staff, especially since the Rates Policy will be coming forward to the UAC for consideration and
they can be added there. Van Orsdol added that these areas are not the focus of this policy, but would
advise that these principles should be incorporated into some policy and Utilities practice.
Commissioner Waldfogel agreed that these principles are important and should be included in some
document, butthat the Energy Risk Management Policy is not the place. Foster added that the principles
could frustrate attempts to encourage efficiency. He asked if the UAC votes to delete these two
subsections, can a comment be added to state that the UAC supports these principles, but that they should
be found in a document that's more relevant to ratemaking than focused only on risk management. Staff
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: September 2, 2009 Page 6 of7
explained that the commission's discussions would be reflected in the minutes and a summary would be
part of the staff report that went to the Council.
Chair Melton said that he saw no reason to make any changes at this time except perhaps to remove the
whole commodity pricing policy section if it was replaced in a future Rates Policy.
Commissioner Foster asked that the notes reflect that the UAC does not reject the objectives of
nondiscrimination and nonsubsidization, but recognizes that they are not appropriate in this Energy Risk
Management Policy. These objectives are more appropriately located in a future Rates Policy, where the
UAC will look for them.
ACTION: Commissioner Waldfogel moved the staff recommendation to recommend Council approve the
updated Energy Risk Management Policy with the deletion of paragraphs (d) and (e) in Section IX -
Commodity Pricing Policy. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Foster. The motion carried by a
vote of 3-1, which Chair Melton voting no.
ITEM 6: DISCUSSION ITEM: Selection of Topic(s) to be Agendized for Discussion at Future UAC
Meetings
The commission discussed various ideas for topics to be discussed at future meetings, but no
recommendation of a specific item was made.
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Marites Ward
City of Palo Alto Utilities
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: September 2, 2009 Page 7 of 7
NOT YET APPROVED ATIACHMENT C
Resolution No.
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving
Revisions to the City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management
Policy
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto ("City") has adopted a policy governing the
management, monitoring and hedging of risks associated with electric and natural gas
commodity transactions effected by the Department of Utilities, which policy is
memorialized in the document entitled "Energy Risk Management Policy" and which is
intended to be updated annually;
WHEREAS, as of August 10, 2009, the Energy Risk Management Policy (the
"Policy") has been amended to account for new regulatory requirements as well as reflect
updated risk management best practices, including, but, not limited to, enhancements to
the applicability of the Policy, the roles and responsibilities of City staff drawn from
various departments, the types of energy contracts permitted to be negotiated by the City,
and rules governing staff conflicts of interest;
WHEREAS, the Policy also specifies in detail the types of energy products that
the City may transact in, and contains new information relating to the nomination,
purchase and sale of congestion revenue rights procured through the California
Independent System Operator Corporation;
WHEREAS, on August 10, 2009, the Utilities Advisory Commission
recommended approval of the Policy, as amended, and also recommended the Council's
adoption of the Policy;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby
RESOLVES, as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves the City of Palo Alto Energy Risk
Management Policy, as amended.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
090824 jb 0073213 1
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 2. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not constitute a
project under the California Environmental Quality Aet and no environmental assessment is
required.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
090824 jb 0073213 2
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Utilities
Director of Administrative
Services
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 357:09
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2009
REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: Approval of a Negative Declaration and Adoption of (1) a Resolution
Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to Change the
Land Use Designation for 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real from
Multiple Family Residential to Commercial Hotel, and (2) an
Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Change the Zone
Designation For Approximately 0.30 acre at 4261 and 4273 EI Camino
Real (Dinah's Hotel) from RM-15 (Low Density Residential Multi-
Family) to CS (L)(D) (Service Commercial with Landscape and Site
and Design Review Combining Districts).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed project is a City-initiated request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
designation of a vacant 13,200 sq. ft. portion of the Dinah's Hotel site located at 4261 and 4273
EI Camino Real. These changes would make this panhandle-shaped portion of the site
consistent with the zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations for the remainder of the site,
while providing a permanent buffer from the Charleston Meadows area. 1t would also prohibit
vehicular access from Wilkie Way and accommodate a landscape and pedestrian/bicycle
easement to connect to the park at the new Redwood Gate (Summerhill Homes) development.
On August 12,2009, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended approval of the
rezoning and Comprehensive Plan designation. Staff also recommends approval of the proposed
changes.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City Council:
1. Approve the Negative Declaration (Attachment F).
2. Adopt the attached Resolution for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the
land use designation for an approximately 13,200 square foot (sq. ft.) site from Multiple
Family Residential to Commercial Hotel (Attachment A).
CMR: 357:09 Page 1 of6
3. Adopt the attached Ordinance to change the site's zone district from RM-15 Multi-
Family to CS(L)(D) Service Commercial with Landscape and Site and Design Review
Combining Districts (Attachment B).
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is a City-initiated rezoning of a small portion of a 139,010 sq. ft. parcel of
land (Dinah's Hotel property) having two zone districts: RM-15 (Multiple-Family), and CS(H)
(Service Commercial with Hotel Combining District). The vacant and unimproved 13,200 sq. ft.
portion of the parcel is proposed to be rezoned to the CS(L)(D) Service Commercial zone with
Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining Districts. The site is also proposed for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Multiple-Family
Residential to Comnlercial Hotel, to be consistent with the proposed commercial zone.
The project site is an undeveloped portion of the parcel located at the rear of the Dinah's Hotel
property. This rear "panhandle" strip has a narrow 39.9 feet of frontage on Wilkie Way, with a
depth of329.8 feet. The subject area to be rezoned is approximately 9% of the overall lot area.
The remainder (91 % of the site), where the hotel is located, would remain as currently zoned
(CS-H). The CS Service Commercial Zoning District was modified in 2005, as part of the
comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update, to allow hotel uses, at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2: 1.
The Hotel (H) Combining District is no longer necessary for hotel use on properties zoned CS.
DISCUSSION
The CS Service Commercial zone designation is intended to create and maintain areas for
citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood or pedestrian oriented
shopping areas, and which are more automobile-oriented. Mixed use development is allowable
. in the CS zone, when designed in accordance with context-based design criteria with up to 30
residential units per acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 1: 1 for all uses. The proposed
Commercial Service land use designation allows facilities, such as hotels and motels, along with
associated conference centers, restaurants, and other similar uses.
The existing RM -15 zone generally allows residential development up to 15 units per acre, with
single-family and multiple-family housing that is compatible with lower density and residential
districts nearby. The Multiple Family Residential land use designation generally allows
residential projects having densities ranging from eight to 40 units per acre and eight to 90
persons per acre. The panhandle area was zoned RM -15 to provide a buffer of less intensive
uses between the commercial uses on the site and the single-family neighborhood to the rear.
Proposed Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Changes
The zoning and Comprehensive Plan changes proposed for this portion of the Dinah's Hotel site
would provide zoning that is consistent with the remainder of the site, and would allow for
increased floor area (approximately 5,280 square feet of commercial development or 26,400
square feet of hotel) on that remainder area, with frontage on EI Camino Real. Imposing the
landscape and design review combining districts, however, will ensure that the portion to be
rezoned would serve as a landscape buffer to the adjacent neighborhood (Charleston Meadows).
CMR: 357:09 Page 2 of6
Proposed PedestrianlBicyc1e Easenlent
In March of 2008, the Council directed staff to study ways to obtain access rights on the subject
site to connect to a pedestrian/bicyc1e path easement across the Redwood Gate residential
development site, offered by SummerHill Homes. SummerHill Homes had agreed to dedicate a
public path from the property line shared with the Dinah's Hotel site to the public park on the
Redwood Gate site, provided the City obtained access rights. The deadline for the City to obtain
those rights is September 24, 2009. The intent is to allow pedestrian or bicycle access to
enhance more direct connectivity to the public park on the Redwood Gate site. Dinah's owners
have agreed to dedicate such an easement, and the signed copy is attached for Council
information (Attachment E). The zoning is not contingent upon the easement, but the easement
will not be recorded until the rezoning is approved. Subsequent development of the pathway is
not funded or scheduled at this time. When development does occur, the design will require
public review per the Site and Design zoning.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On July 8,2009, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) voted 6-0-1 to initiate the
zone change and Comprehensive Plan amendment. The PTC held a public hearing on the
redesignation proposal on August 12,2009 and unanimously voted (7-0) to recommend that the
City Council (1) approve the Negative Declaration and (2) adopt the resolution for a
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the land use designation from Multiple Family
Residential to Commercial Hotel; and (3) adopt the ordinance to change the site's zone district
from RM-15 Multi-Family to CS(L)(D) Service Commercial with Landscape and Site and
Design Review Combining Districts. The staffreports and minutes of the July 8 and August 12,
2009 meetings are attached.
Five area residents spoke on the item. Three speakers strongly supported the rezoning and
pathway construction. One resident opposed the rezoning because he believed that if the
pathway is built, it would increase overflow parking on Wilkie Way. The president of the
Charleston Meadows Association Board of Directors also spoke on behalf of the association.
She stated that the association supported the ·rezoning and pathway provided that measures are
put in place to prevent parking impacts on Wilkie Way and other surrounding streets prior to the
pathway being opened to the public. As mentioned above, development of the pathway would
be subject to a subsequent site and design review process.
The Charleston Meadows Association made the following requests of the City to:
1. Implement a permit parking system for the neighborhood prior to opening any public
pathway to the adj acent park at Redwood Gate
2. Require the property owner of Dinah's Hotel to fund the permit parking system
3. Plant redwoods and oaks on the subject site so that the City's requirements to protect
redwoods and oak trees would make it infeasible to construct a vehicular path without
removing the protected trees.
A copy of the PTC minutes will be incorporated into the file as documentation of the items staff
has agreed to work on with the area residents for the subject site. Staff will work with the
residents to study a permit parking system for this neighborhood prior to the construction of any
pathway improvements. Because the construction of a pathway will require a conditional use
CMR: 357:09 Page 3 of6
permit and Site and Design review, a process will be in place to provide a forum for further
public review and discussion of issues such as landscape design and pennit parking.
Since the City is the applicant for this rezoning, there is no legal nexus to require the property
owner of Dinah's Hotel to fund the pennit parking system. However, if and when an application
is submitted to redevelop the hotel site, a review of potential mitigation measures will be
appropriate.
The intent is to develop the panhandle site for pedestrian and bicycle connections only. The
proposed Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining Districts contain provisions for
mUltiple reviews, including a requirement for a conditional use pennit and Site and Design
review, and public processes to ensure the design of any improvements would meet the City's
goals. The public processes will provide opportunities for input from the public. Staff is
supportive of planting of redwoods and oaks on the site, provided that the landscaping is
appropriate for maintaining pedestrian and bicycle connections.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
The Dinah's Hotel currently generates significant transient occupancy tax revenue for the
General Fund. Rezoning of the panhandle area could result in up to 26,400 additional square feet
of hotel floor space, or up to 5,280 square feet of non-hotel commercial floor space, beyond the
maximum otherwise allowed. Developing the increment for hotel use would likely generate
considerably more revenue for the General Fund than would development for non-hotel use.
Either type of development would generate additional annual resources in the form of property,
sales, and utility user taxes. Additional hotel square footage would also add transient occupancy
tax revenue to the General Fund. Total annual revenues from these sources are projected to
range from as little as $2,000 to as much as $220,000.
Staff is not aware of any redevelopment plans at this time, but the extent and type of future
redevelopment would likely have a more significant impact than the increment of development
associated with the area to be rezoned. Development plans that do not include equivalent hotel
rooms on site may have a substantial negative impact on City resources while intensified hotel
use or some kinds of retail at higher intensities than now exist may enhance revenues
considerably.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Staff believes that the proposed changes would facilitate the achievement of several
goals, policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan. The changes would not only
bring consistency to the designations of the entire parcel, but would promote an
appropriate transition between the more intense commercial uses appropriate for parcels
along EI Camino Real and the less intense residential parcels of the new Redwood Gate
development and the Wilkie Way residences. The new designations would encourage
pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between the neighboring properties and the new
Redwood Gate public park, while protecting adjacent properties with the requirement for
adequate landscaping.
CMR: 357:09 Page 4 of6
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration, which reviewed the environmental issues
related to the rezoning, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was
subject to a 20-day public review period, beginning on July 23,2009. A copy of the
environmental document is provided as Attachnlent F. No comments have been received on the
document. The Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration must be approved prior to the
Council decision on this proj ect.
PREPARED BY:
ELENA LEE
Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD: Cl~ \jJ&<t~M
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and Transportation
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Attachment I:
Attachment J:
Attachment K:
Attachment L:
Attachment M:
Attachment N:
Attachment 0:
CMR: 357:09
Draft Comprehensive Plan Resolution
Draft Ordinance Amending Zoning Map
Parcel (Zoning) Map
Comprehensive Plan Map
Proposed Easement Agreement and Plat
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration
July 8,2009 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report (without
attachments) and Minutes
August 12,2009 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report
(without attachments) and Minutes
PAMC Chapter 18.16 (CS Service Commercial)
PAMC Chapter 18.30(E) Landscape (L) Combining District
P AMC Chapter 18.30(G) Site and Design Review (D) Combining District
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Service Commercial Land Use Designation
Definition
Excerpt of Transportation Section of Resolution No. 8432 for the Hyatt
Rickey's Development EIR
Letter from Subject Property Owner
Letter from the Charleston Meadow Association Board of Directors
Page 5 of6
COURTESY COPIES:
Martha Miller, Administrative Services Department, Real Estate
David Conklin, Property Owner Representative
Sara Annstrong, President, Charleston Meadows Association
CMR: 357:09 Page 6 of6
NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. ---
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting
an Amel1dment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by
Changing the Land Use Designation for 4261 and 4273 EI
Camino Real From Multiple Family to Commercial Hotel
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearing on
August 12, 2009 recommended that the City Council amend the Land Use Element of the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth below; and
WHEREAS, upon consideration of said recommendation after duly noticed public
hearing, the Council desires to amend said plan as hereinafter set forth;
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and
welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region would be furthered by an amendment of the
Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section 2.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map of the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing the designation of the area depicted in Exhibit A from
Multiple Family Residential to Commercial Hotel. Exhibit A is attached to this resolution and
incorporated into it by this reference.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1
090825 syn 0120400
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 3. The COlUlcil finds that the adoption of this resolution will have no
significant adverse environmental impact.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
090825syn 0120400
2
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
CommlUlity Environment
Legend
abc County Boundaries (KM)
Land Use Designation:
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
_ Service Commercial
_ Commercial Hotel
_ Public Park
c::J Parcel 148-01-005
_ Land Use Designation Change to Commercial Hote
::::~ City Jurisdictional Limits
The City of
Palo Alto
n1vera, 2009-09-02 14:24:57
Parcel 148-01-005
Land Use Designation Change ·
to
Commerical Hotel
..
r . r··--···--j L x-I n :.. -----·1
I \ i>-.. I : I ----.-.-.:.r1 .\ il \
; 11 L I r .. --. l._.JI.:._ .•.... __ J
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
-. o· 300'
ThIs document Is a graphic representation only of best available sources.
dlnahscourt al v090209 gp (I\cc-maps~Is$\gIs\admln\Personallrrtvera.mdb) The City 01 Palo Allo assumes no responsibilty for any error.@198910 2009 City of Palo Allo
NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT B
Ordinance No. ----
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto to Change the Zone
Designation for Approximately 0.30 Acre at 4261 and 4273 El
Camino Real, from RM-15 Low Density Multiple-Family
Residential to Service Commercial with Landscape and Site
and Design Review Combining Districts (CS(L)(D))
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds as follows:
A. The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public
hearing on August 12, 2009 has recomnlended that the City Council rezone approximately 0.30
acre of land at 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real from "RM-15 Low Density Multiple-Family
Residential" to "CS(L)(D) Service Commercial with Landscape and Site and Design Review
Combining Districts";
B. The Planning and Transportation Commission has reviewed the facts presented at
the public hearing, including public testimony and reports and recommendations from the
director of planning and community environment or other appropriate city staff;
C. The Planning and Transportation Commission finds that rezoning the parcel to
Service Commercial with Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining District
(CS(L)(D» zoning is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that the
Comprehensive Plan designation of the site is recommended to be Commercial Hotel; and
D. The Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter on
______ , and has reviewed the environmental documents prepared for the project and all
other relevant information, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and oral, presented
on the matter.
SECTION 2. The Council finds that the public interest, health and welfare
would be furthered by an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto as set forth in
Section 3.
SECTION 3. The Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Palo
Alto to place 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real, 0.30 acre of land, within the "CS(L)(D) Service
Commercial with Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining Districts."
1
090825syn 0120399
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 4. The Council hereby finds that this rezoning is subject to
environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined
that, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the rezoning of the property; therefore, the
project would have no significant impact on the environment.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first day after its
passage and adoption.
INTRODUCED
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
090825syn 0120399
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
2
<. --"--~ ... ,.,
...... ,. h --.I.· -,./ i :"-:---Sil .. \· .. :~ .'\\~L.\t ) E
\\;j;
~.
. ,; . ! .. ~ , .-... " ...
: •.. J .• '
..............
Legend
c::::J Parcel 148-01-005
abc Zone District Labels
c::::J Zone Districts
':J1~;::j Proposed Rezone and Land Use Designation Change
The C ity or
Palo Alto
ATTACHMENT C
Proposed Rezon ing
and
Land Use Designation Change
Parcel 148-01-005
Zoning District Map
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
-. o·
ThiS document is a g/aptuc tepr1!'sentallon on1y of baStt 8T3" a'ble sOu/ces
The City 0' Palo Alia assumes no respansibihly for any euars Cl1989 10 2009 Cily of Palo Alia
The City of
Palo Alto
n1Vera, 200!l-06-22 19:10:12 (\ICCofI1spslgls$lglsladminlPersonallrrlvera.mdb)
Legend
Land Use Designation:
Single Family Res
Multi-Family Res
_ Service Commercial
_ Hotel Commercial
_ PublicPark
ATTACHMENT 0
, Multi-Family Res (w/Hotel Overlay)
t::J Parcel 148-01-005 ...... , " ...... Proposed Rezone and Land Use Designation Change
Proposed Rezoning
and
Land Use Designation Change
Parcel 148-01-005
Land Use Designation
Map
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
-. 0' 300'
this document Is a graphic representallon only of best available soun:es.
The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility lor any errors C1989 to 2009 City of Palo Alto
• Legend
c:::::::J Parcel 148-01-005
_ Subject Public Access Easement
:::::: ~ Proposed Rezone and Land Use Designation Change
Park
.-•• -I! ..... -" Proposed Path
The City of
Palo Alto
ntvera,2OO9-07-07 11:20:29
(\lcc-maps~Is$\gIs\admlnlPersonallnfvera.mdb )
Proposed Rezoning
and
Land Use Designation Change
Parcel 148-01-005
Area Map
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
-. 0' 180'
This documenlis a graphic representallon only of besl avaDable sources.
The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors @1989 to 2009 City of Palo Alto
Recorded at Request of and
When Recorded Mail to:
City of Palo AltolReal Estate
250 Hamilton Avenue
PO Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
ATTACHMENT E
SPACE ABOVE TInS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
Assessor's Parcel Number: 148-01-005
Property Address: 4261 EI Camino Real
Project No.: AE 08/01
Easement Agreement
This Easement Agreement (this "Agreement") is made this day
2009, by and between DINAH'S HOTEL, a California corporation ("Grantor"), and the CITY
OF PALO ALTO, a municipal corporation ("Grantee").
Recitals
A. Grantor owns that certain real property located in the City of Palo Alto, County of
Santa Clara, State ofCalifomia, referenced as assessor's parcel number 148-01-005 (the
"Property").
B. Grantor is requesting that zoning of the Property be changed from zoning map
designation RM-15 to zoning map designation CS(L)(D) (the "Zoning Change").
C. Contingent on the enactment of the Zoning Change, Grantor desires to grant to
Grantee and Grantee desires to acquire the Easement Property (as defmed below) in order to
build a public walkway.
B. Grantee plans to permit members of the public pedestrian and/or bicycle access
across the Easement Property.
Agreement
For valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged,
the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:
1. Public Access Easement. Subject to Section 2 below, Grantor, as the owner of the
Property, grants to Grantee for use of its employees, agents, operators, licensees, invitees and
contractors (collectively, the "Grantee Parties"), a non-exclusive easement, subject to the
conditions, obligations and rights set forth in this Agreement: (i) to build and maintain a public
walkway, landscaping and related improvements on that certain portion of Property as shown
and described in Exhibit A attached hereto (collectively, the "Easement Property "), and (ii) to
provide members of the public pedestrian and/or bicycle access to, from, over, along and across
the Easement Property.
2. Zoning Change. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the
foregoing grant of the Easement Property contained in Section 1 above is contingent upon the
enactment of the Zoning Change without appeal or challenge. The parties hereby agree that in
no event shall this Agreement be effective or recorded until the Zoning Change has been enacted
and all applicable appeal and challenge periods relating thereto have expired without appeal or
challenge being filed. In the event the Zoning Change is not enacted with respect to the Property,
the parties hereby agree that this Agreement shall be of no further force or effect.
3. No Vehicular Use. The Easement Property shall be used for pedestrian and
bicycle use only and vehicular use shall be prohibited, except for emergency vehicles use (frre
and police).
4. Grading and Drainage. Grantee shall provide, at its sole cost and expense, the
appropriate soil grading and drainage improvements for the Easement Property, which shall be
performed as part of the construction of the walkway improvements and in accordance with the
plans and specifications as approved by Grantor. In no event shall Grantor be responsible for
providing soil grading and drainage improvements with respect to the Property and if such
improvements are made necessary as a result of the use of the Easement Property or Grantee's
improvements thereto, as Grantor may determine in its reasonable discretion after meeting and
conferring with Grantee, Grantee shall reimburse Grantor for all of the reasonable costs and
expenses (to be determined after meeting and conferring with Grantee) associated with such
improvements for the Property. .
5. Construction and Maintenance Obligations. Grantee accepts and bears full
responsibility, at its sole cost and expense, for the design, construction, reconstruction,
landscaping and maintenance of the Easement Property in accordance with the below obligations
or Grantor's reasonable direction. Maintenance obligations shall include, without limitation: (i)
resurfacing, restriping, sealing, cleaning and providing and/or maintaining appropriate soil
grading and drainage improvements for the Easement Property; and (ii) cleaning and ensuring
the safety of the Easement Property. Grantee shall maintain the Easement Property so as not to
interfere with Grantor's business operations and in no event shall Grantor have any maintenance
obligations or be responsible for providing any repairs, improvements or landscaping to the
Property in connection with the use of the Easement Property or otherwise as a consequence of
this Grant of Easement. If repairs or special maintenance to the Property becomes necessary as a
result of Grantee's construction, maintenance, improvements, landscaping or lack thereof to the
Easement Property, as Grantor may determine in its reasonable discretion after meeting and
conferring with Grantee, Grantee shall reimburse Grantor for all of the reasonable costs and
expenses (to be determined after meeting and conferring with Grantee) associated with
performing such work with respect to the Property.
6. Duration. The covenants created herein shall be perpetual, unless modified
pursuant to Paragraph 10 below.
7. Indemnification. Grantee shall hold harmless, indemnify, protect and defend
Grantor and its employees, agents, operators, licensees, invitees and contractors (the "Grantor
Parties") against any claim, demand, action, cause of action, damage, loss, liability, cost and
expense (including reasonable attorneys' fees) that arises out of or results from the use or misuse
of the Easement Property by the Grantee Parties or any member of the public, except that
Grantor shall not be indemnified for willful misconduct or gross negligence of the Grantor .
Parties.
8. Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, Grantee shall maintain
commercia11iability insurance in an amount and form reasonably acceptable to Grantor, which
coverage shall include a contractual endorsement with respect to the promises of hold harmless,
indemnification, protection and defense made by Grantee herein and name Grantor and other
parties reasonably designated by Grantor as an additional insured. Grantor acknowledges that
Grantee is currently self-insured in an amount up to $1,000,000 and is a member of ACCEL
municipal risk pool for amounts between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000. Grantor acknowledges
that these limits are currently sufficient, and agrees not to request additional coverage for three
years from the date of this Agreement.
9. Binding Effect. The rights, obligations, terms and conditions of the easement,
covenants and restrictions described in this Agreement shall run with the Property and shall be
binding upon the Property and its owner( s) and upon their respective heirs, personal
representatives, successors and assigns and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon
Grantee and its successors and assigns.
10. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
11. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by an instrument in writing
signed and acknowledged by Grantee and the owner( s) of the Property and recorded in the
Official Records of the County of Santa Clara, State of California.
12. Prohibition of Assignment. Grantee shall have no right to assign this Agreement
without the prior written consent of Grantor, which Grantor may withhold in its sole and absolute
discretion. In the event of any purported assignment of this Agreement by Grantee, without
Grantor's prior written consent, this Agreement shall automatically terminate.
13. Attorneys' Fees. If there is any legal action or proceeding between Grantor and
Grantee arising from or based on this Agreement, the unsuccessful party to such action or
proceeding shall pay to the prevailing party all reasonable costs and expenses, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by such prevailing party in such action or proceeding and in
any appeal in connection therewith. If such prevailing party recovers a judgment in any such
action, proceeding or appeal, such costs, expenses and attorneys' fees shall be included in and as
a part of such judgment.
15. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which
shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same Agreement.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank. Signatures on Following Page.]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the day
and year first hereinabove written.
GRANTOR:
DINAH'S HOTEL,
a California corporation
BY:~_""~"'~~ Name: ~ .• D.M~
Title: _
GRANTEE:
CITY OF PALO ALTO,
a municipal corporation
By: ____________________ _
Name: -------------------Title: ______________ _
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
PUBLIC WORKS
By: ____________ _
Name: ----~---------Title: _____________ _
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SR. ASST. CITY ATTORNEY
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the within deed or grant to the
City of Palo Alto, a municipal corporation, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer or
agent on behalf of the Council of the City of Palo Alto, pursuant to authority conferred by
resolution of the said Council adopted on March 15, 1971, and the City of Palo Alto consents to
recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.
Dated -------------------
Approved as to Form
Sr. Asst. City Attorney
Electric
By: __________________ _
State of Q~iUA.I )
County of ~ ~~)
By: ________________________ __
City Manager
APPROVALS
Approved as to Content
Administrative Services Department:
By: ________________________ __
Acknowledgements
On ~~ q! 200'1 before me,.----=J~4\:..E.L~~-dl..!i'5~~!..!::::....t_~~~O~U4__~~~
personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the person(s) w se name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged
to me that he/she/they executed the same in hislher/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hislher/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument. ~
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of ~U'f1UAl.l that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct. ~
and official seal.
Signature ------li-~---------(Seal) JOYCE NELSEN
COMM. # 1604511
NOTARY PUBLIC 4 CALIFORNIA
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
COMM. EXPIRES OCt
Smreof ______________ ~)
County of __________ )
On ______________________ beforeme,,------------____________________ ~
(here insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged
to me that he/she/they executed the same in hislher/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hislher/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the Smre
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature _______________________ (Seal)
that the -------
Exhibit A
Description and Map of Easement Property
(Please see attached.)
4
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EXHIBIT 'At
PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT (P.A.E.)
All that certain portion of Parcel 2as described in the Certificate of
Compliance (Lot Line Adjustment) recorded on January 2, 2001 as
Document No. 15514888 of Official Records of the County of Santa Clara,
said parcel of land situate in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara,
State of California, more particularly described as follows~
BEGINNING at the most northerly corner of said Parcel 2, said point being on
the southwesterly line of Wilkie Way, being 60 feet wide; thence along a
northeasterly line and southeasterly line of said Parcel 2 the following two
(2) courses: 1) South 32° 43'30" East. 40~OO feet and 2) South 42° 12'
30,t West. 130.00 feet; thence leaving said southeasterly line, North 32° 43/
30" West, 40.00 feet to a point on the general northwesterly line of said
Parcel 2; thence along the northwesterly line of said Parcel 2, North 42° 12'
30" East, 130.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
P.A.E. contains an area. of 0.115 acres (5,021 square feet), more or less.
This easement is not a subdivision and creates no new parcel.
P.A.E. is shown on attached plat Exhibit B and made a part hereof.
END OF DESCRIPTION
This description is based upon record information contained in that certain
Certificate of Compliance (Lot Line Adjustment) parcel of land described as
Parcel 2, recorded on January 2, 2001 as Document No. 15514888 of
Official RecordSI Santa Clara County records.
APN: 148-01-005
Kristina D. Comerer, PLS 6766
License expires: September 30, 2010
Date:
5
0\
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EXHIBIT 'B'
1RAC1 No. 9938
BK. 8J7 M JO & H
....J W q:
1RAc1 NO. 9989
B1<. 824 M 46 Be 41
LOT 2
PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT :rat INGRESS/EGRESS
4273 EL CAMINO REAL rOlNAWS SHACK
PALO ALTO. CAUFORNtA 1~056 O.R. 434
PARCEL C
LOT J
N 42"12'30" E
l/ • 130.00 ~ r -. °0 0'" "'{' - - -_148-01-0~ --''''.0---------0 h O/!!. 1Y -1 LANDS OF OINAHS HOTEL i/~· d ."fIo
. ....., 0 ~ f8 T DOC. NO. 1235533 PI 130.00 .. ~
lJ ~ ~ . S 42·12:"30" W CIj ~ .:s-:s .!tj P.A.E. ~~~~~ /: !:J -::-J a -. :o-l 148-01-009 (0.115 AC. + /_) 14~ "'fO"/Y LANDS OF LEGALLET (5.021 SO. FT. +/_) .. IE 0 ~ <: ~ DOC. NO. 14091100 J ~ 0 -.1 0' It. o SCi
/~ LEGEND
-----BOUNDARY LINE
-----STREET CENTERLINE
- - - -NEW EASEMENT LINE
----EXISllNG EASEMENT
SURVEYOR'S STAlEMENT
~/
!:!! ;s' !!il
I
I
/
/
lftlS MAP CORRECll. YREPRESENTS. A SURVEY .MADE BY ME OR VNom MY
DfREClION IN CONFORMANCE Wlm THE REQUIREMENTS OF mE PROfESSIONAL
LAND SUR\1::YORS' ACT AT mE REQUEST OF MARTHA MillER. AT 111E CITY
OF PALO AlTO. IN JULY 2009.
SCALE: 1" = 50'
\.«< ~-£"'\ .';"'; .(~'-",. ~ ; r¥-)j·, '.'::' ........& .. \."...,. -
KRISDNA O. COMERER. PLS 6166
UCENSE EXPIRES: September 30. 2010
DA~: __ ~~~~~~~~
CROSS LAND SURV£YING. INC ..
2210 MT.. PLEASANT ROAD
SAN dOSE. CA 95148
(408) 274-7994
PROJECT NO. 09-17
Ci ty of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2441 FAX (650) 329-2154
www.cityofpaloalto.org
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration
ATTACHMENT F
A notice, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources
Code 21,000, et sec.) that the followin ro'ect will not have a si ificant effect on the environment.
09PLN-00144 07-03-09
Dinah's Hotel Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan
Dinah's Hotel
4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA
(I) An Amendment to the Zoning Map to Change the Zone Designation of a 13,200 square foot portion of
Dinah's Hotel property from the RM-15 (Residential Multi-Family) Zone to the CS(L)(D) (Service
Commercial with Landscape and Site & Design Combining Districts and (2) a Resolution Amending the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of the same property from Multiple Family Residential to i
Commercial Hotel
Notice is hereby given that a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared by the Palo Alto Department of
Planning and Community Environment for the project listed above. In accordance with A.B. 866, this
document will be available for review and comment during a minimum 20-day inspection period.
rllbli~R¢v.i¢WPeljiQd':';in$i:~[iid'~,::,Jl~K .... ~a,;.:tbll9·
Public Comments regarding the correctness, completeness, or adequacy of this negative declaration are invited
and must be received on or before the hearing date. Such comments should be based on specific .
environmental concerns. Written comments should be addressed to the City of Palo Alto. Oral comments
may be made at the hearing. A file containing additional information on this project may be reviewed at the
Planning Office under the file number appearing at the top of this form. For additional information regarding
this project and the Negative Declaration, please contact Elena Lee at (650) 617-3196
(1) Palo Alto Planning Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
(2) Palo Alto Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Resonsihle Aenciessent.3co dftliisdocument
County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
Prepared by:
Signature Date
Approved by:
rENV~RONM NTAl HECKllST FOR
Cuty of Palo Alto
and CommQ1] Envoronment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
10 ]PROJECT TITLE
Dinah Hotel Rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment
Palo Alto, California
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto) CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Elena Lee
City of Palo Alto
(650) 617-3196
4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto) CA 94301
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
09PLN-00144
6. PROJECT LOCATION
4261 and 4273 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA
Parcel Numbers: 148-01-005
The project site is located in the northern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of
Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and east of State Route 82 (EI Camino Real), as
shown on Figure 1, Regional Map. The site is located east of EI Camino Real and north of
. Dinah's Court, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map. The project site is a vacant 13,200 sq. ft.
portion of an overall 3.19 acre site occupied by the Dinah's Hotel and Trader Vic's restaurant.
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
The project site is designated as Multiple Family Residential in the Palo Alto ] 998 -2010
Comprehensive P1an. This land use designation includes a residential density range of 8 to 40
units and' 8-90 persons per acre. The actual permitted number of housing units can vary by area,
depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping
centers and environmental problems. Higher densities than what is permitted by zoning may be
allowed where lueasureable community uses will be derived, services and facilities are available,
and the net effect will be compatible with the overall Comprehensive Plan.
The remainder of the property where the subject site is located is designated as Commercial Hotel
in the Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. The Commercial Hotel designation allows
facilities for use by temporary overnight occupants on a transient basis, such as hotels and motels,
along with associated conference centers and other similar uses. Restaurants and other eating
. facilities, meeting rooms, personal services, small retail and other services ancillary to the hotel
are also allowed.
The proposed project would redesignate the portion of the site that has a Multiple Family
Residential Comprehensive Plan designation to Commercial Hotel to match the remainder of the
property. This parcel has limited and narrow street frontage with significant depth and therefore
is not suitable for residential use.
8. ZONING
The project site is zoned RM-] 5, Multi-Family residentiaL This designation is a low-density
multi-family residential zoning district intended to create, preserve and enhance areas for a mix of
single-family and multiple-family housing, compatible with lower density and residential districts
nearby, including single-family residence districts. This district also serves as a transition to
moderate density multiple-family districts or districts with non-residential uses. Pennitted
denshies in the RM -] 5 district range from eight to fifteen dwelling units per acre.
The remainder of the property where the subject site is located has a zoning designation of
CS(H), Service Commercial with a Hotel Combining District. The Service COlumercial
designation is one intended to create and maintain areas accommodating citywide and regional
services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood or pedestrian oriented shopping areas, and
which generally require automotive access for customer convenience, servicing of vehicles or
equipment, loading or unloading, or parking of commercial service vehicles. The H Hotel
Combining District is intended to modifY the regulations of the service commercial and
community commercial districts specifically to pem1it hotels in the service commercial and
community commercial districts. It would enable development of up to a 06. to 1 floor area ratio,
with a conditional use permit, and subject to site and design review.
The proposed project would rezone the RM-15 portion of the site to CS(L)(D) Service
COlnmercial with a Landscape Combining District and a Site and Design Review Combining
District. The CS Service Comlnercial designation would be consistent with the designations of
the rest of the larger property. The CS zoning district was modified recently to incorporate the
provisions of the H Hotel Combining District, so a separate H Combining District is no longer
required to allow hotels as a permitted use. The L Landscape Combining District would provide
regulations to ensure the provision of landscaped open space as a physical and visuai separation
between residential districts to the north and west and more intensive commercial or industrial
uses, and in other selected locations where landscaped buffers are desirable. The D Site and
Design Review Combining District is intended to provide a process for review and approval of
development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including established
comlnunity areas which nlay be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased
traffic or other disruptions, in order to assure that use and development will be harmonious with
other uses in the gen~ral vicinity, will be compatible with environmental and ecological
objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
4261 EI Camino Real: Review and Recommendation of a request for (1) an Amendment to the
Zoning Map to Change the Zone Designation of a 13,200 square foot portion of Dinah's Hotel
property from the RM-15 (Residentia] Multi-Family) Zone to the CS(L)(D) (Service Commercial
with Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining District, and (2) a Resolution Amending
the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of the same property from Multiple Family
Residential to Commercial Hotel at 4261 EI Caniino Real.
The intent of this project is to allow redevelopment of the project site suitable to adjacent uses.
The current Comprehensive Plan designation of Multi-Family Residential and the zoning
designation of RM-15 Multi-Fami]y Residential would only allow residential development.
Because the rest of the property has a commercial zoning designation and commercial use, a
residential use in a smaIl portion of the site is not feasible. The narrow but configuration of
the lot would limit the potentia] development of the site as a residential use. The redesignation of
the site would allow the development of a pedestrian/bicycle path from Wilkie Way, through the
subject property, to connect to a public access easement on the neighboring SummerHill
residential development. A subsequent CEQA review document would be prepared and
circulated for any new development resulting from this rezoning.
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The property is located in a fully developed part of the City. Surrounding uses include the new
SummerHill residential deve]oplnent and Lodge to the north; El Camino Real, the Dinah's
Hotel and Trader Vic's restaurant to the west; single family residential and Wilkie Way to the
east; and multi-family residential to the south.
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
® County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
ENVJIRONMJENT AIL CHECKILIST AND DISCUSSKON OF KMP ACTS
EVALUATION OF ENV]RONMENTAL ]MPACT§
]) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
[A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show
that the impact simply does not app]y to projects like the one inv01ved (e. g. the project faUs
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based OID
project-specific factors as wen as general standards (e. g. the project win not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).]
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial
evidence that an effect may be . significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact"
entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies
where the incorporation of mitigation n1easures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,
and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures
from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3)
(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to Jess than significance.
DliSCUSSliON OF JIMPACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identity environmental impacts, which could occur
the proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the check1ist lists the source(s) for the
answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the
basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measUres that are proposed to reduce potential
significant impacts are included.
A. AESTHETICS
Issues and Supporting Information I Sources Potentially Potentially .lLess Than
Resources Signi.ficant Significant Significant
i Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its x
surroundings?
1,2,3
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
No
Impact
public view or view corridor? 1,2 x
J\;iap L4, 3
c) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within 1,2
a state scenic highway? Map L4,3 i
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan \
policies regarding visual resources? 2
e) Create a new source of su bstantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
1,2,3
f) Substantially shadow public open space
(other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.rn. from September 21 to March 21 ?
i I
DISCUSSION: The proposed changes do not include any specific development. Although the
subject parcel is vacant, it is located in an area that is completely developed with a mix of
housing and hotel/commercial support uses. In accordance with CEQA, any future
redevelopment plan would be reviewed under the category of aesthetics, to ensure new
construction would be appropriate and compatible with the site and surrounding development,
and any site improvements would be harmonious and appropriate to any new building. Any
redevelopment under the proposed CS(L)(D) zone and Commercial Hotel Comprehensive Plan
Land Use designation would be required to meet the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code and
the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to meeting the development standards of the proposed
CS(D)(L) zone, the Palo Alto Municipal Code requires the elimination of glare and Jight
x
x
x
x
spillover beyond the perimeter of the development. Information regarding lighting is required
with any project application. The proposed L Landscape Combining District is intended to
ensure the provision of landscaped open space as a barrier between the adjacent residential uses
and the hotel or other commercial use. This combining district will provide for the appropriate
separation and aesthetic treatment consistent with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed D Site and Design Review Combining District would
require a review process to ensure that development is done in a manner that is environmentally
and ecologically compatible and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies. The proposed
walkway would be required to meet the provisions of the new zoning designation.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural· Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agrkulture and farmland.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
incorporated
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and 1,2,3 Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Contlict with existing zoning for agricultural ],2 Map
c)
use, or a Williamson Act contract? L9,3 r'
Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could resu It in con version of 1
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION: The site is not located in a "Prilne Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of
Statewide Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not
regulated by the Williamson Act.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
X
X
X
c. AIR QlJJALrfV
]ssues and Supporting Xnformation Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
I Would the project: llssues Unless Impact (
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation X
of the applicable air quaJity plan (J 982 Bay 1,2,3
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute x
substantially to an existing or projected air 1,2,3
quaJity violation indicated by the foJlowing:
1. Direct and/or indirect operational x
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality Management Distrjct (BAAQIVID)
criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day
and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides
(NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
fine particulate matter of less than 10
microns in diameter (PMIO);
11. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) x
concentrations exceedi'ng the State
Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine
parts per million (ppm) averaged over
eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as
demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling,
which would be performed when a) project
CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day
or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic
would impact intersections or roadway
links operating at Level of Service (LOS)
D, E or F or would cause LOS to dechne to
D, E or F; or c) project would increase
I traffic volumes on nearby roadways by
10% or more)?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an x
applicable federal or state ambient air quality 1,2,3 standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
j.JIVVUl;:'Vl.:i)? i
I d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels .x
~~ air contaminants? 1,2,3
i. Probability of contracting cancer for the X
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl)
exceeds lOin one million
11. Ground-level concentrations of non-x
carcinogenic TACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (1) for the
MEl
e) Create vb. Jlldh odors affecting a
I 1
X
substantial number of people? i --
.
Issues and Supporting information R.esources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than
f)
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Not implement all applicable construction x
emission control measures recommended jn the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines? -,
----"
DISCUSSJION: The subject site is in a developed area of mixed uses including commercial and
residential uses. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the property is not located in an area that contains
uses or activities that are major pollutant emitters. The rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
pedestrian/bicycle path are not expected to result in a significant impact on air quality. The project does
not include any specific development proposals.
It is not anticipated that a redevelopment project on the 13,200-sq. ft. parcel under the proposed
Commercial Hotel COlnprehensive Plan designation and the CS(L)(D) zoning would be of a scale or use
as to effect any regional air quabty plan or standards, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant. Any redevelopment proposal' would be evaluated in a project-specific
environmental analysis for potential effects on air quality. The analysis could study the potential ilnpacts
of new construction on the site, any increase in emissions due to new construction on the site and any
cumulative from the project, given recent and future projects in the area. Any redeveloplnent
proposal on the parcel would not be allowed to generate substantial pollutant concentrations.
Mitigation Measures: None
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significa n t Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,. sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional 1,2,5 x plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, 1,2,5 x policies, regulations, including federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interru'Qtion, or other means?
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of x
any native resident or migratory fish or wi ldlife
or with establlshed native resident or 1,2,5
No
Impact
No
Impact
I
bsues and Supporting Information Resources I Sll'otentiallY Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significant
WouJd the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
! incorporated
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
e)
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or as defined by the City of 1,2,3,5
Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.1 O)?
Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natura] Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, 1,2,3,5
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? I
DISCUSSION: The project site is located in an established urban area with no riparian or tree
habitat for the candidate, sensitive, or special status species in the area. No endangered, threatened, or
rare animals, insects and plant species have been identified at this site. Future development
proposals would be subject to a subsequent environmental review per CEQA requirements
and wilJ be required to comply with Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance, the Palo Alto
Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan.
Mitigation Measures: None
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources S(/'urces Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cu ltural
resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource 1,2
pursuant to 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1
interred outside of formal cemetedes?
e) Adversel y affect a historic resource listed or
eligible for listing on the National and/or
California Register, or listed on the City's 1,2 Histonc InVCl1tVl j?
f) Eliminate important examples )fmajor periods
of California history or 1--'1 dH;::'LVl Y
No
]mpact
I
x
x
No
Impact
x
x
x
x
])TISC1IJ§S]ON : The COlnprehensive Plan indicates that the site is in a moderate archaeological
resource sensitivity zone. Most of the City area east of Interstate 280 is designated in this zone. Although
existing and historic development has altered the native landscape, the potential exists that now-buried
Native American sites could be uncovered in future planning area construction. The site has not been
designated as a historic resource.
Because there is no specific development, other than a pedestrian/bicycle path, associated with this
project, no impact would be expected on potential cultural resources. Future development would be
subject to a subsequent CEQA review and the City's standard conditions of approval, which will ensure
that any cultural resources affected would be handled properly, in accordance to local, state and federal
regulati ons.
Mitigation Measures: None Required!.
F. GEOLOGY~ SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Issues and Supporting Information iuun.:~:s Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significan t
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the See
risk of loss, injury, or death involving: below
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, x
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on 1
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
Ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? , 2,3 x
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
x
IV) Landslides? 2,3 x
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss I
of topsoil? 1,2,3 x
c) Result in substantial siltation? x
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that 1S I 2,3
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially
result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral x
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 2,3
Table 18-1-B of-the Uniform Building
No
Impact
---
I
Code (1994)) creating substantial risks to
I life or property?
f) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of sep6c tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systelTIS 1)2)
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
g) Expose people or property to major x
geologic hazards that cannot be'mitigated
through the use of standard engineering
design and seismic safety techniques? I
DISCUSSION: The entire state of California is in a seismically active area. According to the
Comprehensive Plan the project site is not in an area that is subject to very strong ground shaking in the
event of an earthquake or in an area subject to expansive soils, surface rupture, liquefaction, or earthquake
induced landslides. However, no specific development proposals, other than the redesignations
and pedestrian/bicycle path are part of the subject project. Development of any future projects
would be required to implement any recommendations of a geotechnical report and associated
mitigation measures as may be imposed, and conform to all requirements in the Uniform
Building Code, which includes provisions to ensure that the design and construction of all
buildings includes provisions to resist damage from earthquakes to the extent feasible and
acceptable. The potential onsite exposure to geological hazards will therefore be less than
significant. No mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDO'US MATERIALS
Sources Less Than No
x
x
I Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant Significant Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routjng transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
1)2,3
1,2,3
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or ] ,2,3
proposed school?
d) Construct a school on a property that is subject
to hazards from hazardous materials
e)
of hazardous
i Unless
Mitigation
Incor orated
Impact
x
x
x
x
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a 1,2,3 x
result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, whhin two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a x safety hazard for people residing or working in 1 the project area?
g) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety x
hazard for people residing or working the 1
project area?
h) Impair implementation of or pbysically
i)
j)
interfere with an adopted emergency response 1,2
plan or emergency evacuation plan? x
Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to x urbanized areas or where residences are 2 intermixed with wildlands?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the 2 x
environment from existing hazardous materials
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the site to contamination in excess of
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed
for the sjte? .,
DISCUSSION: There is no redevelopment proposed with the rezoning, amendment to the land use
designation and pedestrian/bicycle path. The property is vacant. Hazardous materials have not been used
or stored on site. Any future development would be subject to a subsequent CEQA review, the
imposition of any mitigation measures and the City)s conditions of approval to prevent any negative
impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials.
Mitigation Measures: None
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
I Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Violate any water qual1ty standards or waste
discharge requirements? 1,2,3 x
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local 2,3 groundwater table level the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which perm its have I
been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial I
erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 1,2,3
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result 1,2,3 in flooding on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted 1,2 runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,2
g) Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? 1,2,3
h) Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect i
flood flows? i
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involve flooding,
jncluding flooding as a result of the failure of a 1,2,3Map
levee or dam or being located within a 100-year N6 x flood hazard area? N8,12
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2
I I
i
k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,2
DISCUSSION: Any proposed development project would need to comply with City, State and
Federal standards pertaining to water quality and waste discharge, and stonn water run-off. It is not
anticipated that development under the proposed zone would substantially deplete groundwater supplies,
nor substantiaJly alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. There is no redevelopment, other than a
pedestrian/bicycle path proposed with the rezoning and amendment to the land use designation. Any
redevelopment project would be evaluated for potential effects on the environment in a separate, site-
specific environmental document.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
X
x
x
X
x
x
X
x
l LAND USE AND JPLAr~lNliNG
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significant
WouJd the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2,3 x
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local X coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an 1,2,3 environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community 1
conservation plan? x
Substantially adversely change the type or X
intensity of existing or planned land use in the
area?
Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with X
the general character of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
Conflict with established residential, X
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
Convert prime fannland, unique farmland, or X
fannland of statewide importance (farmland) to
non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
Land Use
The project site is designated as Multiple Family Residential in the Palo Alto 1998 -2010
COlnprehensive Plan. This land use designation includes a residential density range of 8 to 40 units and 8-
90 persons per acre. The actual permitted number of housing units can vary by area, depending on
existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping centers and
environmental problems. Higher densities than what is pennitted by zoning may be allowed where
measureab1e community uses will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect wlll
be compatible with the overall Comprehensive Plan.
The remainder of the property where the subject site is located is designated as Commercial Hotel in the
Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. The Commercial Hotel designation al10ws facilities for use
by temporary overnight occupants on a transient basis, such as hotels and motels, along with associated
conference centers and other sllnilar uses. Restaurants and other eating facilities, meeting rooms,
personal services, small retail and other services ancillary to the hotel are also allowed.
The proposed project would redesignate the portion of the site that has a Multiple Family Residential
Comprehensive Plan designation to Commercial Hotel to match the remainder of the property. This
parcel has limited and narrow street frontage with significant depth and therefore is not suitable for
No
Impact
residential use. The new designation would be consistent with the COlnmercial Hotel designation for the
rest of the site.
The Comprehensive Plan policies and programs most applicable to this project include:
@ Goal L-]: A well-designed, con1pact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive
neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities and open spaces.
o Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto's varied residential neighborhoods, while sustaining the vitality
of its commercial areas and public facilities.
c:;J Policy L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall city welfare
and objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding neighborhoods.
@ Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and
non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities.
o Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces.
The proposed designation is consistent with applicable General Plan policies.
Zoning
The project site is zoned RM-15, Multi-Family residential. This designation is a low-density multi-family
residential zoning district intended to create, preserve and enhance areas for a mix of single-family and
multiple-family housing, compatible with lower density and residential districts nearby, including single-
family residence districts. This district also serves as a transition to moderate density multiple-falnily
districts or districts with non-residential uses. Permitted densities in the RM-15 district range from eight
to fifteen dwelling units per acre.
The remainder of the property where the subject site is located has a zoning designation of CS(H), Service
Commercial with a Hotel Combining District. The Service Commercial designation is one intended to
create and maintain areas accommodating citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in
neighborhood or pedestrian oriented shopping areas, and which generally require automotive access for
customer convenience, servicing of vehicles or equipment, loading or unloading, or parking of
commercial service vehicles. The H Hotel Combining District is intended to modify the regulations of
. the service commercial and community commercial districts specifically to permit hotels in the service
commercial and comn1unity commercial districts. It would enable development of up to a 06. to 1 floor
area ratio, with a conditional use permit, and subject to site and design review.
The proposed project would rezone the RM-15 portion of the site to CS(L)(D) Service Commercial with
Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining Districts and allow the development of a
pedestrian/bicycle path. The CS Service Commercial would be consistent with the designations of the
rest of the larger property. The rezoning of the subject site would allow an increase in the allowable floor
area ratio (FAR) for the entire two parcel The CS zoning district was recently modified to allow
hotel uses, similar to the H Combining District. As a result, the H Combining District is no longer
necessary. The L Landscape Combining District would provide regulations to ensure the provision of
landscaped open space as a physical and visual separation between residential districts to the north and
west and more intensive commercial or industrial uses, and in other selected locations where landscaped
buffers are desirable. The D Site and Design Review Combining District would provide a review and
approval process that would require a development that would be environmental and ecologically
sensitive. Developlnent would be sensitive to other uses in the general vicinity and would be required to
be compatible with the environmental and ecological objectives and be in accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan. Office uses are restricted by PAMC Chapter 18.16.060(b).
The CS Service Commercial zone would allow a variety of commercial/retail uses, including hotels, and
mixed residential/non-residential uses to be configured either vertically or horizontally on the property,
subject to CEQA review and approval of planning and building permits. Office uses are restricted in size
per Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAM C) Section ]8.]6.060(a) and (b). The zone change would allow an
incremental increase in the allowed floor area ratio of 6% for either commercial or hotel uses', If the
rezoning is approved, an application could be submitted requesting an addition of up to approximately
5,280 sq. ft. of commercial non-hotel uses above the currently allowed area of 407,558 sq. ft.
Alternatively, if only hotel uses were proposed, approximately 26,400 sq. ft. would be allowed to be
added to the currently allowed 81,512 sq. ft.. Any request ,for redevelopment or an addition to the
existing development would be subject to CEQA clearance. The maximum allowable residential density
within a mixed use project on the site would be 30 dwelling units per acre or 149 units on the entire two
parcel Dinah's Hotel/Trader Vic Restaurant site, for a maximum floor area ratio of 1.0: 1. Maximum non-
residential floor area ratios for the development may be allowed up 0.4:]. Maximum residential floor
area for mixed uses may be allowed up to 0.6: 1, Any mixed use development of more than four
residential units would be subject to the City's Site and Design Review process, with a COQ.ncil decision
required for approval, whereas projects of four or less units would be reviewed by the Cjty's Architectural
Review Board followed by the Planning Director's decision. PAMC chapters] 8.16 and] 8.23 would be
applicable to new development, which would be evaluated under context-based design criteria of PAMC
18.] 6 and performance criteria of PAMC ] 8.23, including those for parking and late night uses and
activities regulations, This project does not include any specific development proposal.
Mitigation Measures: None.
J. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Sjgnificant
a)
b)
Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Result in the Joss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? ] ,2 x
Result in the Joss of availability of a 10caUy-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan ],2 x
or other land use plan?
DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation
(DOC), Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone ] (MRZ-1). This
designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the
City for other resources. There is no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or
regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto.
Mitigation Measures: None.
Jl<C NOJl§E
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than i No Impact
!
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
,......----..
k)
1)
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X
levels in excess of standards established in the 1,2,3
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of ! X
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground l,2,3
borne nOIse levels?
A substantial pennanent increase in ambient X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels 1,2,3
existing without the project?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in I X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project? 1,2,3
For a project located within an airport land use X
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project expose people
i
residing or working in the project area to 1,2,3 'excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private x
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to 1,2,3 excessive noise levels?
Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to ] ,2,3 X
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an
existing residential area, even if the Ldn would
remain below 60 dB?
Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1 X
an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an ] ,2,3 X
existing residential area where the Ldn
currentI;: exceeds 60 dB?
Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1,2,3 X
develoEment to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1,2,3 X
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater?
Generate construction noise exceeding the 1,2,3 x
daytime background Leg at sensitive receptors
I by 10 dBA or more'
DISCUSSION: There is no redevelopment proposed with the rezoning and amendment to the land
use designation. A pedestrian/bicycle path would not generate significant noise and the noise would be
temporary. Any redevelopment project would be evaluated for potential effects on the environment in a
separate, site-specific environmental document. Redevelopment on the site would be required to comply
with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC.
MitigatioJl] Measures: None.
L. POPULATION AND JHI01USlNG
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Induce substantial population growth in an X
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for ] ,2
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing x
c)
d)
e)
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? 1
Displace substantial numbers of people, X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? 1 I
Create a substantial imbalance between
I
x
employed residents and jobs?
CUlliU latively exceed regional or local
I population projections?
DISCUSSION: The project is a rezoning and re-designation of the 13,200-sq. ft. parcel's land use.
No specific development proposals are included. No additional population or housing impacts are
anticipated directly from this project or from a non-residential development that may be proposed. Any
future development proposal would be subject to environmental review to determine impacts on
population and housing, but the population and housing impacts of any mixed use development with
seven housing units would be individualJy less than significant. Any cumulative impacts of a mixed use
project would be evaluated if such a project were proposed
Mitigation Measures: None.
M. PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other perfonnance
I objectives for any of the public services:
I
Hssues and Supporting ]nformation Resources Sources Potentially Potentially LessTh3n No Impact
Significant Significant Sign ifica n t
Would the project: Issues UnJess Impact
.Mitiga tion
i Incor~orated
Fire protect jon? 1,2 X
X Police protectjon? 1,2
Schools? 1 x
Parks? 1 x
x
I
Other pu faciljties? 13 !
DISCUSSION: The proposed project site is located in a fully developed area of the City, where public
services are already available. The project is a rezoning and re-designation of the 13,200-sq. ft. parcel's
land use and no specific development proposals, other than a pedestrian/bicycle path, are included. Any
future developlnent would be subject to environmental and City review to determine potential ilnpacts to
public services and whether mitigations are necessary. The city's development impact fees would be
imposed upon new development as applicable.
Mitigation Measures: None.
N. RECREATION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
I
Sources Potentia Uy
I
Potentially Less Than No Impact
a)
b)
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Would the project increase the use of X
existjng neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated? 1
Does the project include recreational x
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the 1 environment? I
DISCUSSION: The project is a rezoning and re-designation of the 13,200-sq. ft. parcel's land use
and no specific development proposals are included. Therefore, the redesignation and development
of a pedestrianlbicycle path would not have any significant impact on existing parks, nor include
or require construction of recreational facilities. Any future development at the project site
would be subject to environmental review to determine any recreation impacts and compliance
with City standards.
MitRgatlioJl] Measllllres: None.
o. TRANSPORTATJION AND TRAFFIC
and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic x
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.} ] ,2
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at I
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
I a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for ] ,2
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns; x
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
su bstantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible ] ,2
uses (e.g.) fann equipment), I
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,2
I
I x
t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,2,3 1 IX
I
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or x
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g.) pedestrian, transit & 1,2
bicycle facilities)?
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection x
to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS)
D and cause an increase in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by I
four seconds or more and the critical
volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase
by 0.01 or more?
j) Cause a local intersection already operating at X
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average !
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four ~~~~ rl. or more?
j) Cause a 'oj()n~l intersection to deteriorate x
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to
increase by four seconds or more and the
critical VIC value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F x
or contribute traffic in excess of I % of
capacity to a freewa.y It i I
alread~ oEerating at LOS F?
1) Cause any change in traffic that wou ld
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a x
comparative analysis between the design
queue length and the available queue storage
capacity? Queuing i~pacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at project
access locations; queues at turn lanes at
intersections that block through traffic;
queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other
intersections, and spillback queues on ramps. I
n) Impede the development or function of x
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
~mpede the operation of a transit system as a I x
result of congestion? .
p) Create an operational safety hazard? I x
DISCUSSION: The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designation and rezoning of the
13,200-sq. ft.-parcel would not result in a transportation/traffic impact. The path itself would not increase
parking demand. However, the addition of a pedestrian/bicycle only path may potentially increase
parking demand on neighboring public streets because it provides an additional path to the adjacent
SummerHill residential site and Deodar 8t to the west. However, staffbe1ieves that this would a less than
substantial impact. The path is intended to provide a secondary hon-vehicular access to the half acre
SummerHill homes park for area residents. The path would provide a circuitous route to the 'adJacent
housing developments from neighboring public streets. No other development is proposed. Any
redevelopment project on the site would be subject to discretionary design review and site specific
environmental analysis, including parking and traffic impact analyses.
Mitigation: None required.
P. . UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than I No Impact
Significa n t Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of x
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? 1,2
b) Require or result in the construction of new x
water or wastewater treatment facilities or 1,2
expansion of existing facilities, the
!
construction of which could cause significant i
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
I
i which could cause significant environmental 1,2
llssues and! Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than
I
No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Kmpact
Mitigation
Incorporated
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to x
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded 1,2
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determinatjon by the wastewater x
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project's projGcted
demand in addition to the provider's existing 1,2
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient x
permitted capacHy to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? 1,2
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes x
and regulations related to solid waste? 1,2
h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration x
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project? I
DISCUSSION: The proposed site is completely developed in an urban area of the City, where utilities
and other services are available. However, there is no specific development proposal associated with this
project. Any future development of the site would be subject to both City review and environmental
review to ensure that the proposed development would have a less than significant impact on the
immediate environment.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources ! Sources Potentially Potentia lJy Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significa n t
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species,. cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining :x
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or anjmaJ
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major 1,2
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
lIld I v tdually lImited, but cumulatively 1,2
ISs I and! Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Im.pact
Significant Significant Sign ifica n l
Would the project: issues Unless lfmpact
Mitigation
I Incorporated
-.-.~
c)
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable»
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in x
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the , effects of probable future projectsl?
Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or 1,2,4
indirectly?
DISCUSSION: The project is a proposed alnendment to the Comprehensive Plan designation and
rezoning of the 13,200-sq. ft. parcel and DO specific development proposals are included. Any
redevelopment project on the site would be subject to discretionary design review and site specific
environmental analysis. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment) substantially reduce the habitat or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or anima1. The proposed project would not
eliminate an important example of California History.
The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable nor does it
have substantial environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings
either directly or indirectly. The project is located on an infill site and will not result in considerable
effects to the environment, and therefore, would create less than significant impacts on the quality of the
environment. When considered with other current projects and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the
project is not anticipated to result in cumulatively significant impacts.
Global Climate Change Impacts
Global climate change is the alteration of the Earth)s weather including its temperature, precipitation, and
wind patterns. Global temperatures are affected by naturally occurring and anthropogenic generated
atmospheric gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gases allow sunlight into
the Earth's atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping into Quter space, which is known as the
"greenhouse" effect. The world'E; Jeading climate scientists have reached consensus that global climate
change is underway and is very likely caused by humans. 20 Agencies at the international, national, state,
and local levels are considering strategies to control emissions of gases that contribute to global warming.
There is no comprehensive strategy that is being implemented on a global scale that addresses climate
change; however, in California a multiagency "Climate Action Team", has identified a range of strategies
and the Air Resources Board, under Assembly Bill CAB) 32, has been designated to adopt the main plan
for reducing California!s GHG emissions by January 1, 2009, and regulations and other initiatives for
reducing GHG emissions by January 1, 2011. AB 32 requires achievement by 2020 of a statewide
greenhouse gas emissions limit equjvalent to 1990 emissions, and the adoption of rules and regulations to
achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
By 2050, the state plans to reduce elnissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. While the state of
California has established prograIns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are no established
standards for gauging the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. Neither CEQ A nor the CEQA
Guidelines provide any methodology for analysis of greenhouse gases. Given the "global" scope of global
--
climate change, the challenge under CEQA is for a Lead Agency to translate the issue down to the level
of a CEQA document for a specific project in a way that is Ineaningful to the decision making process.
Under CEQA, the essential questions are whether a project creates or contributes to an environmental
impact or is subject to impacts from the enviromnent in which it would occur, and what mitigation
measures are available to avoid or reduce impacts.
The project is a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designation and rezoning of the] 3,200-
sq. ft. parcel and no specific development proposals are included. Any redevelopment project on the site
would be subject to discretionary design review and site specific environmental analysis.
Any future development will be required to comply with the City's Green Building Regulations (PAMC
Chapter ] 8.44). Future development can include different components that will offset a project's
potentia] minor incremental contribution to global climate change. These include:
® For buildings, require energy-efficient design such as that encapsulated in the Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEE D) Green Building Ratings. LEED standards are widely recognized
benchmarks for the design, construction, and operation of energy efficient commercial and residential
buildings (energy efficiency is only part ofLEED; a big part of the rating is also indoor air quality).
o Require incorporation of transit into project design through considerations siting, location, and
transit linkages.
@ Require purchase of energy-efficient appliances and office equipment (Energy Star compliant, etc.).
(;) Promote waste reduction measures and recycling (reduces cost to transport and dispose waste and
energy associated with product manufacture).
til> Incorporate on-site renewable energy production (such as solar installations on building rooftops) and
water reuse.
e In planning, promote mixed-use, compact, and higher-density development to reduce trip distance,
promote alternatives to vehicle travel, and promote efficiency in delivery of services and goods.
Future development would be required to conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan and'other policies to
reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled, and encourage automobile-alternative modes of transportation
(e.g., public transit, walking, and bicycling). Although greenhouse gas emissions generated by future
development would have the potential to cumulatively contribute to global climate change, to determine
whether it would have a significant impact on global climate change is speculative, particularly given the
fact that there are no existing numerical thresholds to determine an impact. However, in an effort to make
a good faith effort at disclosing environmental ilnpacts and to conform with the CEQA Guidelines
[§16064(b)], it is the City's position that, based on the nature and size of this redevelopment project, its
location within an established urban area served by existing infrastructure (rather than a greenfield site),
and the policies and measures included in the Comprehensive P1an and Palo Alto Municipal Code to
reduce vehicle use, the future developlnent would not impede the state's ability to reach the emission
reduction limits/standards set forth by the State of California'by Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32. Over
the long term, the expectation from regional planning agencies is that intensifying land uses near transit
will lead to reduced dependence on the automobile and increased transit ridership. For these reasons,
future development would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change
associated with greenhouse gas emissions. Final measures to reduce energy use and emissions would be
reviewed during the design review process.
SOURCE REFERENCES -All repOlis used as sources and prepared specifically for the project
should be listed by title/date
1. Project Planner's knowledge of the site and the proposed project
2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 (list specific policy and map references)
3. Palo A Ito Municipal Code, including Title 18 -Zoning Ordinance
4. Required compliance with the Unifonn Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety
and W indload
5. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10:030, June 2001
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
li find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the x
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
K find that aHhough the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there win not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION win be prepared.
li find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required~
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because aU potentialJy significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Project Planne:r
TO:
FROM:
) ATTACHMENT G
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Elena Lee, Senior Planner DEP ARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: July 8,2009
SUBJECT: 4261 and 4273 El Camino Real: Review and initiation of requests for: (1)
an Amendment to the Zoning Map to Change the Zone Designation of an
approximately 13,200 square foot portion of Dinah's Hotel property from
the RM-15 (Residential Multi-Family) Zone to the CS(L) (Service
Commercial with Landscape Combining District) and (2) a Resolution
Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of the same
property from Multiple Family Residential to Commercial Hotel at 4261
El Camino Real. Environmental Assessment: A draft Initial Study will be
prepared and will be circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffrecommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) direct the
Director of Planning and Community Environment to initiate a zone change fronl RM-15 Multi-
Family to CS(L) for an approximately 13,200-sq. ft. portion of a property located at 4261 and
4273 El Camino Real, as defined in the attached parcel map (Attachment A). Additionally, staff
recommends that the Commission direct the Director of Planning and Community Environment
to initiate a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation change of the same property from
Multiple Family Residential to Commercial Hotel.
BACKGROUND:
The project site owned by Dinah's Court Hotel, is a vacant, 39.9 foot wide by 329.8 foot deep
parcel with frontage on Wilkie Way. The subject site is approximately 13,200 sq. ft. in size, not
16,200 sq. ft. as previously indicated. The current RM-15 Multi-Family Residential Zone
generally allows single-family and multiple-family housing that is compatible with lower density
and residential districts nearby, with a density range of between eight and fifteen dwelling units
per acre. The Multiple Family Residential land use designation on the Palo Alto 1998 -2010
Comprehensive Plan land use map, would generally allow a residential project having a density
Page 10f5
ranging from eight to 40 units and eight to 90 persons per acre. However, due to the parcel's
limited street frontage, narrow width and significant depth, the parcel was not and realistically
could not be developed for residential use. In 2003, a proposal was submitted to change the
zoning designation of the subject parcel to CS(H) Service Commercial with a Hotel Combining
District and CS(H)(L) Service Commercial with Hotel and Landscape Combining Districts.
However, the applicant's objective was to obtain both vehicular and pedestrian access to the
hotel. This proposal was not approved and the property retained its current RM .;.15 zoning.
Subsequent to this previous application, the Zoning Ordinance was the subj ect of a
comprehensive update in 2005. The CS Service Commercial Zoning District was modified to
allow hotel uses. The H Combining District would no longer be necessary for properties with
the CS designation to allow hotel uses.
The remainder of Dinah's property is zoned CS(H), Service Commercial with a Hotel
Combining District and designated as Commercial Hotel on the Palo Alto 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan land use map. The Commercial Hotel land use designation allows
facilities, such as hotels and motels, along with associated conference centers and other similar
uses. Other uses typically associated with hotels are also allowed, such as restaurants and
supporting services. The CS Service Commercial designation is one intended to create and
maintain areas for citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood or
pedestrian oriented shopping areas, and which are more automobile oriented. As discussed
above, the H Combining District no longer haS to be specifically included in the rezoning of the
site to allow hotel uses.
Pedestrian Access
A significant issue of concern during the approval process for the SummerHill Homes Tentative
Map at the Elk's site (4249 EI Camino Real) was the lack of pedestrian and bicycle access
through the site; particularly, access from Wilkie Way to the public park located at the rear of the
site. Both the Commission and ARB had also expressed a concern over the lack of such
connectivity between Wilkie Way and EI Camino Real. In response, the applicant had dedicated
a public access easement across Street A, a private street located at the southern area of the site
nearest EI Camino Real, to facilitate connectivity through the project from Deodar Street to the
adjacent Dinah's Garden Court Hotel property (Attachment I). The path would be available to
connect to should the hotel property be redeveloped.
To address concerns, Summerhill agreed to dedicate a second four-foot wide public path on the
northern end of the site to provide a more direct access to the public park from the Dinah's
property, closer to Wilkie Way, provided that the City obtain access rights on the adjacent hotel
property by March 24, 2009. The applicant subsequently agreed to extend the deadline by which
the City would have to obtain access to September 24, 2009.
Staff determined that the most efficient and feasible option, given the time constraint, was to
obtain an easement for pedestrian and bicycle only access from Wilkie Way to the second
easement point. Staff identified the approximately 13,200 sq. ft. vacant parcel that is part of the
adjacent hotel site that could connect Wilkie Way to the SummerHill easement and the public
park. The owner of the hotel property has indicated that they may be willing to dedicate that
easement to the City. In order to facilitate the development of the easement, it was determined
City Page 2 of5
that it would be necessary to amend the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations to allow
the highest and best use of the vacant parcel. The redesignation would allow a path to be
constructed and the parcel to be redeveloped.
DISCUSSION
Proj ect Description
The proposed project is a City-initiated rezoning from the RM-15 Multi-Family zoning district to
the CS(L) Service Commercial with Landscape Combining District, and amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan map to change the land use designation from Multi-Family to Commercial
Hotel, consistent with the zone change. It would enable the redevelopment of the vacant parcel
to a use more suitable for the commercial use that already occupies the majority of the site, or
use of the land area under commercial floor area standards to contribute to floor area to any
redevelopment of the Dinah's hotel site. The primary change that would occur because of the
rezoning would be that the allowable commercial floor area would increase for the overall site if
it is redeveloped.
The new designation would allow a hotel floor area ratio of2:1.0 or an addition of 26,400 sq. ft.
Alternatively, the new designation would allow a non-hotel commercial floor area ratio of 0.4:1 or an
addition of 5,280 sq. ft. The proposed land use designation is an amendment from the current Multiple
Family Residential designation to Commercial Hotel to match the remainder of the Dinah's hotel
property. The following Table 1 is an analysis of the maximum floor area changes that would happen if
the parcel is rezoned to the CS designation.
Table 1-Floor Area Maximums
Currently allowed: Commercial (Non-Hotel) Hotel Only
0.4:1 2:1
Parcell 32,409 sq. ft. 162,044 sq. ft.
81,022 sq.ft.
Parcel 2 (CS portion) 49,103 sq. ft. 245,514 sq. ft.
122,757 sq. ft.
Parcel 2 (RM-15 N/A N/A
I portion)
13,200 (Subject Parcel)
Total 81,512 sq. ft. 407,558
Proposed:
Parcell 32,409 sq. ft. 162,044 sq. ft.
81,022 sq.ft.
Parcel 2 (CS portion) 49,103 sq. ft. 245,514 sq. ft.
122,757 sq. ft.
Parcel 2 (Rezoned 5,280 sq. ft. 26,400 sq. ft.
portion/Subject Parcel)
13,200 (New)
Total 86,792 sq. ft. 433,958 sq. ft.
City Page 3
The proposed rezoning is from the RM-15 Multi-family zone district to the CS(L) Service Commercial
zone with Landscape combining district. The CS Service Commercial zoning would be consistent with
the zoning of the rest of Dinah's hotel property. The L Landscape Combining District would provide
regulations to ensure the provision of landscaped open space to provide a physical and visual separation
between residential districts to the north, east and west and more intensive commercial uses along EI
Camino Real. While the RM -15 zone can and has been used to serve as a transition district between the
R -1 district and hotel site, the proposed zoning will continue to provide a transitional buffer since the
development area of the 13,200 s.f. parcel would be limited to a pathway and landscaping in the
easement area (6,000 s.f.) and development of the renlaining 13,200 square feet of the parcel would be
highly problematic. The City nlay not condition the rezoning on the easement dedication. As
previously stated, staff will have a signed easement in advance of any zoning action.
Zone Change Process
The process for a City-initiated zone change is outlined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code under Chapter
18.98. The steps are summarized as below:
• The City Councilor Planning and Transportation Commission can direct the Planning
Director to initiate a zoning amendment.
• The Commission sets a date for a regular or special meeting of the PTC, including a
public hearing and notice to the subject and surrounding property owners. The
Commission may recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning, modification
of the area to be rezoned, application of more or less restrictive zoning, or denial of the
rezonIng.
• The decision of the Commission is forwarded to the City Council, including the
Commission's finding and determinations for the requested zone change. Upon notice
and a public hearing, the City Council takes final action regarding the zoning.
• The Comprehensive Plan designation follows the same review process as the rezoning
and will be done concurrently with the rezoning.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The changes are proposed in response to Council direction and to bring consistency to the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations for one property. Staff believes that bringing
consistency to the various designations would facilitate the highest and best use of an unusual
property while enhancing pedestrian and bicycle access and precluding vehicular access to and
from Wilkie Way. A more detailed analysis will be provided should the Commission initiate the
subj ect designation changes.
ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW:
Although this action by the Comnlission giving direction to initiate a zone change process is not
considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, an Environmental Impact
Assessment, including an Initial Study Checklist, has been prepared and a Negative Declaration
is anticipated if staff is directed to move forward with the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan
Land Use designation change.
City of Palo Alto Page 4 of5
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
In the interest of providing public outreach, staff met twice with representatives of the
Charleston Meadows Association and other interested residents. The first meeting was held on
May 26,2009 with a representative of the Charleston Meadows Association and an interested
area resident to obtain feedback on the City's proposal. Following the meeting, those
representatives were also informed of the scheduling of this request for initiation of the rezoning
and Comprehensive Plan amendment prior to the publication and distribution of the hearing
notice. Staff also attended a Charleston Meadows Association meeting on June 30, 2009, to
discuss the proposal and to answer questions. Some residents have expressed support for the
new connection. However, there are Charleston Meadows residents that are very concerned that
providing access will cause more drivers to park on Wilkie Way. As a potential solution to
prevent overflow parking, a request was made that the City should implement a parking permit
program prior to making the SummerHill easement open to the pUblic. Public Hearing notices
have been mailed out to the subject property owner and owners/occupants of properties located
within 600 feet of the site.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Parcel Map
Zoning Map
Comprehensive Plan Map
Easement Map
PAMC Chapter 18.16 (CS Service Commercial)
PAMC Chapter 18.30(D) Hotel (H) Combining District
PAMC Chapter 18.30(E) Landscape (L) Combining District
Attachment H: Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Commercial Hotel Land Use Designation
Definition
COlTRTESY COPIES:
Martha Miller, Administrative Service Department, Real Estate
David Conklin, Owner Representative
Sara Armstrong, President, Charleston Meadows Association
Prepared by: Elena Lee, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Amy French, Current Planning Manager
DepartmentiDivision Head Approval: -_C~~~~I-\~~f-1'oI)I-~""'~.J>I.I\-¥~""""" :....::.--=--_____ _
Curtis Williams, Interim Director
Page 5 of5
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
July 8, 2009
EXCERPT
4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real*: Review and initiation of requests for: (1) an Amendment to
the Zoning Map to Change the Zone Designation of a 16,200 square foot portion of Dinah's
Hotel property from the RM-15 (Residential Multi-Family) Zone to the CS(L) (Service
Conunercial with Landscape Combining District, and (2) a Resolution Amending the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of the same property from Multiple Family
Residential to Commercial Hotel at 4261 EI Camino ReaL Environmental Assessment: A draft
Initial Study will be prepared and will be circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.
1 Ms. Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you Chair and Commissioners. Staff requests the
2 Commission initiate two changes a zone change from RM-15 Multifamily zone to the CS,
3 Service Commercial with a Landscape Combining District, and a Comprehensive Plan Land Use
4 designation change from Multifamily residential to Commercial HoteL Just a point of
5 clarification, the total square footage of the property is 13,200, which is smaller than the number
6 identified in the hearing notice language.
7
8 These requests were driven by direction from City Council to implement a pedestrian-bicycle
9 connection upon the approval of a Tentative Map for the adjacent SummerHill project. Provided
10 at places is a map showing the parcel's relationship to the new pedestrian-bicycle path for the
11 adjacent SummerHill property and park. That is also shown on the overhead and copies have
12 been made at the back as well.
13
14 Also at places is Staff response to enlail questions from Commissioner Keller. Staffhas also
15 received an email inquiry from Commissioner Holman regarding the Hyatt Rickey's project and
16 whether it is required that access to Wilkie Way be limited to emergency vehicle based on
17 impacts identified from overflow parking and cut-through traffic on Wilkie Way. These issues
18 will be further studied if this proj ect is initiated. Staff did take a look at that issue and the two
19 issues were resolved because first of all the overflow parking issue was identified because of
20 lack of parking or less than required parking proposed for the hotel site, but since the hotel
21 project was removed from the project there were no parking impacts and it was less than
22 significant. The other item was the character of Wilkie Way and impacts on it. The applicant
23 has changed the project so there was no vehicular access on Wilkie Way. So that was no longer
24 an issue either. Again, Staffwill follow up on this. Again, because the project was fully parked
25 under the housing only option it was not considered an impact.
26
27 At places also are several enlail correspondences received from the Charleston Meadows
28 residents received subsequent to the distribution of the Staff Report. Staffhas received support
29 for the changes and the path, however some residents including the Charleston Meadows
30 Association are supportive of the zone change and the Comprehensive Plan change but only with
Page 1
1 additional provisions making the site permanently off limits to vehicles and implementing a
2 permit parking program on surrounding residential streets.
3
4 If the Commission chooses to initiate the rezoning and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment a
5 detailed analysis of the changes will be provided to the Commission at the formal hearing
6 tentatively scheduled for August 12. That concludes Staffs report.
7
8 Chair Garber: Thank you. Planning Director.
9
10 Mr. Williams: Yes, first of all I want to reiterate that the action is to initiate the Amendment
11 tonight. We will be back with more information and full public hearing and notice again with
12 the ordinance before we would go onto Council. Secondly, as Elena mentioned, the outgrowth
13 generally of our attempts as directed by the Council to try to obtain pedestrian access to the
14 adj acent parcel, however that cannot be, and our attorney can certainly chime in if she would
15 like, but that may not be a condition of approval of this proj ect. There is not a nexus for that and
16 it is not -it constitutes a contract between the City and the applicant on the zoning and that is not
17 allowed. So it can't be a condition. We expect when we come back to you with the rezoning
18 however to also have at that time a signed copy of the easement that would be dedicated by the
19 Dinah's property owner to the City so that you can see what that looks like. We can visit that at
20 that time.
21
22 I would let the neighbors speak to their issues and concerns and I think then I may have some
23 additional ideas as far as some of the conditions the Charleston Meadows neighborhood would
24 like to see inlposed. Thank you.
25
26 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, let's start with a question period and then we will go
27 to public comment. As a just brief announcement I would like to thank the remaining members
28 of the public who have managed to stay here so long for their patience and we will get to you as
29 quickly as we can. Commissioner Tuma and then Fineberg.
30
31 Vice-Chair Tuma: A question for Staff. Do we have a defined process or criteria by which we
32 evaluate requests for permit parking within a neighborhood? I know this just happened Monday
33 night for College Terrace and that was a long time in coming. Do we have criteria that triggers
34 the City'S willingness to do an analysis or how does that process work?
35
36 Mr. Williams: There isn't really a defined process for this kind of request. The College Terrace
37 request came specifically out of the Stanford General Use Permit and initiated that. We have had
38 requests from neighborhoods besides this one from Charleston Meadows to look at permit
39 parking. We want to begin having some dialogue with those neighborhoods about doing that but
40 there isn't a formalized process largely because there isn't dedicated funding at this point for the
41 kind of initial startup costs to analyze that kind of program.
42
43 What we did with the College Terrace group using the funding that was provided by Stanford
44 was to work with a consultant and to work with the neighborhood and the Police Department and
45 our Administrative Services Department to sort of define what the costs would be, who was
46 interested in participating, what hours, and all the details of it, and then have some voting among
Page 2
1 the neighborhood to see who was interested, and come forward with that. So it is not well-
2 defined process at this point. We certainly are interested in having that dialogue with neighbors.
3 That was going to be one of my responses as far as their concerns.
4
5 I know we can't commit to having permit parking in there. I think their suggestion is to tie that
6 somehow to, I would hope, opening the pathway as opposed to getting an easement. So there are
7 two separate processes here. One is just to get an easement in which case there is just an
8 easement but it is not open to the public until we create a pathway that makes that connection.
9 So in concept that is I think a fine idea. I am a little concerned that what if we go out to the
10 neighborhood and then the neighborhood decides as a neighborhood they don't want permit
11 parking. So I wouldn't want to -again we can't really condition this on that anyway but I think
12 we can go on the record saying that we are willing to work with the neighborhood to try to
13 develop that, that we won't come forward with a specific proposal for the pathway to actually
14 COlmect until we have either gotten that done, or determined for some reason that it isn't feasible
15 to do it, or there isn't enough support in the neighborhood to do it.
16
17 To get back to your original question there isn't a formalized process at this point.
18
19 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, so your response triggered another question. Let me just clarify part of
20 what I believe you said. By initiating a zone change and change to the Comprehensive Plan
21 designation does not then entitle this property to put in a pathway. Is that correct? They still
22 have to go through an entitlement process or how does that work?
23
24 Mr. Williams: Let nle suggest, and I thought of something today I have not even gotten to talk to
25 Elena and Amy about yet. First of all it would not be the owner. I should clarify I can't call
26 Dinah's the owner the City is initiating this rezoning not Dinah's. Dinah's either at that point or
27 upon redevelopment is not obligated in any way to put a pathway in. That is the City's
28 easement. The City would be the one that would construct the pathway.
29
30 Now one of the other concerns that the neighbors have is that that pathway be designed and
31 landscaped in a way that doesn't allow vehicular access. We will have a restriction in the
32 easement that doesn't allow vehicular access anyway but I think we can also incorporate that into
33 the design; Typically just having the easement with what we have suggested having a Landscape
34 Combining District overlay on there, which generally limits it to landscaping and this pathway.
35 One other option that you could direct us to do is to include a Site and Design overlay over this
36 part of aD overlay, which would then require that when that pathway is designed to come
37 forward that the Commission and the City Council will review that. All the neighbors are then
38 notified and there is a process so it is not something that can be done and just installed. We have
39 a formalized process that you can see, the community can see to make sure that that's designed
40 in a way that discourages and prohibits access and is still attractive from a landscape and
41 pedestrian pathway. I should point out that the easement is proposed to be 40 feet wide the
42 whole width of this flagpole and the reason we did that was we didn't want to do just enough for
43 the pathway and then there would still be enough for a car to come through. So the Dinah's
44 ownership was agreeable to that. But we don't expect the pathway to be more than probably ten
45 feet wide out of that. So there should be plenty of room in there to do landscaping and other
Page 3
1 features to make an attractive connection between Wilkie Way and the SummerHill
2 development.
3
4 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. One other really quick question. On page 2 of the Staff Report it
5 indicates that a proposal was made back in 2003, change the zoning, and it says this proposal
6 was not approved. What were the reasons for it not being approved? Do you recall?
7
8 Ms. Lee: It wasn't that the project wasn't approved the applicant actually withdrew the
9 application.
10 '
11 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay.
12
13 Mr. Williams: The neighbors could probably speak to this better than we. There was a hearing
14 at the Commission is my understanding and that there was opposition in the neighborhood that
15 might have been some concern about vehicular access, some concern about what would go on on
16 that parcel because it wasn't proposed for just a pathway or for landscaping. Also I think some
17 drainage concerns came up along Wilkie Way as well.
18
19 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you.
20
21 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Keller.
22
23 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to confirm my understanding that on this diagram that we
24 have that was at places and is on the screen that the easement would only be the purple' area. The
25 green area that is contiguous to Dinah's would not be an easement, would not be a path, the City
26 would not landscape and would not build a sidewalk on it. So what we are really talking about is
27 only the portion from Wilkie to what is labeled as proposed path in the area between the five
28 houses and the bigger project lower on the page. Is that correct?
29
30 Ms. Lee: Well yes, the only portion that is part of the discussion is just that purple area.
31
32 Mr. Williams: That is where the easement is. The whole area there would be rezoned including
33 the L Landscape Combining District would be overlain on there.
34
35 Commissioner Fineberg: So the whole red area would be rezoned but only purple would be City
36 easement with sidewalk. Okay. The reason I am asking that is I am trying to figure out who is
37 going to use the pathway. So do we know what is going to happen in the other part the lower
38 green part within the red dots? Is Dinah going to put some kind of a pathway fronl their property
39 that would then link their property to Wilkie for pedestrians or bicyclists?
40
41 Mr. Williams: We don't know at this point but that is not prohibited. As long as it is consistent
42 with the landscape, the L overlay, and I believe that would be then there could be that kind of
43 connection.
44
45 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, because that could potentially inlpact the amount of pedestrian
46 or bicycle traffic through there because it would give access to folks at the Elk's Club going
Page 4
1 around the front of Dinah's, granted it might be a trespass, but it would be a fairly easy and
2 porous border. Then they could go out the back towards Wilkie Way.
3
4 The second question I have is what is the life of the easement? What happens after the
5 easement's life ends?
6
7 Mr. Williams: It is a perpetual easement.
8
9 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So then is there any possibility down the road through other
10 than rezoning that the panhandle could either be built on or be paved for vehicle access to be
11 allowed?
12
13 Mr. Williams: It would take action of the Council to, I assume, rescind the easement or rescind
14 or amend the easement in some way to allow that as well as to change the zoning.
15
16 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. The Landscape Combining District on top ofCS is that
17 something that allows any type of structure development or is it only landscape and sidewalks?
18 What is allowed use in the L Combining District?
19
20 Mr. Williams: It basically allows landscaping, screen planting, fences or walls, and pedestrian,
21 bicycle, equestrian pathways, and then a CUP for noncommercial recreational activities and
22 facilities so that would be City.
23
24 Commissioner Fineberg: So the City could build other recreational structures on that easement
25 with a CUP then?
26
27 Mr. Williams: It says when conducted with a CUP when conducted accessory to or in
28 association with uses listed as permitted uses. So again if there were something constructed in
29 conjunction with the pathway basically or landscaping.
30
31 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, or a long skinny building potentially with a CUP.
32
33 Mr. Williams: Well, I don't think that would be, it says only when it is accessory to these other
34 uses. I don't think an active facility say lawn bowling or something would be accessory to a
35 pathway or the landscaping. That would be the dominant use of the land rather than be accessory
36 to it.
37
38 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. My last question is I understand the goal of providing the
39 walkable neighborhoods and the history and the failures of previous Councils and whatever else
40 led us to where we are now. Given where we are now I anl questioning, and I don't know yet
41 where this is going to lead me or other Commission members, to whether there is a need for this
42 path and the associated expenses to the City for the rezoning, for the granting of greater and
43 higher use of the land, if I am correct Deodar goes all the way to Wilkie Way and the back of it.
44 Where is the emergency road that connects? It is truncated on this map and I tried to see it in our
45 Staff Report and it was in teeny, teeny little black, but where is the emergency exit off the back
46 of what had been the Hyatt Rickey's property?
Page 5
1
2 Mr. Williams: It is between some of the lots. It doesn't look like a road per se.
3
4 Commissioner Fineberg: It has a gate but there is a road that leads to it and people can walk on
5 it and bicycles can get around the gate.
6
7 Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: I think Attachment C, Juniper Way shows it. I
8 believe it is somewhere around there where it could be an EVA but it doesn't serve as a
9 pedestrian pathway.
10
11 Mr. Williams: It is not a legal pedestrian or bicycle pathway.
12
13 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So it looks like it is at the back end of Deodar or is it Juniper
14 and then it is further over not between the two properties?
15
16 Ms. French: I believe it is Juniper Way between Wilkie and Juniper Way. The neighbors
17 probably know more because you could probably see it. The houses are kind of split apart there
18 and there are two garages near each other if you can see in that orange area. So again it is only
19 EVA.
20
21 Commissioner Fineberg: I have seen it on Wilkie as I drove by and walked. But I am just
22 struggling to figure it out from a pretty low quality, black and white, small map. How many
23 houses from the comer of Wilkie is it?
24
25 Ms. French: If you are looking at the colored map I believe it is between the second and third
26 house in from the Juniper homes, which are the yellow single-family homes along Wilkie there.
27
28 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So it is basically seven single-family homes from where the
29 proposed easement is located. So my question, I understand that that gate is not legal and are
30 members of the public who pass through it trespassing or is the public right-of-way extending to
31 pedestrians?
32
33 Mr. Williams: They are trespassing if they are using it as pedestrians or for anything other than
34 the equestrian emergency vehicles, other than the owners.
35
36 Commissioner Fineberg: So at the Hyatt Rickey's property where there are private streets was
37 public easement access granted on those streets that members of the public could walk in offEl
38 Camino and walk on their streets?
39
40 Mr. Williams: Deodar is a public street. I don't think the other streets there are the SummerHill,
41 we did do that with the public access, but I don't believe that was done other than for Deodar,
42 which is public in the DR Horton Arbor Real.
43
44 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so members of the public could come in go down Deodar, get to
45 the park, but if they left the park towards Juniper they would be trespassing?
46
Page 6
1 Mr. Williams: Yes.
2
3 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so that explains the need for the rear access to Wilkie in a sense
4 to get people out of the position of being trespassers. Thank you.
5
6 Vice-Chair Tuma: I will just note on the record that I drove by there this morning. I was
7 explaining to Conlffiissioner Fineberg that there is a gate there that goes building to building, and
8 basically you would have to climb the gate or find some other way to get in there.
9
10 Chair Garber: . Commissioner Keller, Holman, and then Lippert.
11
12 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So my first question has to do with the issue of pennit
13 parking. My understanding is that College Terrace is the first residential portion of Palo Alto to
14 get permit parking. At least it has been approved now by the City Council two nights ago, but
15 that Downtown North and SOFA previously had discussions about permit parking. Could you
16 tell me how it was decided that Downtown North and SOFA should or should not get permit
17 parking?
18
19 Mr. Williams: I don't know the details of both of those. I know for the Downtown North project
20 or analysis that the cost of doing that was prohibitive. It is a lot of homes and it ended up being
21 hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire new police staff, put in all the signs, etc., etc., and it was
22 determined it didn't get too far because of that cost issue. That may have happened with SOFA
23 too. I don't know. I have not heard discussions of SOFA. There was a question on the College
24 Terrace thing about Downtown North and why it cost so much at that point. I think we have an
25 advantage now that we have done College Terrace that some of those startup costs at least
26 probably would be less for subsequent neighborhoods because we have done a lot of the
27 homework on that project. The ongoing costs would be have to be assessed in terms of the
28 incremental police coverage versus the income that might be expected from revenue from
29 parking tickets. We would have to assess that and then come up with a price point as far as what
30 parking permits would cost and talk to the neighborhood about whether they were willing to do
31 that.
32
33 One of the things the Council has made very clear in all of the discussions of permit parking in
34 previous programs is that it needs to be revenue neutral and it is not going to be subsidized by
35 the City.
36
37 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. With respect to Downtown North, SOFA, or College Terrace
38 all of those if I believe would be essentially permit parking during the day. So they would allow
39 any parking at night. They would just have limitations during the day. Is it envisioned that any
40 permit parking for the adjacent neighborhood, the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, would be
41 permit parking during the day, pemlit parking at night, do you have any thoughts of what it
42 would be and how it would be enforced?
43
44 Mr. Williams: Well, that is the discussion we had with College Terrace too about what the hours
45 were and whether to do it at night, and all that. The neighborhood came down in that instance in
46 favor of the eight to five. Doing it later might have additional costs and might have driven the
Page 7
1 pennit cost up for the residents. I am not sure. That is a discussion we would have with any
2 neighborhood that we were talking with. I know in this instance, Charleston Meadows,
3 nighttime would be a very important thing to address because you are really looking at possible
4 residential parking impacts, which tend to be most acute at nighttime. Whereas in College
5 Terrace the parking impacts are primarily from either workers or students at Stanford or the
6 Research Park so that the daytime was the most intense concern, although there are issues at
7 night as well. Really that was where the most intense concern was and that is why they I think
8 indicated going in that direction.
9
10 We also indicated to the Council the other night that after a year or so of seeing how it goes we
11 will revisit that. If the residents feel like there is a nighttime issue and we need to go back and
12 reassess what it would cost to go to a nighttime system as well we will look at that.
13
14 Commissioner Keller: So essentially this would be as envisioned, the first parking enforcement
15 that occurs at night other than pennanent red zones and things like that.
16
17 Mr. Williams: Yes.
18
19 Commissioner Keller: Is there any potential that rather than having the enforcement of parking
20 be done by City personnel that certain residents in the neighborhood might be appropriately
21 trained in the laws of the State of California and deputized appropriately to give out parking
22 tickets so that the City did not have to pay for some person coming at night?
23
24 Mr. Williams: I believe that issue has been broached with the Police Department and they have
25 not agreed to that to date. So I don't know if there is room to discuss that or not. I would prefer
26 not to get into a detailed parking pennit parking discussion. I know it is an interesting subject
27 and we could talk about it for awhile. Other than to say that we are certainly interested and
28 willing to engage in that conversation with the community in this neighborhood to see what
29 could be done in that regard.
30
31 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate your forbearance in letting me ask those questions. That is
32 my last question about parking. I will point out that I dare say that if residents of the
33 neighborhood were allowed to be deputized to issue parking tickets, a) they would occur a lot
34 nlore frequently than City enforcement could possibly allow; and b) it would also increase the
35 revenues to the City there too. That might even be able to pay for additional police officers that
36 might be to the benefit of the Police Department.
37
38 In tenns of Deodar Street it looks to me from the map that is nicely on the screen that if this
39 easement is put into place with the walkway, etc. that one could go from Wilkie Way down the
40 purple easement, across the thin green line over to the park, and then make their way to Deodar
41 Street, and from there go to the Arbor Real, or the Elk's or anywhere. I am wondering what is
42 wrong with my analysis there.
43
44 Mr. Williams: Nothing. It is circuitous but yes you could make that connection.
45
Page 8
1 Commissioner Keller: So if the Elk's club were to have a large gathering of Elk's, and there was
2 overflow parking people might use that circuitous route to park on Wilkie Way for an Elk's
3 gathering. Is that reasonable to say?
4
5 Ms. Lee: Just to clarify the ARB approval for the Elk's project does incorporate an overflow-
6 parking program where they actually have valet service to stack cars on there. So there were
7 specific provisions within their permit to prevent overflow parking in the surrounding
8 neighborhoods.
9
10 Commissioner Keller: Well, I appreciate that although I have to tell you that I myself when
11 given opportunity to park with valet parking versus park somewhere, I know some people would
12 avoid that.
13
14 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, Commissioner Fineberg had a follow up to that.
15
16 Commissioner Fineberg: The valet service, does it require that the stacking be within their
17 basement? In San Francisco or in other cities the valets then just go out and park on the street
18 and run it back and forth. Was there any mention of the valets not parking on Wilkie?
19
20 Ms. Lee: The parking management plan was specifically to park it onsite, on their new parking
21 lot.
22
23 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
24
25 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Would there be access through the Dinah's property to
26 Wilkie Way? Could they basically build a pedestrian or whatever through there?
27
28 Mr. Williams: They could. It is just a matter of taking their parking lot area and making a
29 connection there. I have no idea whether they would want to do that. It is not an attractive area
30 right now and it would invite people to come the other way, which would be coming onto their
31 private property, which they may not, I would think they probably would not want to have
32 happen at this point in time. Now with redevelopment in the future who knows what the desire
33 may be. But legally could they? Yes.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: Okay. I think I heard you Acting Director Williams mention something
36 about a Site and Design overlay. Could you talk a little bit about what a Site and Design would
37 do and what the implications of how that would give us more control?
38
39 Mr. Williams: Yes. A Site and Design overlay we have that on some portions of the Research
40 Park. We have it for mixed use projects that involve more than four residential units. We have it
41 on the East Bayshore area, a lot of the area out there requires Site and Design, almost all of it
42 does. So the Site and Design process if you have that D overlay means that you have to come
43 through ARB, Commission, and Council. In fact that is what brought the Palo Alto Bowl project
44 before the Commission was the Site and Design. That wasn't an overlay that was a provision in
45 the code that basically says if you have more than four residential units as part of mixed use that
Page 9
1 it has to come through the Site and Design process, but it is the sanle thing with the overlay on
2 there.
3
4 I also wanted to add that I noted when the question was asked about the L landscape provision
5 that the pathway is going to have to have a Conditional Use Permit to have it approved as well.
6 So if and when the pathway were actually to be constructed then there would also be a
7 Conditional Use Permit process, which would require notice to the neighbors and wouldn't
8 automatically require a hearing but if they were concerned about it or obj ected to it that would
9 trigger coming to the Planning Commission for a hearing. So both of those methods would
10 involve more public review of that potential pathway.
11
12 Commissioner Keller: So hypothetically under the current zoning if the Dinah's property wished
13 to could they actually build a driveway from the back of 4261 all the way to Wilkie Way and
14 have people driving in both directions?
15
16 Mr. Williams: I don't know. I suspect we would find some reason that couldn't happen but I
17 don't know right off what it is. Now, what they could do is they could certainly right now put a
18 pathway from Wilkie Way to EI Camino on their property if they wanted to.
19
20 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. One last question. This essentially increases the
21 potential build out of Dinah's property. I believe one of the loose ends that happened from
22 before is in the CS zone there is the issue that when you have a 2.0 FAR it is for a hotel use. I
23 am wondering with respect to the 25 percent condos, which we allowed how that factors in, and
24 is there some cleanup that needs to happen there.
25
26 Mr. Williams: I think what you are referring to is whether that needs to be basically within the
27 hotel or if the housing can be detached from the hotel.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: That is correct.
30
31 Mr. Williams: My reading is that it is within the hotel. It is not detached from the hotel and the
32 language is pretty specific about it being part of the hotel. So that is the way we would look at
33 that. Now I don't know that there isn't a way to be more explicit with it, maybe we could, but it
34 didn't seem ambiguous to me when I looked at that.'
35
36 Commissioner Keller: Okay, so the clear thing is that in some sense if you were vertical mixed
37 use then that would essentially be within the hotel building and it could be part of the 2.0 FAR,
38 but from horizontal mixed use that would be essentially as if the parcel were divided into two
39 parts.
40
41 Mr. Williams: Right. It would be a mixed use project with more than four residential units
42 requiring Site and Design Review and the FAR would be calculated separately for the residential
43 component. It wouldn't be part of the 2.0 for the hotel.
44
45 Commissioner Keller: I am taking from your answer that you think that the way the code is
46 written is pretty clear about how that is done.
Page 10
1
2 Mr. Williams: Yes I do.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: Thank: you.
5
6 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman and then Lippert.
7
8 Commissioner Holman: The public is being very, very patient with us I think:. I want to backup
9 a little bit. A couple of things. One is should this get initiated tonight I would want to have
10 more information about the EIR because while there wasn't any hotel that was built there has
11 been a lot of conversation about whether the resultant development is fully parked or not. So I
12 think: it would be appropriate to see what the ratios were and how much guest parking there was
13 and such because it is another private street development. So I think it would be appropriate for
14 us to see that when it comes back if we initiate tonight.
15
16 Curtis you mentioned that the path can't be a condition of approval for an initiation.
17
18 Mr. Williams: For the rezoning.
19
20 Commissioner Holman: For the initiation of the rezoning.
21
22 Mr. Williams: No. The zoning cannot -there is no nexus to make it a condition of approval of
23 the zoning. What we will do is we will make the dedication or the acceptance of easement
24 conditional upon the zoning. We will have the easement in our hands signed by the property
25 owner and so it will be at our discretion to record it subject to our having actually rezoned it at
26 that point in time. So it is kind of flipped the other way.
27
28 Commissioner Holman: There is kind of a chicken and egg aspect to this. Just to be clear, the
29 whole area that is indicated with the red dashed line is what is being asked to be rezoned to CS,
30 but the easement would only be across the purple or violet portion of it.
31
32 Mr. Williams: That is correct.
33
34 Commissioner Holman: Okay. So this is where it gets to be a little chicken and egg for me.
35
36 Mr. Williams: The landscape overlay is on the rest of it too.
37
38 Commissioner Holman: Yes. So the rezoning is a discretionary action, okay? So part of me
39 wonders what is being proposed at the Dinah's site, which I don't know, and why we would do
40 the rezoning now. I know the answer but there is also like I said the chicken/egg. Why we
41 would do the rezoning now as opposed to wait and do that as a part of or in conjunction with a
42 proposal so we have more discretion. You will clarify I am sure. Why we wouldn't have more
43 discretion if we did this later when a proposal comes along such that we could have more
44 discretion and perhaps provide more public benefit as a result of our discretion for the rezoning.
45 I understand we are getting the rights to an easement on some land that we don't own. At the
46 same time we are also providing allowance for 26,400 square feet more of development, which is
Page 11
I significant. It is quite significant. The other aspect of that is we already have because of the
2 unusual configuration of this parcel because of the two panhandles if you will. We have a
3 situation where when you calculate the land are and the FAR we have a situation where this
4 property, the Dinah's and the Trader Vic's, is potentially going to be over-developed in its
5 impact because of it is not just a regular rectangular let's say parcel. So we already have one
6 parlhandle being applied to that parcel and then if we have another panhandle applied to that
7 parcel with the development potential from both of those panhandles -is this making sense? So
8 this other development can very well be disproportionate to the size of the functional parcel.
9
10 So my question goes to the amount of discretion that we have if we don't initiate now but initiate
11 later, and what we might do to have some better controls over what happens on the larger portion
12 of the parcel.
13
14 Mr. Williams: Yes I understand that well and I think that is generally well stated. There would
15 be more discretion if you waited and you could see the whole picture. Frankly, we have no
16 chance of getting this connection to the adjacent property if we wait until then. We have no idea
17 when and if Dinah's is going to redevelop. We have a window that closes on September 24 of
18 this year to make a connection to the easement to SummerHill or that easement in SummerHill
19 goes away.
20
21 I would add that in addition to getting potential access to the adjacent property we also are
22 getting locked in prohibition on vehicular access to that site, and essentially about a 300-foot
23 buffer of landscape area basically between Wilkie Way and future development. So while that is
24 a narrow area that has very little potential for development anyway there could be some proposal
25 to run some parking back there or do something if we don't somehow restrict that. Now you
26 would be able to look at that when it came in and try to address that at a future point but we think
27 this is a reasonable tradeoff.
28
29 It is an area that is clearly a commercial site and yes it would allow some more development,
30 which amounts to five percent or less increase on the site, but it would do that. You would have
31 more discretion later on. Our only other option here in terms of trying to meet this deadline is to
32 purchase the property and we have looked at that and there is no way that that is going to happen
33 given the appraisal that we have seen and the lack of funds that the City has. So it is up to you.
34
35 I would really, really stress that we would like you to initiate this. If you are uncomfortable with
36 where this is going ultimately and feel you would need to recommend against the rezoning and
37 we could move that to the Council in a timely way and get a decision before September 24 that
38 would be what we want to do. I would hate to see you not initiate it and not even have the
39 opportunity to have that discussion or we would be forced to go to the Council and have the
40 Council initiate it, which I am sure they would. They already basically directed us to at least
41 look at ways to do it so I think they would want to have that discussion.
42
43 Commissioner Holman: Has there been any discussion with SummerHill to extend their?
44
45 Mr. Williams: This is an extension. We discussed it early this year. It was March 24 and we got
46 an extra six months. It has just taken a long time to work with the property owner to get
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
language together, get to talk to them, the owners are not readily accessible so we have been
working through their realtor to get to this point. I don't think SummerHill would extend it
beyond that at this point. We can ask them but I don't think they would.
Commissioner Holman: So maybe just one other question here. I need a refresher on this the L
Combining District it is not the same as Site and Design so we would not have Site and Design
Review of the Dinah's/Trader Vic's site unless they put in four or more units of housing. Is that
correct?
Mr. Williams: Right. If they put more than four then you would have Site and Design Review
of the whole site. Weare just suggesting, what we are talking rezoning is just that panhandle up
there that would have it is not in your language here but we are suggesting that when we come
back to you we would have that D overlay for that panhandle portion but not for the site.
,J
Vice-Chair Tuma: Just a follow up to that. If they were to redevelop the whole site and the
panhandle has the Site and Design overlay and they wanted to count that portion of the site in
their overall acreage in order to get a certain FAR that wouldn't trigger Site and Design for the
whole project? How would then only look at Site and Design for the panhandle in a
redevelopment of the entire project?
Mr. Williams: Because it would only apply if they are doing -if it is just applying back there it
would only apply on that if they are doing something on that section of the property. We could
look at that but I think that would be a stretch to try to say that it somehow triggers Site and
Design Review for the whole site. I think there is a pretty decent likelihood that there would be
Site and Design Review on this site anyway but we don't know that. It may not if it is all hotel
but the way things are going with typical future patterns to think that wouldn't be four units of
housing or five units of housing on it is unlikely but who knows.
Commissioner Holman: I guess the unfortunate part of this is that we are giving up a lot and
getting use of the land. If it came later we could maybe get the development of the path as well
as part of a project. So I think we have painted ourselves into a really nice comer here.
The other possibility, and we couldn't do it tonight because it wasn't noticed, is we wouldn't
have to put a D overlay on this because or we wouldn't have to put a D overlay on the other part
of the parcel, right? It would automatically be subject if they created ....
Mr. Williams: You mean on the part that doesn't have the purple?
Chair Garber: The part outside of the red dash.
Commissioner Holman: Yes, the part that is outside the red dash. Ifwe put a D overlay, if we
wanted to initiate at a different meeting, to put a D overlay over that that would give us
assurance of Site and Design.
Mr. Williams: Right, it would. If you would like we can explore that with the owner. I would
certainly feel pretty strongly that they are going to say no, but we can ask.
Page 13
1
2 Commissioner Holman: Well it is our discretion.
3
4 Mr. Williams: It is our discretion is correct but they don't have to then dedicate the easement
5 either. That is what they would pull back.
6
7 Commissioner Holman: I will end there.
8
9 Chair Garber: Comnlissioner Lippert and then we will go to the public.
10
11 Commissioner Lippert: If I might just make a couple of comments here real quick. This
12 discussion that we are having here with regard to this little piece of panhandle is an adjunct to a
13 discussion that City Council had with regard to the Elk's Club site. We can't really discuss the
14 Elk's Club site but it has to do with public and private roads and the connection of being able to
15 get through that site. There was discussion as to how do you make the residential development
16 back there have some connections to the other neighborhoods behind it.
17
18 I was the Planning and Transportation Commission Representative to the Council for the Elk's
19 Club site when they had the discussion of public versus private roads. Part of that discussion
20 was that little piece of panhandle. Curtis is absolutely correct that the developer on that site said
21 we will leave open the opportunity for you to have some connection back there but we are not
22 going to leave it open indefinitely.
23
24 My guess is that as that housing finishes they want to close the book on that connection because
25 they want to sell off the units and they don't want it to rest in the hands of the condominium
26 association that would be on those units. They need to sew things up.
27
28 So my suggestion here is that we have the public hearing on this. We make a decision as to
29 whether or not to initiate the zoning. We can debate the merits all we want but the truth is that
30 until we actually get to implement the zoning you don't really have anything. We ~e just
31 initiating the zoning tonight. Is that correct?
32
33 Mr. Williams: Tonight, yes, and we are planning on coming back in August.
34
35 Commissioner Lippert: So you just leave it for another day. There is no harm in initiating and
36 then later saying forget it we are not going to do it. But if we don't get the ball rolling at this
37 point we are going to lose the opportunity to make the connection that Council was very specific
38 in terms of wanting that connection.
39
40 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg you had a last question. One moment, Commissioner
41 Holman you had a follow up to that?
42
43 Commissioner Holman: We are all asking a lot of questions. Ijust want to make sure we stick
44 with questions so we can get to the public.
45
46 Chair Garber: Yes. You had a question, yes?
Page 14
1
2 Commissioner Fineberg: I am actually going to exercise a prerogative and make it two questions
3 because of something Commissioner Lippert just said. Ifwe don't come back and have a
4 hearing on this until August will that leave Council time to and give Staff the ability to perfect
5 the easement and everything by September 24?
6
7 Mr. Williams: Yes. We were planning on coming back to you August 12 and for the Council
8 we are already tentatively scheduled for September 14.
9
10 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, thanks. My question then relates to a statement in the Staff
11 Report on the bottom of page 2 and top of page 3. It says, "In order to facilitate the development
12 of the easement it was determined that it would be necessary to amend the zoning and
13 Comprehensive Plan designations to allow the highest and best use of the vacant parcel." I am
14 wondering why the highest and best use was found to be necessary and whether in a negotiation
15 starting off with the assumption that we have to give the highest and best use means that the City
16 will not have a negotiating position as this moves forward. Would we be better off when we
17 consider the initiation to initiate the easement on the entire parcel and that would give the City
18 more control if the property were to be redeveloped. Had it been broached that we would have a
19 greater area of easement? Why is it highest and best rather than higher?
20
21 Mr. Williams: That probably was an unfortunate choice of words. It is not really partiCUlarly
22 relevant what that is. That is what the owner sees as the highest and their best use of the
23 property is that if this area is zoned CS. Then they have, well they already have, some flexibility
24 on their parcel to do commercial, mixed use, or hotel type of use if and when they want to
25 redevelop. So I think it is just giving them the flexibility to do a lot of or a bit more on the
26 property. It really isn't changing the use it is just a matter of the intensity of use that could
27 happen on that front part.
28
29 Commissioner Fineberg: Is there reason that the whole area in the red isn't the easement?
30 Would there be more value to the City with a larger easement area?
31
32 Mr. Williams: There are two reasons why we didn't do that. They were not willing to do the
33 whole area, but also it had been our understanding when this went to the Council the
34 neighborhood had come up and I perceive this as sort of a qualified support of making a
35 connection so long as it was just this short stretch getting from Wilkie Way to this easement that
36 SummerHill had provided and not running it farther than that down the side of the property.
37
38 Chair Garber: Okay, let's move to the public. Thanks again for your patience. We have seven
39 speakers. The first is Millie Davis followed by Deborah Ju. If Deborah Ju would stage yourself
40 so that you can start as soon as Millie is done. Then after Deborah Ju will be Becky Epstein.
41 You will have three minutes.
42
43 Ms. Millie Davis, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live in the Charleston Meadows area. I have lived
44 there since 1958. I appreciate being able to present a few ideas to you tonight. I am glad that the
45 City Council and the Planning Commission are working to establish a bike-pedestrian path
46 between Wilkie Way to the park inside the SummerHill housing project.
Page 15
1
2 I heard this issue discussed at the meeting of the Architectural Review Board. It was in October,
3 it was either 2007 or 2008. A tape of that meeting is available at the City Clerk's Office if you
4 are interested. At this meeting one ARB member had said she had gone to Palo Alto schools and
5 that a back entrance to the school where she went in Palo Alto enabled her to ride her bike on the
6 back streets and enter this back entrance. When the school later closed the back entrance she
7 was forced to ride her bike on major streets to get to school. Therefore she said she was very
8 much in favor of this back pedestrian-bike entrance from Wilkie Way into the new housing area.
9
10 Another ARB member commented that since global warming is a problem we may all have to
11 give a little bit in order to take steps to reduce car traffic. So this path can be one of those steps
12 the City can take towards getting people out of cars and onto paths where they can walk or bike.
13
14 After all the new housing along Wilkie has been built and occupied it will be possible t6 assess
15 the parking situation and then determine whether or not any parking permit system is needed. I
16 thus urge the City to go ahead with the path now and wait until the housing projects at this site
17 have been built and occupied before assessing whether it may not be needed, a parking
18 restriction. You can only tell that after all this housing has been built and occupied. Thank you
19 very much.
20
21 Chair Garber: Thank you. Deborah Ju followed by Becky Epstein who if she would come down
22 and stage herself.
23
24 Ms. Deborah Ju, Palo Alto: Our neighborhood had a longstanding problem with overflow
25 parking from the Hyatt and Elk's projects. Based on that experience we worked really hard to
26 make sure that the multifamily housing that went in at Arbor Real and SummerHill didn't pose
27 overflow parking problems to our neighborhood. We were given a lot of assurances and both
28 projects were designed without pedestrian access.
29
30 It is obvious to our neighborhood it was obvious from the start that if you allowed these projects
31 to go forward with narrow private streets and no on street parking there was going to be a
32 parking shortage. Any residential street in our town that you go down you are going to see
33 people parking in front of their homes. Not allow that is not allowing enough parking. So our
34 concerns were overridden and the narrow streets and the no on street parking went through and
35 you can see already that it is not working. Arbor Real has made that clear. Any day that you
36 walk down Wilkie Way by the access, which is at Charleston, you will see cars parked there.
37 Especially at nighttime there are a lot of cars parked along Wilkie Way.
38
39 We know for a fact if you open this access there would be a demand for -it would open up
40 overflow parking into our neighborhood. So we are very pleased to hear the City's
41 responsiveness to this concern and the openness to trying to work out a permit parking process.
42 We really appreciate that. Curtis came to our neighborhood meeting, which was very well
43 attended, and we are really happy to hear, I know there will be a lot of details to work out, but we
44 are very happy to hear that people understand that concern.
45
Page 16
1 I know that is coming out now but it would just be parking from Arbor Real. Deodar is an open
2 street and the parking demand situation at Arbor Real is a real problem. Also, people can go
3 through SummerHill to Elk's and when they have a conference or a wedding or whatever and
4 there is a shortage of parking they can come through that access to Wilkie Way.
5
6 Also we are very concerned about potential development at Dinah's. They had tried to develop
7 before and those plans didn't go anywhere but Ray Handly recently passed away. We don't
8 know what is going to happen on that project. I am concerned about the windfall profit that they
9 are getting through this process. I don't understand why they are getting the whole easement
10 instead of just the purple that we need for the access. I would like to give them as little as
11 possible because that is a big site and it can have big impacts on our neighborhood. Thank you
12 very much.
13
14 Chair Garber: If you want to take a moment to finish up, please do.
15
16 Ms. Ju: Back to the permit parking process I am happy to hear openness to tying that to the
17 opening of the access because I have been around City process for a long, long time and I really
18 am concerned that if it is not tied to the opening of the access we will never see it. If we don't
19 see it the impacts on our neighborhood are going to be great. Thank you very much.
20
21 Chair Garber: Thank you. Becky Epstein followed by Linnea Wickstrom, if Linnea would
22 please approach and stage yourself.
23
24 Ms. Becky Epstein, Palo Alto: Hi, I live closer to the park side than to Wilkie. I just wanted to
25 come tonight to urge you to only approve or recommend the zoning change if it comes with
26 adequate mitigations to protect the Charleston Meadow neighborhood from overflow parking
27 and cut-through traffic.
28
29 I am a former member of the Board for the Charleston Meadows Association and I was involved
30 when the Hyatt Rickey's property came up for redevelopment. Overflow parking and cut-
31 through traffic were addressed in the EIR for the Rickey's site and at multiple City Council
32 meetings. I think as Commissioner Holman suggested it is really worth revisiting those findings
33 particularly the threshold for triggering significant impacts on those neighboring streets. It was
34 not going to take a lot to trigger a significant impact that needed mitigation.
35
36 The result of the process was that the Arbor Real developer was allowed to proceed with a high-
37 density private street development but that access to Wilkie Way would be limited to emergency
38 access only, and that was emergency access only vehicular. It is clear that subsequent City
39 Councils and City Planners regret the lack of connectivity in this area but the City at the time had
40 this goal to create a certain amount of housing, on this corridor, in a small area, and this was an
41 outcome. So I just want to emphasize that the prior prohibitions on Wilkie Way access was a
42 deliberate tradeoff and that is what is pinning us in the comer right now.
43
44 So to now be considering access equity would demand that it comes with mitigations. I certainly
45 do appreciate the outreach meeting that happened in our neighborhood just on June 30. I also do
46 appreciate that Dinah's may be providing a great public benefit here but when you do look at the
Page 17
1 numbers they also stand to really reap a substantial profit. So my big question after looking at
2 the Staff Report is why doesn't the rezone plan include a plan for mitigating the negative impacts
3 of the zoning change and the funding source from the developer for such mitigations? I look to
4 the Commission to remedy this and to recommend that the requested zoning change only happen
5 with adequate mitigations.
6
7 It is unfortunate that this part of town has been developed to the point that we have to be
8 concerned about the unintended consequences of access. The current Board of the Charleston
9 Meadows Association voted to support the proposed access provided it also comes with adequate
10 protections including a parking permit program, and sufficient guarantees that the access
11 easement will never be converted to vehicular access or otherwise beconle a means of absorbing
12 overflow parking. I wholeheartedly support the CMA Board's position. It is my opinion that the
13 Board and individual residents would be within their rights to just flat out oppose it based on
14 prior development approvals but I am hopeful that this Commission will set us on a path where
15 we can get the path but also get the mitigations. Thank you.
16
17 Chair Garber: Thank you. Linnea Wickstrom followed by Sara Armstrong.
18
19 Ms. Linnea Wickstronl, Palo Alto: I live right across the bike bridge from Wilkie Way. I am
20 here to support the rezoning of Dinah's to get that easement for the bicycle-pedestrian path. I am
21 now cognizant of a number of concerns on this Commission but I would still like to see the
22 easement.
23
24 I have lived in the neighborhood since 1974 and we have always been able to walk through. It
25 wasn't very pretty but you could always kind of make a loop through and around the
26 neighborhoods in that area.
27
28 While the City through the discussions and actions before took on a public park behind
29 SummerHill the City then effectively hid even sealed off that park, the only access being more
30 than·200 yards offEI Camino down a narrow private road. Public overlay on Deodar side is still
31 a tiny little narrow access~ No one is ever going to find that City park. It is sealed off.
32
33 As you know from our neighborhood's appearances about the Bowl development we are in favor
34 of openness and access and a network of local paths to walk and bike. We think there can be a
35 lot more connectivity here than currently exists.
36
37 The easements are tangential to the zoning change as we understand it can't be conditional. I
38 urge the Commission and Staff to take this opportunity to give the families of the surrounding
39 neighborhoods pedestrian and bicycle access from Wilkie and Monroe to what is a very nicely
40 designed, practical for many uses, and attractive park. I have walked back there it really is a
41 very nice park.
42
43 Though I applaud the Charleston Meadows Association for proposing that they would accept the
44 access, and I think their mitigations are quite reasonable, I would also urge that you did not
45 condition openness, access, and a network for pedestrian and bikes on permit parking. Thank
46 you very much.
Page 18
1
2 Chair Garber: Thank you. Sara Armstrong. Do I understand that you are combining your time
3 with the next speaker as well?
4
5 Ms. Sara Armstrong, Palo Alto: Yes if that possible.
6
7 Chair Garber: So you will have six nlinutes then.
8
9 Ms. Armstrong: That is perfect, thank you. I am President of the Charleston Meadows
10 Association Board of Directors and I am speaking on behalf of the Board. We appreciate the
11 opportunity tonight to share our Board's perspective on the proposed zoning change and on the
12 pedestrian-bicycle access to SummerHill.
13
14 First we want to thank Staff, and particularly Planning Director, Curtis Williams, and Planner
15 Elena Lee for their efforts in engaging with members of our neighborhood. We have had several
16 discussions with them included a well attended special neighborhood meeting that heard about,
17 and we were able to have detailed conversations on the merits and the potential impacts of the
18 planned access.
19
20 So as you have heard this is actually quite a sensitive issue for us as a neighborhood because
21 historically Wilkie Way has been and continues to be plagued by overflow parking from
22 developments along EI Camino from years of events at Hyatt and the Elk's Lodge to the current
23 ongoing problems generated from Arbor Real. Our concern is that absent mitigations these
24 parking issues will be exacerbated in the future by both access and by the zone change.
25 Unfortunately the SummerHill development suffers from the same trifecta of parking flaws that
26 characterize a host of developments that were approved around the same time. That is that they
27 have narrow private streets with no on street parking, that resident parking relies entirely on
28 garage parking with no driveway or apron, and third that the guest parking allocation formula
29 that the City uses is woefully inadequate. So we are very concerned that access to the
30 SummerHill development will encourage residents of that complex to also use Wilkie Way as a
31 parking lot.
32
33 In addition, we are concerned that the enhanced zoning and corresponding higher FAR for
34 Dinah's could be problematic for our neighborhood since it is being considered absent any
35 information about their future plans for redevelopment or sale.
36
37 As the same time we do recognize the benefits of pedestrian access both for our own
38 neighborhood and for the future residents of SummerHill and our surrounding neighborhoods as
39 well. So as a matter of equity and in keeping with the assurances of prior City Councils, City
40 Staff to protect our neighborhood from overflow parking we support the pedestrian and bicycle
41 access plan on the condition that the following mitigating strategies be implemented concurrent
42 with the rezoning of this parcel. First, to correct the current issue and diminish future anticipated
43 problems with overflow parking a permit parking program be put into effect on Wilkie Way and
44 the affected residents on the intersecting streets from Whitclem all the way to Charleston Road
45 inclusive of Charleston RQad, since the Charleston-Arastradero plan prohibits on street parking
46 on Charleston. Second, that Dinah's be required to underwrite funding for this permit parking
Page 19
1 program in consideration of the enhanced zoning they are poised to receive. Third, that in order
2 to ensure that the access in this area will always be limited to pedestrian and bicycle access, and
3 that no vehicular access will be granted in the future. We request that the access path itself, as
4 Curtis mentioned, would be a width to preclude vehicular use and that the remainder of that
5 easement be planted with mature protected tree species, redwoods and oaks, so that future City
6 Councils, Staffs, and Commissions would find it all the more difficult to reverse the current
7 commitment to no vehicular access on Wilkie.
8
9 We appreciate your work and the consideration of our neighborhood's concerns. Thank you.
10
11 Chair Garber: Thank you. Jean Olmstead, our final speaker.
12
13 Ms. Jean Olmstead, Palo Alto: These are my opinions. First I want to say we had a number of
14 people here that wanted to talk to you. We are fading away with the hour. There are people in
15 Charleston Meadows that are in favor of pedestrian and bicycle access.
16
17 I think the chief thing that I want to say is that this path is something that is going to mean a lot
18 to many people. We don't want to lose it because of this link to the parking problem. I would
19 like to see access dealt with on its own basis and parking be dealt with. The access I have
20 listed some of the things what it means. We could unite neighborhoods rather than isolating
21 them. We can encourage walking and bike riding. Access enables people to keep their cars at
22 home. Access helps non-drivers like children and people who are able but enjoy walking or
23 biking for health or pleasure.
24
25 This parking problem seems to be something that hangs over from the past. People are
26 desperately striving for it. They have forgotten not that we don't see the Hyatt parties. The
27 Hyatt crowds are gone. We are better off in that way. Now the Hyatt people can walk out of
28 their project and park their cars where they will. I don't see that this additional access route,
29 SummerHill has 45 houses, the Hyatt now Arbor Real has 180 or so. The pressures from Hyatt
30 have been deal with in a way that people can still find places to park. People also are having
31 trouble parking because of the corridor study and nobody seems to want to recognize that. Ifwe
32 on Charleston can made due with no parking I think we don't have to panic about dealing with
33 this parking issue. I see nothing wrong with trying to develop a parking system but we have time
34 to think about it. Then we will be able to do that better after the access is in place. We can see
35 what happens and we will know how to deal with it. Thank you.
36
37 Chair Garber: 'Thank you very much and thank you all for your patience. We will move to
38 discussion. Commissioner Keller followed by Holman.
39
40 Commissioner Keller: So I am going to make a motion but before I do that I would like to ask a
41 question of Staff or maybe the Attorney. There were four conditions that were suggested by the
42 Charleston Meadows Neighborhood Association. I am wondering if we are able to take any of
43 those conditions as part of this rezoning or that not germane and it will have to be dealt with
44 separately?
45
Page 20
1 Mr. Williams: No, you cannot as part of the rezoning. I think what you can do, and it wouldn't
2 be appropriate to do as part of the initiation, but as part of the rezoning you could provide
3 direction on the permit parking that we develop that and that we not come back with a pathway
4 until we have explored that with the neighborhood and hopefully instituted something there. If
5 we put the D overlay I think the one issue as far as the design of it because that would have to
6 come through the public process and see how that looks, etc., etc. The issue about having
7 Dinah's pay for part of the permit parking there is no nexus to require that as part of the zoning
8 at this point in time, but if and when Dinah's comes forward with a proposal to do son1ething I
9 think we certainly could explore at that point whether we could get them to pony up dollars to
10 support a permit parking program or if for some reason the pathway were done then we could
11 discuss them constructing the pathway too. What was the fourth?
12
13 Commissioner Keller: So the issue is that these various comments could be taken part of the
14 motion? You are saying that they don't fit in the current motion but they could fit in terms of the
15 rezoning process.
16
17 Mr. Williams: But they still could not be conditions of the rezoning. It would be direction on
18 the parking permit. It would be imposition of the D overlay since part of the rezoning would
19 include the Site and Design component. .
20
21 Commissioner Keller: So could we make a series of things saying we are making a motion for
22 initiating the rezoning plus we make the following policy suggestions to the Council?
23
24 Mr. Williams: At this point that would happen when it comes back and you actually make your
25 recommendations. The initiation doesn't go to the Council. The initiation just means that you
26 will see it back before you. So when it comes back then that is the appropriate time for you to
27 act on a recommendation on the rezoning itself to then provide additional direction or guidance
28 as far as permit parking in particular goes. Assuming that we have a design overlay and a
29 Conditional Use Permit that requires a public process for the pathway that is also a check in time
30 to be sure we have parking issues addressed too or Councilor Commission can say no, this is not
31 the right time for it.
32
33 This is not a big project so I don't think it is going to be a major CIP project but it might be a
34 CIP proj ect that gets a number and comes through that process as well. So there might be input
35 on it at that stage as well.
36
37 Commissioner Keller: I believe Commissioner Fineberg had a question.
38
39 Commissioner Fineberg: You have said it several times but you said it again now that there is no
40 nexus for the rezoning of this parcel with a parking permit requirement on the street that it is
41 contiguous to. Why is there no nexus if this is a project and there are impacts caused by people
42 and their use of that property, why is there not nexus to the impacts of the closest neighbors?
43
44 Mr. Williams: Well, I think what I am saying is there isn't a project at this point. There is an
45 easement that the City is initiating. The City is not the one -ultimately when there is a pathway
46 and when there is redevelopment of the Dinah's site there is something to assess what that
Page 21
1 impact is, but the easement itself is not doing that. The easement is not there is a rezoning, so
2 it is not the easement. You are dealing with the rezoning, and that is your action not the
3 easement. So with a rezoning you are correct there is a potential that there could be more
4 development on the Dinah's site but we don't really know that until there is a project, and also
5 just frankly know that they are not going to pay money for those uses at this point in time until
6 they actually have some development that they know is going to generate income for them.
7
8 Commissioner Fineberg: So is there any chance, and you may have answered that in the last part
9 of what you said. We can't condition the change in the zoning. Can we condition the
10 requirements of the easement? We have the chicken and egg that we have to have the easement
11 in hand before we will grant the zoning change. Can we condition the easement with what the
12 neighborhood is asking for?
13
14 Mr. Williams: No. The easement is a legal document that just defines what that area is allowed
15 for. What you can do, like I said, you can condition a project that comes through on Dinah's
16 subsequently, you can condition when there is a pathway project that comes before you, which
17 there would be at some point in time. At that point you could condition.
18
19 Commissioner Fineberg: We can condition the change of zoning on the existence of the
20 easement. No?
21
22 Ms. Tronguet: Weare not conditioning anything here. What we are doing is rezoning. The
23 conditions are a little premature at this point because nothing is happening except sort of this
24 rezone, which puts a different zone on the property, but there are no actual impacts reSUlting yet
25 from that rezone.
26
27 Commissioner Fineberg: So how do we know that the rezone won't go through and then they
28 don't grant the easement?
29
30 Mr. Williams: Because we will have before you and I would not expect you and the Council to
31 approve the rezoning unless you have seen the easement, which we will have signed and in hand
32 before the Council actually approves the zoning.
33
34 Commissioner Fineberg: So again, I am sorry but I think this is going to be a major process
35 distinction that we need to understand. If the rezoning comes back to the Commission we would
36 then expect to have an easement negotiated. Can there be an indication from the Planning
37 Commission that we would also expect to see other items like a payment for permit parking, and
38 then we don't approve the rezoning unless that is present? Would that work?
39
40 Chair Garber: I don't know if I am going to be successful but let me try a couple of things here.
41 One, the task that the Council set forth for Staff relies on a variety ofnloving parts of which only
42 one is the Commission. A n1:ll11ber of the pieces rely on drivers that are significantly outside the
43 Commission's role and auspice. So however our action is the lynchpin to causing these other
44 pieces to occur and there are a series of agreements, which structure those things that happen,
45 and it is not for the Commission to try and take control or fmd ways to cause those things to
46 happen. Once a project is applied for conditions can be made to projects, but initiation is just
Page 22
1 simply a let's go, and then let's figure out what the project is. When we have that project it
2 comes back. I apologize we have to get back to Commissioner Keller's action here.
3 Commissioner Lippert, you had maybe something else hopeful to say?
4
5 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. The action we are taking tonight is not binding. All that we are
6 doing is initiating the discussion of the rezoning. What we are basically doing tonight is we are
7 saying yes this is something we want to look at, although it is not binding that our decision is in
8 concrete and moves forward as a formal recommendation to Council at this point.
9
10 Chair Garber: Let's come back to Commissioner Keller. You still have the floor.
11
12 MOTION
13 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I move Staff recommendation with the change that the zone
14 change would be to CS with L Combining District and D Site and Design overlay.
15
16 Chair Garber: Do I hear a second?
17
18 SECOND
19
20 Commissioner Holman: Second.
21
22 Chair Garber: Seconded by Commissioner Holman. Would the nlaker like to speak to his
23 motion?
24
25 Commissioner Keller: Firstly, what we have here is the initiation of a chicken and then before
26 we actually create the chicken by rezoning we will be handed the egg by the owner of Dinah's
27 property and then we will be able to determine whether we want to actually do the rezone for the
28 chicken. So that is how you handle the chicken and egg problem by essentially bifurcating it.
29
30 I feel really bad for the residents of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood. Essentially what
31 happened is you were told that there would not be access to Wilkie Way and somehow that was
32 sufficient mitigation for an under-parked, overly built development. We don't have to wait for
33 the completion of the Elk's redevelopment, both parts of it, from the SummerHill and the Elk's.
34 We already know that there is an overflow parking problem from Arbor Real alone. It is
35 reasonable to expect that there may well be a comparable under-parking problem and overflow
36 parking problem from the SummerHill project because it is essentially similar kinds of density
37 and similar kind of parking rules. So essentially I think that the neighborhood is being very
38 accommodating by saying okay, it is reasonable to consider having the easement to provide a
39 pedestrian and bicycle path to the park in such a way that we should also try to implement a
40 parking permit system. For the various reasons of the questions I raised earlier I have concerns
41 about whether it will actually be feasible to create a permit parking system particularly since the
42 biggest part of the parking problem appears to be overnight. I doubt that it will be easy to have
43 parking enforcement agents wandering around at night unless there is deputization of residents to
44 be able to plaster those parking tickets all over the errant cars.
45
Page 23
1 I do think that this also indicates that we should reconsider the adequacy of parking for
2 multifamily residential. I think that should come back to us at some point in the future.
3
4 I think when this does come back to us, because now we are initiating it, we will then consider
5 the rezoning. When this comes back to us as I understand from Staffwe will be able to consider
6 the policy questions of encouraging the permit parking system to be created and address some of
7 the other issues such as not allowing vehicular access. I think that the Site and Design overlay
8 does I understand with that.
9
10 In terrhs of the CIP project the idea of producing mature protected trees that will discourage the
11 City from every trying to put cars through that I think makes sense.
12
13 With respect to Dinah's being required to underwrite parking, ideally it should have been the
14 Elk's that underwrites the parking permit system and Arbor Real underwriting the parking permit
15 system. In some sense the Elk's is at the end of a train of development and that seems to be sort
16 of some idea of where the money comes from but in some sense the other developments have
17 been approved and we are too late to ask the developers who are at fault causing the problem to
18 pay for fixing the problem that they have caused. That is unfortunate but nonetheless I do
19 understand that the tinle to ask Dinah's for paying for a parking permit system will be when they
20 redevelop, which for all we know could be years after the permit parking system is in fact
21 supposed to be implemented if it happens any time soon. So we don't know the timing of the
22 Dinah's redevelopment so that presents a problem in terms of that nexus. I would encourage the
23 City Attorney when this comes back to us to explain exactly how that would happen in terms of
24 this and what the nature of it is. Hopefully the fact that the City now understands how to
25 implement a residential parking permit system will help facilitate the creation of such a system.
26 Tharik you.
27
28 Chair Garber: Would the seconder like to speak?
29
30 Commissioner Holman: First I have one question for Staff. Does Staffhave any inkling of what
31 the proposal is going to be on the larger portion of the parcel?
32
33 Mr. Williams: No we don't. They have just talked in vague generalities about the potential to
34 expand or create a new hotel but they have also talked about the potential to do more of a
35 commercial development rather than a hotel too. We have not had any discussions of square
36 footage, design, layout, or anything. They just were asking when we talked to them about this
37 generally about what the implications were of zoning for those types of uses. I don't think they
38 even mentioned residential at the time.
39
40 Commissioner Holman: The reason I ask is because I just want to make sure we weren't
41 violating CEQA by segmenting the projects. That was the thrust of the question.
42
43 Except for the initial comments having to do chicken and egg that Commissioner Keller
44 mentioned I agree with most of his comments. I disagree with one of the things that he said
45 though, which is that it is not the developer's fault the situation that we are in, neither is it the
46 neighbor's fault. It is the City's fault for not working out the situation and for not providing
Page 24
1 adequate parking, requiring adequate parking. In these situations it is not the developer's fault.
2 So I disagree with that comment.
3
4 I think it is also unfortunate because there essentially was if you will a promise made to the
5 neighbors and now we are kind of going back on that promise. I seconded the motion because
6 there has already been Council direction to do this. So in one fashion or another we really don't
7 have too much latitude on whether it is going to happen or not. When it does come back I think,
8 as Commissioner Keller and others have mentioned there are going to be a number of
9 recommendations that go to Council with the rezoning.
10
11 The only other things I have say are that I think it is really unfortunate that the easement doesn't
12 go· all the way to the end of the panhandle. I think it is really unfortunate that this isn't coming
13 along with a project so we have more discretion and could get better value. I think we are
14 getting essentially about a 6,500 square foot lot, is it even that? We are getting about a 6,500
15 square foot lot with an easement on it in exchange for development potential of 26,000 square
16 feet of hotel for instance. I don't think it is a very good tradeoff. I don't fault Staff for that
17 either, the situation that you were put in to try to work something out to resolve this. It is a series
18 of unfortunate circumstances and events that early on could have been resolved. So that is all I
19 have to say.
20
21 MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Rosati absent)
22
23 Chair Garber: Commissioners, lets vote. All those in favor of the motion as stated say aye.
24 (ayes) All opposed? The motion passes unanimously with Commissioners Holman, Keller,
25 Garber, Tuma, Fineberg, and Lippert voting aye, no nays, and Commissioner Rosati absent. This
26 closes the public hearing and closes the item. Thank you very nluch for those that have stayed
27 through it all.
28
Page 25
ATTACHMENT H
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: Elena Lee, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: August 12, 2009
SUBJECT: 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real: Requests to Amend: (1) the Zoning Map
to Change the Zone Designation of an approximately 13,200 square foot
portion of Dinah's Hotel property from the RM-15 (Residential Multi-
Family) Zone to the CS(L)(D) (Service Commercial with Landscape and
Site and Design Review) Combining Districts and (2) the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Designation of the same property from Multiple Family
Residential to Commercial Hotel at 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real.
Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been conlpleted and a
draft Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the
City Council:
1. Adopt the Negative Declaration (Attachment F).
2. Approve the attached Resolution for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change
the land use designation for an approximately 13,200 square foot (sq. ft.) site from
Multiple Family Residential to Commercial Hotel (Attachment A).
3. Approve the attached Ordinance to change the site's zone district from RM -15 Multi-
Family to CS(L )(D) Service Commercial with Landscape and Site and Design Review
Cornbining Districts (Attachment B). .
BACKGROUND:
The proposed project is a City-initiated rezoning of a small portion of a 139,010 sq. ft. parcel of
land (Dinah's Hotel property) having two zone districts; the RM-15, Multiple-Family zone, and
the CS(H) zone, Service Commercial with Hotel Combining District. The 13,200 sq. ft. portion
of the parcel is proposed to be rezoned to the CS(L)(D) Service Commercial zone with
Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining Districts. The site is also proposed for a
Comprehen&ive Plan Amendnlent so that it would be re-designated as Commercial Hotel,
City Page 1 of8
changed from Multiple-Family Residential, to be consistent with the proposed commercial zone.
The project site is one of two parcels that are owned by the same property owner. The front
81,876 sq. ft. parcel is developed with the Trader Vic restaurant. The rear parcel, which also
includes the area proposed for re-designation, is developed with the Dinah's Hotel.
On July 8,2009, the PTC voted 6-0-1 to initiate the zone change and Comprehensive Plan
amendment. The undeveloped project site, having only 39.9 feet of frontage on Wilkie Way and
a depth of329.8 feet, is the rear "pan handle" portion of the Dinah's Hotel property, which has
street frontages on EI Camino Real and Dinah's Court. The subject area to be rezoned is
approximately 9% of the overall lot area. The remainder (91 % of the site), where the hotel
(approximately 51,370 sq. ft. of floor area in one-story to three-story buildings) is located, would
remain as currently zoned (CS-H). The CS Service Commercial Zoning District was modified in
2005, as part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update, to allow hotel uses, at a floor area
ratio (FAR) of 2: 1. The H Hotel Combining District is no longer necessary for hotel use on
properties zoned CS.
The proposed Commercial Hotel land use designation allows facilities, such as hotels and
motels, along with associated conference centers and other similar uses. Other uses typically
associated with hotels, such as restaurants and supporting services, are also allowed. The CS
Service Commercial zone designation is intended to create and maintain areas for citywide and
regional services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood or pedestrian oriented shopping
areas, and which are more automobile-oriented. Mixed use development is allowable in the CS
zone, when designed in accordance with context based design criteria with up to 30 residential
units per acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 1 : 1 for all uses.
The RM-15 zone generally allows residential development up to 15 units per acre, with single-
family and multiple-family housing that is compatible with lower density and residential districts
nearby. The Multiple Family Residential land use designation generally allows residential
projects having densities ranging from eight to 40 units per acre and eight to 90 persons per acre.
Pedestrian Access
This project site was identified for re-designation based on Council direction to study ways to
obtain access rights on the subject site to connect to a pedestrianlbicyc1e path easement offered
by SummerHill Homes on the Redwood Gate residential development on the Elks Lodge site.
SummerHill Homes had agreed to dedicate a public path from the property line shared with the
Dinah's Hotel site to the public park on the SummerHill residential site, provided that the City
obtain access rights by September 24,2009. The intent is to prohibit vehicular access, but allow
pedestrian or bicycle access to enhance more direct connectivity to the SummerHill public park.
Staff identified the approximately 13,200 sq. ft. vacant site that is part of the adjacent
hoteVrestaurant site as providing a potential connection from Wilkie Way to the SummerHill
easement and the public park. In order to facilitate the development of the easement, it was
determined that it would be necessary to amend the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan
designations. The re-designation would serve three purposes. It would bring consistency to the
designations on the hotel and restaurant parcels, provide a buffer for the adj acent residential
parcels, and restrict the use of the area in a way that would allow a path to be constructed.
City
\
I
DISCUSSION
The proposed land use designation is an amendment from the current Multiple Family
Residential designation to Commercial Hotel. The proposed zoning is an amendment from the
current RM-15 Multi-Family residential designation to the Service Commercial with
Landscaping and Site and Design Review Combining Districts (CS(L)(D)). These designations
would match the remainder of the Dinah's Hotel property, already developed with commercial
uses. The re-designation and rezoning would bring consistency to the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning designations for the larger area. The proposed Landscaping (L) and Site and Design
Review (D) Combining Districts, providing additional regulation and requirements to help
ensure that development and use of the 13,200 sq. ft. parcel is consistent with the adjacent uses
and needs.
Zone Change Process
The process for a City-initiated zone changeis outlined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code under
Chapter 18.98. The steps are summarized below:
• The City Council or Planning and Transportation Commission directed the Planning
Director to initiate a zoning amendment on July 8, 2009.
• The Con1IDission sets a date for a regular or special meeting, including a public hearing
and notice to the subject and surrounding property owners. The Commission may
recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning, modification of the area to be
rezoned, application of more or less restrictive zoning, or denial of the rezoning. This is
the task of the Commission tonight.
• The decision of the Conlmission is forwarded to the City Council, including the
Commission's finding and determinations for the requested zone change. Upon notice
and a public hearing, the City Council takes final action regarding the zoning. This
hearing is tentatively scheduled for September 14, 2009.
• The Comprehensive Plan designation follows the same review process as the rezoning
and will be done concurrently with the rezoning,
Basis for Comprehensive Plan and Zone Changes
The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance identify fmdings that are necessary for any
designation changes. In order to adopt a resolution changing a Comprehensive Plan Land Use
designation, the City Council must find the following: "That the public interest, health, safety
and welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region require amendment of the Land Use Map of
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan",
For any proposed rezoning, the Con1IDission and Council must fmd that the public interest,
health and welfare require an amendment to the Zoning Map, and that such changes would be in
accordance with the purposes and intent of the Zoning Title and the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff has determined that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment will benefit the public
interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region in that the changes
will bring consistency to the land use designations of the area and will facilitate the development
of a better buffer and transition between surrounding land uses. The proposed zoning
amendment will bring consistency to the zoning designation of the property as a whole and will
be consistent with the new Comprehensive Plan designation.
Page 3 of8
Consistency of Designations
The pan handle is the last remaining vacant portion of a two parcel site that is already developed
with restaurant and hotel uses for quite a number of years. The vacant area makes up
approximately 9% of a larger property that is owned by one property owner. As discussed
above, the majority of the site is commercially designated. Because of the residentially
designated portion's limited street frontage, narrow width and significant depth, it has not been
developed for the residential use it is zoned for. The designation is also not compatible with the
existing uses or commercial zoning designation of the remainder of the site.
Buffer and Transition
The subject site is located directly adjacent to lower density residential lots on two sides
(Charleston Meadows zoned R-l) and multi-family development on the other sides (SummerHill
residences and Wilkie Way apartments zoned RM-15). The Landscape (L) Combining District
would ensure the provision of landscaped open space to provide a physical and visual separation
between residential districts to the north, east and west and more intensive commercial uses
along EI Camino Real. The zoning, in combination with the pedestrian access easement, will
also prohibit vehicular access to/from Wilkie Way (except for emergency vehicles), further
protecting the neighborhood. While the RM -15 zone can and has been used to serve as a
transition district between the R-l district and hotel site, the proposed zoning will strengthen the
requirement for the this portion of the Dinah's Hotel property to serve only as a transitional
buffer. Since the intent is to develop a pedestrian/bicycle pathway on approximately 6,000 sq.
ft., the Landscape (L) Combining District would require landscaping in the remainder of the
13,200 square feet of the parcel. These requirements would make it more difficult for an
applicant to propose any other type of development. The City may not legally condition the
rezoning on the easement dedication. Staff will have a signed easement in advance of any
Council action on the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment.
The proposed Site and Design (D) Review combining district will also help to ensure the site will
remain as an appropriate buffer and transition between the hotel site's commercial uses and the
less intense residential properties. The intent of this combining district is to provide a review
and approval process for sites that are considered environmentally and ecologically sensitive
areas. This includes the environmentally sensitive Open Space zoning district, but also sites that
are considered sensitive to negative environmental impacts such as noise, traffic or aesthetics.
The Site and Design Review combining district establishes a review process that will ensure that
development on this parcel will serve as an appropriate and harmonious transition between the
commercial uses on the site and the adj acent residential parcels. In addition, the L Landscaping
combining district also requires a conditional use permit for pedestrian and bicycle pathways,
providing another review process to ensure that the development of any pathways would be
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
Wilkie Way Access
Commissioner Holman requested a follow up on whether the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) certified for the nearby Hyatt Rickey's project (now Arbor Real) addressed cut-through
traffic and overflow parking on Wilkie Way and if the project was prohibited from allowing
access to Wilkie Way, except for emergency access. The redevelopment proj ect initially
included housing and a hotel. However, the applicant revised the project during the process by
removing the hotel component and reducing the number of housing units. The EIR concluded
that there would be no significant traffic impact to the character of Wilkie Way based on the
City Page 4
)
standard Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) Index Assessment. Additionally,
when the project was reduced in scope and the hotel proposal was removed, the impact was
reduced even further. However, when a comparative assessment to the TIRE analysis was done
using a more stringent threshold, a recommendation to limit vehicular access to emergency
vehicles only was made. The applicant revised the Arbor Real project to allow only emergency
vehicular access fronl Wilkie Way, so there were no further issues with this item. Overflow
parking was identified as a concern initially only because the original proj ect included a hotel
component that did not provide the required number of parking spaces. When the applicant
removed the hotel component, the parking facilities for the project were no longer deficient as
the required number of residential and guest spaces were provided on site as set forth in the
Municipal Code. Therefore, overflow parking was no longer an EIR issue and no mitigation
measures were imposed regarding either parking or vehicular access to Wilkie Way. Staffhas
provided an excerpt of the Resolution certifying the EIR for the revised Hyatt Rickey's
development as Attachment N.
Floor Area Increase
The rezoning of the site would allow an increase in the allowable commercial floor area for the
entire hotel/restaurant property if it is redeveloped. The new designation would allow the
owners of the Dinah's Hotel property to add 26,400 sq. ft. of hotel floor area to the developed
area of the 139,010 sq. ft. parcel, since a 2:1 FAR is allowed for hotel use. Alternatively, up to
5,280 sq. ft. of non-hotel commercial floor area could be added to the developed portion of the
site. The following Table 1 is an analysis of the maximum floor area that could be allowed if the
subject area is rezoned to the CS(L)(D) designation. Parcell is the Trader Vics parcel (4269 EI
Camino Real) and Parcel 2 is the 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real site. The CS portion of Parcel
2 is the existing hotel and the RM-15 portion is the 13,200 sq. ft. area to be rezoned. Any
development proposal, including requests for this additional square footage, would be subject to
a development review process. Staff is not aware of any redevelopment plans at this time.
Table 1-Floor Area Maximums
Currently Commercial (Non-Hotel Only
allowed: Hotel) 2:1
0.4:1
Parcell 32,750 sq. ft. 163,752 sq. ft.
81,876 sq. ft.
Parcel 2 (CS 50,324 sq. ft. 251,620 sq. ft.
portion)
125,810 sq. ft.
Parcel 2 (RM-15 N/A* N/A*
portion)
13,200 (Subject
Parcel)
Total 83,074 sq. ft. 441,772 sq. ft.
City Page 5
Proposed
Parcell 32,750 sq. ft. 163,752 sq. ft.
81,876 sq. ft.
Parcel 2 (CS 50,324 sq. ft. 251,620 sq. ft.
portion)
139,010 sq. ft.
Parcel 2 (Rezoned 5,280 sq. ft. 26,400 sq. ft.
portion/Subject
Parcel)
13,200 (New)
Total 88,354 sq. ft. 468,172 sq. ft.
* If developed under the RM-15 zoning district, this area would allow a maximum of
up to 6,600 sq. ft. of multi-family development.
Neighborhood Requests
In a July 8, 2009 letter (Attachment 0), the Board of Directors of the Charleston
Meadows Association made three requests that they would like the City to concurrently
incorporate into approvals to the Conlprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance designation
changes for the subject site. The three requests comprise of:
• Plant protected Redwood and Oak trees on the site in such a way that when
mature, City ordinance requirements to protect those trees will in effect prohibit
the development of any vehicular access ways to Wilkie Way.
• Implement a permit parking pro gram on Wilkey Way.
• Require the property owner of the subject site to underwrite the permit parking
program.
Vehicular Access: The intent is to develop the site for pedestrian and bicycle connections. The
L Landscape and D Site and Design Review Combining Districts contain provisions for multiple
reviews, including a requirement for a conditional use permit, and public processes to ensure that
the design of any improvements meet the City's goals. The public processes provide
opportunities for input from the public.
Permit Parking: Staff is supportive of exploring a neighborhood permit parking program prior to
moving forward with the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning. However, staffwould
prefer not to tie the implementation ofa program to this process due to the uncertainty of
neighborhood support for the parking program. Staff can work with the neighborhood
concurrently to facilitate both the City's and neighborhood's goals.
Funding for Permit Parking: The Charleston Meadows Association is requesting that the
property owner be required to fund any permit parking pro gram because the rezoning and
Comprehensive Plan amendment would potentially increase the amount of floor area the
property owner would be allowed. However, because the property owner is not the applicant of
this redesignation request, the City cannot require a contribution because there is no nexus
between the action and the proposed requirenlent. Staff can review whether a contribution is
appropriate and when the property owner proposes redevelopment of the site.
City Page 6 of8
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The changes are proposed to provide a pennanent buffer between the commercial uses on the site
and the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, to allow for enhanced pedestrian connections, and to
bring consistency to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations for one property. Staff
believes that the rezoning would facilitate the achievement of several goals, policies and
programs of the Comprehensive Plan. The changes would not only bring consistency to the
designations of the entire parcel, but would promote development that would be designed to
provide an appropriate transition between the more intense commercial uses appropriate for
parcels along El Camino Real and the less intense residential parcels of the new Redwood Gate
development and the Wilkie Way residences. The new designations would encourage pedestrian
and bicycle connectivity between the neighboring properties and the new Redwood Gate public
park, while protecting adjacent properties with the requirement for adequate landscaping. The
project specifically supports the following goals, policies and programs of the Comprehensive
Plan:
• Goal L-l: A well designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive
neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities, and open spaces
• Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto's varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the
vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool
to enhance Palo Alto's desirable qualities.
• Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between
residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities.
To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district
boundaries at midblock locations rather than along streets whenever possible.
• Program L-4: Review and change zoning regulations to promote gradual transitions in
the scale of development where residential districts abut more intense uses.
• Policy L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City
welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding neighborhoods.
• Goal L-2: An enhanced sense of "community" with development designed to foster
public life and meet citywide needs
• Policy L-ll: Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between
commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
• Goal L-3: Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods, each with its own distinct character
and within walking distance of shopping, services, schools, and/or other public gathering
places.
• Policy L-15: Preserve and enhance the public gathering spaces within walking distance
of residential neighborhoods. Ensure that each residential neighborhood has such spaces.
• Policy L-61: a Promote the use of community and cultural centers, libraries, local
schools, parks, and other comnlunity facilities as gathering places. Ensure that they are
inviting and safe places that can deliver a variety of community services during both
daytime and evening hours.
• Policy L-64: Seek potential sites for art and cultural facilities, public spaces, open space,
and community gardens that encourage and support pedestrian and bicycle travel and
person-to-person contact, particularly in neighborhoods that lack these amenities.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration, which reviewed the environmental issues
related to the rezoning, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
City Page 7 of8
completed a 20-day public review period on July 23,2009. A copy of the environmental
document is provided as Attachment F. No comments have been received on the document.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Public Hearing notices have been mailed out to the subject property owner and owners/occupants
of properties located within 600 feet of the site. Staffhas also spoken to and met with area
residents and the neighborhood association several times. Staff attended a Charleston Meadows
Association meeting on June 30,2009, to discuss the proposal and to answer questions. Some
residents have expressed support for the new connection. Neighborhood residents and
association representatives spoke at the July 8, 2009 PTC initiation of this Rezoning and
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Some residents expressed support for the re-designation and
pathway while some Charleston Meadows residents have continued to express concerns that the
proposed access will cause more drivers to park on Wilkie Way. A request has been made to the
City to implement a parking permit program prior to making the SummerHill easement open to
the public, as a potential solution to prevent overflow parking, which staff will consider as plans
for the access path move through the approval process as discussed above.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Attachment I:
Attachment J:
Attachment K:
Attachment L:
Attachment M:
Attachment N:
Attachment 0:
Draft Resolution Ordinance
Draft Ordinance
Parcel (Zoning) Map
Comprehensive Plan Map
Easement Map
Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration
July 8, 2009 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report (without
attachments)
July 8,2009 Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes
PAMC Chapter 18.16 (CS Service Commercial)
P AMC Chapter 18.30(E) Landscape (L) Combining District
PAMC Chapter 18.30(G) Site and Design Review (D) Combining District
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Commercial Land Use Designation
Definition
Excerpt of Transportation Section of Resolution No. 8432 for the Hyatt
Rickey's Development EIR
Letter from Subject Property Owner
Letter from the Charleston Meadow Association Board of Directors
COURTESY COPIES:
Martha Miller, Administrative Service Department, Real Estate
David Conklin, Property Owner Representative
Sara Armstrong, President, Charleston Meadows Association
Prepared by: Elena Lee, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Amy French, Current PIF\ing Manager
DepartmentIDivision Head Approval: ~ ~0~
Curtis Williams, Director
City Page 8 of8
1 Planning and Transportation Commission
2 Verbatim Minutes
3 August 12, 2009
4
5 EXCERPT
6
7 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real*: Requests for: (1) an Amendment to the Zoning Map to
8 Change the Zone Designation of an approximately 13,200 square foot portion of Dinah's Hotel
9 property from the RM-15 (Residential Multi-Family) Zone to CS(L)(D) (Service Commercial
10 with Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining Districts) Zoning and (2) a Resolution
11 Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of the same property from Multiple
12 Family Residential to Commercial Hotel at 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real. Environmental
13 Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and a draft Negative Declaration has been
14 prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.
15
16 Ms. Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you Chair and Commissioners. The project before you is
17 a second step of a rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment request that the Con1ll1ission
18 initiated on July 8. The proposal is a City initiated request to rezone the vacant 13,200 square
19 foot portion of the Dinah and Trader Vic Hotel site from RM-15 to Service Commercial with a
20 Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining District. The proposal also includes a
21 Comprehensive Plan Amendment from multifamily residential to commercial hotel. The
22 proposed changes would bring all the subject properties, zoning, and land use designation into
23 consistency. A Negative Declaration and initial study have been prepared and circulated. No
24 comments have been received at this time.
25
26 This proposal was initiated based on Council direction to study obtaining a walkway easement
27 on the hotel site that would connect to an easement on the adjacent SummerHill Redwood Gate
28 residential development, which has an ending date of September 24. Staff has put at places this
29 evening correspondences received from the public that were subsequent to distribution of the
30 Staff Report and as well Staffs responses to email questions from Commissioner Holman. '
31
32 Staffrequests that the Commission recommend the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration
33 and approve the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Staffproposes to concurrently
34 work with the Charleston Meadows Association to address their concerns and to keep them
35 informed should a pathway be constructed. Staff is available to answer questions. This
36 concludes Staffs report.
37
38 Chair Garber: Commissioners I would like to move directly to, excuse me Planning Director?
39
40 Mr. Curtis Williams, Planning Director: I just wanted to reiterate that we did provide you with a
41 copy of the easement document. It is a draft easement document it is not the final signed
42 version. There may be a couple of typos or technical corrections to it. That is provided for your
43 information. That is not before you tonight to nl0dify, review, change, but it is pertinent, and I
44 know you are interested in what the easement says and would do to get access from Wilkie Way
45 the park. So I just wanted to let you know that was emailed to you and is attached in the
46 materials before you tonight.
Page 1
1
2 Chair Garber: Thank you. There are two items related to that. You had mentioned that the
3 answers to Commissioner Holman's questions were at places and I am not seeing that.
4
5 Mr. Williams: Unfortunately I think it is attached as 'the last couple of pages to the packet of
6 correspondence. The easement document is on the top of that packet and I think the last couple
7 pages are the responses to Commissioner Holman's questions.
8
9 Chair Garber: Also, let me ask the Commissioners here. I know that some of you would like to
10 read the easement. It appears to be five pages not including the attachments. Would it be
11 appropriate for us to take four or five minutes to read that? Commissioner Holman.
12
13 Commissioner Holman: I for one would appreciate that. Also, because the questions and
14 answers were not submitted to us previously could the Staff just quickly go over those so that
15 they are on the public record? It would just take a couple of minutes to do that if that agrees with
16 the Chair.
17
18 Mr. Williams: If I could just clarify. Did you not receive these by email this afternoon?
19
20 Chair Garber: That is correct.
21
22 Mr. Williams: Okay, Zariah informed us that she had emailed them out. I apologize for that.
23
24 Chair Garber: So if you would walk us through those.
25
26 Ms. Lee: Question number one was noting that Exhibit A to the Comprehensive Plan Resolution
27 was not attached. Basically, Attachment D will become Exhibit A as the Comprehensive Plan
28 Resolution for the Council adoption.
29
30 Question number two is the request for the easement. The easement has been provided.
31
32 Question number three, Commissioner Holman said, I do not see the public interest, health, and
33 safety are satisfied by the statements in the Staff Report. Please provide others. The change
34 does not bring consistency to the Comprehensive Plan designation as it is abutted on both sides
35 by the multifamily designations. The panhandle is an anonlaly. Subsection B the logic runs
36 counter to the Comprehensive Plan change providing better transition and buffer as to the 40 foot
37 width it could not be developed intensely and the RM zoning designation would provide
38 transition from the CS zoning district. Staff s response is that Staff is looking at consistency for
39 the entire Dinah's property, which is not just that rear piece to the lot. The nlajority of that
40 property has a Service Commercial designation so we are looking at consistency with that as
41 well as other properties along EI Camino Real. Because the whole two parcels have been
42 historically developed for commercial uses Staff sees this change as being consistent with that
43 history. An alternate statement could be the proposed commercial hotel designation while
44 dissimilar to two of the three immediately adjoining properties it is consistent with the
45 designation for the remainder of the site and the Comprehensive Plan policies and programs for
Page 2
1 providing transitions and buffers since the proposed landscape combining district would restrict
2 the use of the site to ensure the provision of an adequate buffer.
3
4 In terms of the second part of question number three the RM-15 zone does provide a transition
5 because it does limit the type of development, however, Staff believes that the landscape
6 combining district as well as the(D) Site and Design Overlay provide a better transition because
7 it pretty much limits it to landscaping. It prevents any kind of development therefore no
8 vehicular access would be allowed on this site, versus with a multifamily development where
9 that might be proposed. So Staff believes that this additional review of Site and Design Review
10 process as well as the landscaping does provide a better transition that would meet the needs of
11 the City's policies as well as the Charleston Meadows Association.
12
13 For question number four Staffhas provided a revised land use designation map that clearly
'14 differentiates between the multifamily and the multifamily with H Overlay.
15
16 Number five, Commissioner Holman asked why we would not agree to including conditioning
17 oaks and redwoods in the site. Also, permit parking report states that we will work with the
18 neighborhood concurrently. Concurrently with what? Staff will continue to work with the
19 residents. We are having an ongoing dialogue currently and we are proposing to continue that.
20 That would include permit parking and landscaping.
21
22 At such time the path and landscape improvements and the easement are funded and proposed
23 Staff will continue to work with the applicants. The permit parking will be reviewed with the
24 neighborhood in advance of implementation of improvements. As well as all improvements
25 would be subject to a development permit requirement, which do require public review and a
26 public process. For example, any future pathway would require a Conditional Use Permit. That
27 would include design review. If requested that Conditional Use Permit would be heard and
28 reviewed by the Planning Commission for recommendation to and final decision by the City
29 Council. So at that time Staff would continue to work with the community to make sure that all
30 of these requirements including the trees as well as a permit parking are worked on.
31
32 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman, did you have any follow up?
33
34 Commissioner Holman: No we can do that during our question and answer. Thank you.
35
36 Chair Garber: All right. There are two clarifications, Elena. Commissioner Keller was
37 mentioning one of the two to me. We wanted to clarify one of the sentences. I think it was in
38 item seven. No I apologize that is item number two. Commissioner Keller what was your item
39 here?
40
41 Commissioner Keller: Just for the benefit of the people commenting who might not have had a
42 chance to read that could you please read into the record for the draft easement agreement item
43 number three and what the implications of that are? Who that is binding upon?
44
45 Chair Garber: What are you reading from there?
46
Page 3
1 Commissioner Keller: I am reading from item number three of the draft easement agreement.
2 This thing put at places. It is on the second page.
3
4 Mr. Williams: It says the easement property shall be used for pedestrian and bicycle use only
5 and vehicular use shall be prohibited except for emergency vehicle use, fire, and police. It is
6 binding on whoever uses the easement.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: So that is binding on both the grantor and the grantee, presumably?
9
10 Mr. Williams: Right.
11
12 Commissioner Keller: So binding the City and binding on the property owner.
13
14 Mr. Williams: Right.
15
16 Conlffiissioner Keller: Thank you.
17
18 Chair Garber: With that let us go to the public comment. Do you want to take the four minutes
19 now? Okay. We will have brief reading period of four minutes and then we will start the public
20 comments. Commissioner Holman.
21
22 Commissioner Holman: I just want to make sure that copies of this are available for the public to
23 read as well. Are there copies at the back of the room?
24
25 Chair Garber: Staff?
26
27 Mr. Williams: Yes, there are copies back there.
28
29 Commissioner Holman: Thank you.
30
31 Chair Garber: One minute. Let us open the public meeting. Our first speaker this evening is
32 Jean Olmstead followed by Linnea Wickstrom. You will have three minutes.
33
34 Ms. Jean Olmstead, Palo Alto: I am speaking for myself not for the Charleston Meadows
35 Neighborhood Association. I first want to thank the Staff for all the work they have done so
36 quickly to make it possible to obtain pedestrian and bicycle access from Wilkie to the
37 SummerHill public park.
38
39 At this point I am pleased to hear that everyone now supports bicycle and pedestrian access. I
40 must also ask you to make sure that permit parking is not required to be in place before access
41 can be made available to the pUblic. Why not? The simplest reason is that there is no parking
42 deficiency in the Wilkie area. I and others have been doing a traffic count. I sent you a report
43 that shows that only about one-third of the available parking was being used on Wilkie and
44 nearby streets during the period of July 15 to August 6. People are not going to pay for permit
45 parking when they are not having trouble finding parking places. The dreaded overflow from
Page 4
1 Arbor Real tumed out to a possible eight cars at the maximum on one day, August 4. It was less
2 before and has been less since that time.
3
4 One of the parkers told me that August 4 was the day Arbor Real would start to tow cars without
5 a permit that were parked in guest parking places in Arbor Real from 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM.
6 Arbor Real has dealt with their guest parking problem.
7
8 Your job is to make the decision that most benefits the public good. Access now comes out way
9 ahead. Thank you.
10
11 Chair Garber: Thank you. Linnea Wickstrom followed by Stephanie Tramz.
12
13 Ms. Linnea Wickstrom, Palo Alto: Hello. I live right around the comer and I often walk the
14 Wilkie Way neighborhood. I would like to be able togo into the lovely new park that has been
15 created there. I note that several people have independently done little counts on the parking .
16 situation on Wilkie Way. My letter, which is included in your packet, shows the numbers I
17 gathered. Tonight at 6:45 there were 20 cars on a half mile of available street. I won't go into
18 all the yardages available but I too came up with about one-third of the potential capacity is now
19 being used.
20
21 Even ifpeople wanted to park on that street and walk to the Elk's for instance they would have a
22 really long walk. I really doubt that a lot of people are going to do that even when the Elk's is
23 completed or SummerHill is completed.
24
25 I just am here to urge you once again to please proceed with the rezoning to allow the City to
26 acquire the easement. This is the last chance as far as I can see to achieve real public access to a
27 public park. Even though Deodar Street has a public overlay it is still a private street, it is 200
28 yards down El Camino and this park will never be discovered by the Palo Alto public if it is left
29 this way. It is an attractive and a very functional park and I hope that you will make it possible
30 for the families in the surrounding neighborhoods to use it. I hope you will make it possible for
31 the residents of Arbor Real and SummerHill to access the neighborhoods around them. I hope
32 that you will vote to complete the rezoning to give us access rather than completing the isolation
33 of these developments from their surrounding communities. Thank you.
34
35 Chair Garber: Thank you. Stephanie Tramz followed by Sara Armstrong.
36
37 Ms. Stephanie Tramz, Palo Alto: Good evening. In the interest of full disclosure I have to state
38 that Samir Tuma and I practiced law together in San Francisco 20 years ago. I am sure he won't
39 be unduly swayed by my brilliant comments.
40
41 My concerns have been allayed. I didn't know the background. I just received a notice. I was
42 not able to come to the prior hearing. Whenever I see residential going to commercial I am
43 always concerned because in our area of South Palo Alto we are finally starting to gentrify and
44 upgrade. We still have lots of fly-by-night motels, forgive the expression, and a hotel. So I was
45 concerned that we were losing ground in that going forward attempt to become more residential,
46 more children oriented.
Page 5
1
2 So now that I have heard the remarks I fully support this rezoning. The only comment that I
3 have with regard to the Staff Report would be the comment that returning the zoning to
4 commercial would be consistent with historic designations and I think that is precisely the point
5 from my point of view that we don't want to r~tum to historic commercial designation. In as
6 much as this apparently is going to be designated for non-vehicular bicycle and pedestrian I am
7 fully supportive. My question is is there a quid pro quo? Is some other piece going to .... is there
8 something being given up in exchange for this rezoning that might be of concern later?
9
10 Chair Garber: It is not the practice for us to actually respond to questions but you can work with
11 Staff.
12
13 Ms. Tramz: Dh all right. Well my comments are at an end. I am hoping that this is an out-and-
14 out rezoning for the purpose designated and that there is not an expectation on the part of
15 Dinah's Hotel or otherwise that later they are going to be able to come with some expanded use
16 application or whatever and seek this to be consideration. Enough said. Thank you very much.
17
18 Chair Garber: Thank you. Sara Armstrong followed by our last speaker Keith Reckdahl.
19
20 Ms. Sara Armstrong, Palo Alto: Thank you Commissioners. I am speaking on behalf of the
21 Charleston Meadows Association Board of Directors. Basically I am here tonight to reiterate the
22 comments that we made to you about a month ago to remind you that this is a sensitive issue for
23 our neighborhood. Not withstanding what you have heard and the very unscientific surveys that
24 have been conducted recently we remain concerned about overflow parking in our neighborhood.
25 We appreciate the efforts of our neighbors at Arbor Real for taking measures to alleviate the
26 overflow parking situation in the very current timeframe, but it remains to be seen whether those
27 efforts are temporary in nature or whether they are durable. So we are still concerned that in the
28 absence of mitigations opening up this access path will exacerbate overflow parking in the future
29 . because SummerHill, like many of the developments that have been approved at the same time,
30 have the same trifecta of parking flaws in that it has private streets with no on-street parking,
31 resident parking that relies entirely on garage parking with no apron, and that the City's guest
32 parking allocation formula has been demonstrated to be inadequate.
33
34 Weare also concerned that the enhanced zoning and corresponding higher density FAR for
35 Dinah's could be problematic for the neighborhood since it is being considered absent of any
36 information about the future plans for redevelopment or sale of that lot. At the same time we
37 recognize the benefits of access for our neighborhood and for other future residents of
38 SummerHill. So we would like to ask that as a matter of equity and in keeping with the
39 assurances of prior City Council's that our neighborhood be protected fronl overflow parking.
40 That we will support the access plan and this zone change and we feel like it is a win/win
41 situation if you put into place some mitigating strategies concurrent with the rezoning request.
42 That is as we have asked for a permit parking program be studied and looked at and put in place
43 on affected areas, that Dinah's be required to underwrite the funding for that since they are
44 getting a windfall profit with this rezoning, and that there are measures put in place so that
45 vehicular access, I appreciate the fact that it is written into the contract, but permanent physical
Page 6
1 measures be put into place like planting, etc. so that no vehicular access will ever be allowed to
2 Wilkie. Thank you for your considerations.
3
4 Chair Garber: Before you leave Commissioner Keller has a question for you. Commissioner
5 Keller.
6
7 Conunissioner Keller: I believe that you are proposing that a permit program for overflow
8 parking be considered. I am wondering if you have thought about the nature of such a pennit
9 program and the hours of enforcement.
10
11 Ms. Armstrong: Thank you for that. What we have, and again I think that any parking program
12 would have to come with a pretty rigorous study on the part of the City. I understand that you
13 have a certain set of criteria that you look at and a survey of the residents to ensure that the
14 people, block-by-block or however the City decides to do it, are in support of that. As an
15 Association we believe that the main problem is nighttime parking not during the day. So that is
16 something I think that would be appropriate, evening hours.
17
18 Comnlissioner Keller: So you are suggesting a parking program enforced at night and whatever
19 mechanism there would be for enforcing that.
20
21 Ms. Armstrong: Yes, that is the suggestion.
22
23 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
24
25 Chair Garber: Our final speaker of the night is Keith Reckdahl.
26
27 Mr. Keith Reckdahl, Palo Alto: Hello. I am a resident of Charleston Meadows. I want to state
28 that I do oppose the bike path, and also oppose adding any density to Dinah's. While I like the
29 idea of bike paths, I bike to work myself, and I like the concept of bike paths the problem in this
30 case is that I have no faith that the City will force the property on Dinah's to have sufficient
31 parking. I don't think it will be self-contained parking and the density will be too high and not
32 enough parking spots that overflow parking will end up on Wilkie, and will contribute to more
33 parking problems.
34
35 Some of the other speakers did mention that right now parking is available on Wilkie. Right now
36 it is the best it has been in months. Recently Arbor Real went in with dumpsters and took
37 draconian measures and had people clean out their garages and converted many visitor parking
38 spots from visitor parking to resident parking spots. Even after all this effort they still have
39 overflow parking. In fact, freshly right after these measures they still overflow means that there
40 is a problem. It was worse before and almost certainly will get worse yet. In the rainy season
41 people will move items back from outside their house back into their garages and will have less
42 room to park and those cars are going to end up on Wilkie. This is new construction and as
43 people live in houses they accumulate more things, they will not be having two cars in their
44 garages as most people now in Arbor Real are doing. So because of that I do not want any more
45 density, don't want any more overflow parking.
46
Page 7
1 Also we have SummerHill and Dinah's. Right now there are one-third of the spots taken up
2 already on Wilkie and when SummerHill, those new people, move in and when the people from
3 Dinah's come in we could have 100 percent parking occupancy along Wilkie. That would not be
4 good for the neighbors and the people who require that for their own use. Thank you.
5
6 Chair Garber: Thank you very nluch. Commissioners, we are about 30 minutes into this item.
7 If we can I would like to try and get through our questions and comments and to a motion within
8 an hour. I have questions. I have lights from Commissioner Holman and then Keller and then
9 Fineberg. Commissioner Holman.
10
11 Commissioner Holman: If I might, I believe our new Commissioner was trying to and didn't
12 know how to. I'm sorry. I have a question for either Staff or for the first speaker. If I heard it
13 correctly that guests who are parking overnight at Arbor Real are being towed from Arbor Real.
14 Did I understand that correctly?
15
16 Mr. Williams: That is a statement that was made. We have not engaged in that dialogue with
17 Arbor Real. I don't think it was guests but I don't know I would have to ask the speaker.
18
19 Comnlissioner Holman: Perhaps Ms. Olmstead could answer the question at the microphone
20 please.
21
22 Ms. Olmstead: I have a letter that the Arbor Real parker gave me from the management that
23 describes this program. I fish it out and find it for you but the intent is that Arbor Real is hiring a
24 tow company. I have been told this by a couple of Arbor Real people. The parker I talked to
25 said that was the night that they were passing out messages saying don't park.
26
27 Commissioner Holman: Ms. Olmstead, I just want to make sure that I am clear on the action
28 here. They are towing overnight guests off of the Arbor Real site. Do I understand correctly?
29
30 Ms. Olmstead: If they are in a permit parking slot and do not have a permit they will be towed.
31
32 Comnlissioner Holman: I understand now. Thank you very much that is helpful.
33
34 A couple of questions for Staff. Understanding at least based on what was stated previously that
35 the easement agreement is not in our purview but I have a question that is pertinent to our
36 discussion this evening. The first page of that, B, it calls the property owner the grantor and it
37 says the grantor is requesting that zoning of the property be changed. Yet we were told last
38 meeting, as I understood it, that we could not impose conditions because it was not the property
39 owner who was requesting the zoning change but rather the City.
40
41 Mr. Williams: Yes, I think that is a good point. I think we should clean that up because that is
42 not the case. So we will get that changed that is a correction.
43
44 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Then again this cross-referencing between the easement
45 and the staffreport, and again I think pertinent to what we are doing tonight, if Attachment Dis
46 to become Exhibit A, and the easement on the top of page two of the easement agreement, the
Page 8
1 landscape and improvenlents on that certain portion of property, reading on the third line of that
2 second page, as shown and described on Exhibit A, which is now currently in our Staff Report as
3 Attachment D.
4
5 Mr. Williams: Excuse me I believe the Attachment D was intended to be Exhibit A to the
6 Resolution to change the Comprehensive Plan. Exhibit A is actually in here. It is the plat that
7 has been the survey plat that has been drawn to accompany that and the legal description is
8 actually attached to the easement.
9
10 Ms. Melissa Tronquet. Senior Deputy City Attorney: Exhibit A to the easenlent is different from
11 Exhibit A to the Resolution.
12
13 Commissioner Holman: Thank you for that. Then you can just quickly help me with this.
14 Exhibit B then is part of the easement agreement where is that referenced in the easement
15 agreement? What I am trying to get at here is that it first appeared to me, and thank you for the
16 clarification Curtis, it first appeared to me that the easement agreement was applying to the
17 whole panhandle because I was referencing the wrong thing, because we have attachments and
18 exhibits and they are referencing different documents and it is not 100 percent clear to one
19 Commissioner at least.
20
21 Mr. Williams: I think we will have to look and see. Usually when you have an exhibit like this
22 it is Exhibit A and would include both the legal description and the map. I notice as you pointed
23 out that the plat that is attached actually says Exhibit B. So either we need to take the Exhibit B
24 off of that so that it is clear that Exhibit A is both or else we will say Exhibits A and B at the top
25 of page two there. Thank you for pointing that out.
26
27 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. So going to my questions that I had asked, and thank you
28 for providing the answers, what I am looking for is some assurance. We have already made
29 some assurances to neighbors that there would not be a pedestrian or bicycle or vehicular
30 connection to the neighborhood. I am not speaking for or against that. What I am trying to get at
31 is some assurance that if Staff changes, memories fail, records are disassociated one from
32 another, what is going to be referred to is the easement agreement. So what I am looking for is
33 some kind of written assurance that is binding. I think what the neighbors are asking for are
34 quite viable, not unreasonable, and why can we not or how can we put into writing attached to
35 these documents that oaks and redwoods will be considered as part of the Site and Design and
36 Landscape Design for the proposal, and that the City will entertain a parking permit study in
37 conjunction with the design. Not holding up the easement agreement. Why can we not put
38 something in place so that the neighborhood has some assurance?
39
40 Mr. Williams: I will look to the City Attorney to provide additional input, but my sense is there
41 is really nothing to attach that kind of condition to. If as a separate motion, and I will let Melissa
42 respond to whether as a separate motion you can direct that those things be considered in the
43 future, maybe you could do that. Right now there is a rezoning and a rezoning itself doesn't
44 have conditions on it. So there isn't a set of conditions to attach, number one. Number two, the
45 issue particularly about the design and plantings of the easement and all that we think are
46 addressed because you have added the D Overlay to this and it has the L for Landscape Overlay
Page 9
1 as well, which means that a Conditional Use Pennit and a Site and Design Review pennit is
2 required. This means the Planning Commission and the Council are going to see when this
3 project comes through as a pathway project, and will see that and have an opportunity, and the
4 neighborhood will have an opportunity to review what is appropriate. By the same token, our
5 intent is to meet with the neighborhood earlier not later as far as the permit parking program goes
6 and try to address that issue and determine first of all whether they are even interested. I think
7 there is a lot to consider with permit parking programs so I don't think anyone should make an
8 assumption that there should be a permit parking program. That is something we would have to
9 explore with them. I think again on sort of a fail safe level we have two different checkpoints for
10 that. One is again when the pathway conles in for design. We should have at that point that
11 answer, and if we don't I would fully suspect that the neighbors would be here saying where is
12 that before you go ahead. That is a City project so the City fully has discretion to decide whether
13 to go ahead or not. Then secondly again the potential impacts from any redevelopment of
14 Dinah's would involve public notice and an opportunity for input. At that point in time again I
15 am sure that question would be asked if there were not already a program that had been explored .
16 and either implemented or not pursued. That again would be an opportunity to bring that
17 forward. Again, our intent is to go forward in advance of that and meet. I don't think that this
18 mechanism either the easement, especially the easement, or the rezoning provide a tool for
19 making those kinds of things requirements.
20
21 Commissioner Holman: Thank you for the explanation and also I wasn't trying to make them
22 requirements. I don't think necessarily the neighborhood is looking for a requirement. I am
23 looking for some kind of assurance that these questions and requests will be undertaken. That is
24 what I am after and understood they would not be a condition of the rezoning since it is the City
25 that is doing it but I think there should be perhaps available to the City some kind of attachment
26 to the rezoning and the statement of reasons why these could be included.
27
28 Two other quick questions are the park that is on the Arbor Real site is that privately owned or
29 publicly owned?
30
31 Ms. Lee: That is actually a publicly dedicated park. That is part of the SummerHill Redwood
32 Gate development not Arbor Real.
33
34 Commissioner Holman: I note on the map, Attachment D again, that shows public park that that
35 park is not indicated on that map. So it is a tangent question should that park be dedicated
36 parkland and that is a separate action.
37
38 The last question is because it is a public park then should there not be signage at the entrance to
39 that so people know the park exists?
40
41 Ms. Lee: If you refer to Attachment E that actually shows the park in relation to the pathway.
42 The drawing is up on the screen. Also, the agreement that the City has with Sun1illerHill Homes
43 is at the time the pathway is installed that they will work with the City in installing signage.
44
45 Commissioner Holman: I did note that the park is indicated but it is not indicated as a public
46 park. That was my only point on the nlap. Thank you.
Page 10
1
2 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Fineberg.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So my first question is actually a comment. If you look with
5 a little bit of sleuthing if you will and looked at the easement and if you notice the second page
6 of it, Exhibit A, which is the plat map, the region for which the easement is granted is trapezoidal
7 and by doing the math where it says it is 5,021 square feet diving that into 130 you wind up that
8 the width of this parcel on a perpendicular basis is 38.62 feet or 38 feet, seven and one-half
9 inches. So it is not quite 40 feet wide in the perpendicular direction.
10
11 I am wondering where it is stated that there would be no easement to this access easement from
12 the rest of the Dinah's parcel. Does it state that and should that be part of the easement saying
13 that there is no access from Dinah's?
14
15 Mr. Williams: There is nothing here that says there is no access from Dinah's. What happens in
16 the easement we would control but access up to the point of the easement Dinah's still could
17 have access there today, they could have access all the way through to Wilkie Way.
18
19 Comnlissioner Keller: Well, considering that presents a problem for overflow parking it might
20 be useful to add a condition to the extent that any access to the easement from the rest of Dinah's
21 property is with permission of the City only.
22
23 Mr. Williams: We are not going to change -the easement is not before you tonight. So this is
24 what you have other than technical corrections that we will make to it the negotiation for the
25 easement is not in your purview.
26
27 Commissioner Keller: But we do have access to that when the Site and Design Review happens
28 for the beige portion of the rest of the rezoned property that is not part of the easement.
29
30 Mr. Williams: Correct. You could design it in a way that doesn't make that practical to make
31 that connection.
32
33 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. The second question is in a letter in this packet we
34 were given tonight there is a letter from a Mr. Brian dated Tuesday, at 12:38, it is the second
35 letter in the packet that contains the easement. It states here, four lines from the bottom in the
36 paragraph labeled one, note that this implies that the limited parking that the City allowed in the
37 Arbor Real development has not created any significant parking problenl on Wilkie Way and
38 nearby streets, etc. My question is, and I realize this is a little far a field, but I know the City has
39 minimum requirements for parking. Does the City have maximum allowances for how much
40 parking can be in a development?
41
42 Mr. Williams: No we don't. I think that is primarily a design issue. If you were getting to a
43 point where you were covering an excessive amount of the site with parking lot and it was twice
44 as much parking as you need then there may be design issues. I think I have seen ARB on a few
45 occasions actually ask to cut back parking when it was over the amount required, well over the
Page 11
1 amount required, to cut it back somewhat where it seemed to be having a lot of deleterious visual
2 effects. But there is not a maximum in the code.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: So if Arbor Real had come to the ARB or wherever and said well, we
5 think for our development instead of having X number of parking spaces because of being four
6 or five bedroom or however many bedroom units we think that more parking spaces would be
7 needed and therefore we want to provide extra parking spaces over the minimum required that
8 could have occurred?
9
10 Mr. Williams: Yes.
11
12 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. Also one last question about parking just to make this
13 clear. Is there any rule about parking that says that independent of the minimum amount of
14 parking that a project has to be self-parked? In other words, has to park its usage. It is sort of
15 like the basic speed law when you are driving it says you have to obey the speed limit but you
16 also have to go whatever speed is safe for that road. Is there a generic statement to the effect of
17 that whatever uses there are on a property it has to be self-parked or is there no such rule?
18
19 Mr. Williams: The basic rule is that any project has for the uses that are provided must provide
20 parking that complies with the Zoning Ordinance requirements.
21
22 Commissioner Keller: If the usage for that parcel exceeds the amount of parking required for
23 that by the minimum of the ordinance that it wouldn't have to have the extra parking even if it
24 was needed to self-park?
25
26 Chair Garber: Commissioner may I just ask where you are going and maybe we can get to your
27 point?
28
29 Commissioner Keller: Yes, my point about this is in some sense first of all I think that in some
30 sense there was some statement that I made earlier in the previous hearing to the extent that
31 Arbor Real may be under-parked partly that is the City's rules, but I am also trying to understand
32 the extent to which our Zoning Ordinance has this sort of basic rule or whether the Zoning
33 Ordinance simply says you have to put this minimun1 number based on some calculation. That
34 affects for example what happens at Dinah's in terms of our zoning and whether that is
35 sufficiently parked, which affects the nature of the potential overflow parking from that.
36
37 Chair Garber: Thank you. Anything else?
38
39 Commissioner Keller: I don't know if I got an answer to that question.
40
41 Mr. Williams: I think the answer is still that the code prescribes the minimum and more can be
42 provided.
43
44 Chair Garber: Let me interrupt just to see if I am getting it. What you are trying to do is you are
45 trying to get some potentially base causes for some of the parking issues that are before us not
46 specifically related to this item.
Page 12
1
2 Commissioner Keller: Well, the issues could conle up when Dinah's is redeveloped, and
3 therefore what I am trying to understand is the issue whether the minimum parking is only what
4 is specified by code or if a usage calculation says that more parking is needed than code requires
5 whether the City can require that amount of parking or is it limited to the City ordinance.
6
7 Chair Garber: I think I am understanding you. Let me see if I can focus you on this itenl and
8 when the opportunity arises once that Dinah's or whomever comes and looks to create a project
9 then we can work specifically on what those issues are. The larger issues although of interest to
10 the Commission I think we should agendize or take up in a separate topic.
11
12 Commissioner Keller: That is fine I am done with that particular question, but I think it is
13 interesting to understand that and certainly we did not prohibit Arbor Real fronl having more
14 parking than the minimum.
15
16 Just an editorial comment, on Attachment C in the main Staff Report there is an RM-15 listed on
17 the logical south of the easement. The unlabeled portion, which is presumably also RM-15,
18 should also be labeled to make clear that that is indeed changed as well because it is bisected by
19 the parcel.
20
21 Since it came up that the park within the development, the park that is on the screen and that is
22 within the SummerHill development, should we rezone that as PF because parks are generally
23 zoned as PF, Public Facilities? I realize that is not exactly before us.
24
25 Mr. Williams: Yes, it is not and I don't think it is necessary to. We could consider that at a
26 future date because there may be some other parks around and maybe look at that
27 comprehensively citywide if there is a need to update our PF zoning.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: One advantage of doing that is it would basically make it clear on a
30 zoning map that there is a park there for anybody who looked at that. That would be part of the
31 Comprehensive Plan so it would be more likely to show up if that zoning were redone. Thank
32 you.
33
34 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Fineberg and then Martinez.
35
36 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to start with just a general comment that the reason we are
37 talking about this tonight I think just shines a real bright light to the need for the City to do an
38 analysis and possibly an update of the parking requirements for nlultifamily residential
39 developments. Without that kind of analysis, without knowing whether the citizens are claiming
40 it is under-parked, or the citizens are claiming it is over-parked, without the City's and Staff or
41 Staff consultants conducting that analysis we don't know whether overflow parking is going to
42 be an issue. So frankly I am blind to the facts when making the decision and I am concenled
43 because we are in one way trying to protect the residents of the adj acent single family
44 neighborhood but then in another way not constrain gaining access for pedestrians. I don't think
45 we are necessarily taking the steps in the right order. So this to me just underscores the need to
Page 13
1 conduct an analysis so if the requirements are not adequate we don't keep making the same
2 mistakes.
3
4 To some specifics, on Attachment B in the main Staff Report, page one. I appreciate receiving
5 the easement document today/tonight. In section B where it says the Planning and
6 Transportation Commission has reviewed the facts presented at the public hearing, including
7 public testimony and reports and recommendations from the Director of Planning. The easement
8 report to me goes to the facts of the case because without that it is the best of intentions and
9 wishes. So while I understand the easement is not in our purview it basically states many of the
10 facts that we base consistency with Comprehensive Plan and many of the other things that we are
11 being asked to decide tonight.
12
13 Going down to Section 2 on that same page, the first page of the ordinance, it says the Council
14 finds that the public interest, health, and .... so these are the findings that City Council is required
15 to determine. It says, "The City Council finds that the public interest, health, and welfare require
16 an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto as set forth in Section 3." Focus on
17 that word 'require.' My question for City Staff is where does that statement of findings come
18 from? Then what is the threshold for the determination of require?
19
20 Ms. Tronguet: It is a zoning decision so it actually probably could be worded a little bit better
21 than 'require' and we will work on it before it goes to Council. The standard for making zoning
22 decisions is whether the change that you are making is reasonably related to the public health,
23 safety, and welfare. So that is probably a better way to think about it than requires, and whether
24 it furthers the public health, safety, and welfare. So that is probably where the required came
25 from. Does that make sense?
26
27 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes it does, and I appreciate that because to be quite frank I don't think
28 this zoning change is not something that is required for public safety. Does it increase the public
29 benefit of access of park? If one thinks of it as an improvement I can get there. I don't think I
30 can get to required.
31
32 Ms. Tronguet: When you make zoning decisions you are always sort of weighing competing
33 interests and so ultimately the determination that you make you just have to make a finding that
34 you think what you are doing furthers the public health, safety, and welfare.
35
36 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. On the signature page, page 5 of the easement a quick
37 question. I don't know if it is just a placeholder or if it has some meaning that has escaped me,
38 on the Easement Agreement, fifth page, on the left hand column it says Approved as to Form,
39 Senior Assistant City Attorney, electric. What is the electric?
40
41 Ms. Tronquet: A typo to me.
42
43 Conunissioner Fineberg: Okay. Thank you I wasn't sure if I missed something. Has the City
44 Staff or any consultants conducted any parking analysis after any of our multifamily homes have
45 been built?
46
Page 14
1 Mr. Williams: We have not. We would like to do that. We have been waiting for them to be
2 more fully completed before we do that. I think it is problematic to do that while there is still
3 construction of some homes and that kind of thing going on. So we are at that point with Arbor
4 Real and would like to see SummerHill get finished too and then probably go in and do a full
5 parking study. As we move into discussing permit parking one of the first steps in that analysis
6 is for us to actually do a parking analysis of different segments of the streets in the area, where
7 the cars are coming from, and that kind of thing. So that would be part of that process as well.
8
9 Commissioner Fineberg: Great. I am glad to hear that and would encourage Staff to consider
10 looking at the projects that are over by Fabian. I believe it is in the same situation where when
11 everything in that corridor comes online we are already seeing some changes and it is unknown
12 what is going to happen when everything is fully completed. So thank you.
13
14 One of the members of the public had commented that Arbor Real has converted some of its
15 visitor parking into residential parking. One, is that permitted by code? Two, is there any
16 knowledge of whether that has happened or not?
17
18 Mr. Williams: What I have understood from the written materials that were submitted and to
19 some extent from the comments is that they have gone in and required people to clean out the
20 garages who were not using their garages first of all. Then secondly they have instituted this
21 measure that looks like it is basically preventing people from using the guest parking spaces
22 illegally. So the residents should not be using the guest parking spaces. Those need to be left
23 available for the guests not for the residents themselves. They are not just extra spaces for
24 residents. So that seems to be what they are focused.
25
26 Again, we have not had that specific discussion but we don't think anything has been done that
27 changes the allocation of parking spaces or the number of parking spaces available out there. It
28 is just more of an enforcement mechanism that they are working on to be sure that the spaces and
29 garages remain available and the guest spaces remain available for guests.
30
31 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, because I believe I heard a member of the public say they have
32 reduced the guest parking and converted those to residential. That would be a cause for concern
33 if that has happened.
34
35 So we have talked about the fact that we can't condition the Zoning Ordinance but the easement
36 has conditions in it. I may not say this correctly but it is my understanding the easement can't be
37 perfected if for instance they appeal the zoning decision, and there are some other conditions that
38 the contract is voided unless certain things happen. Is it possible to have these suggested
39 conditions, the things like the consideration of redwoods, or the consideration of closing access
40 to Dinah's, consideration not requirements. Could those conditions be included as conditions on
41 the grantee within the easement document?
42
43 Ms. Tronquet: The purpose of the easement is really to govern the use and access of the
44 easement property. So the sorts of details of how the City as the grantee uses the easement really
45 are not appropriate for the easement.
46
Page 15
1 Then I just sort of want to take you back to focus on the zoning decision itself rather than the
2 tenns of the easement. So I think: as Curtis mentioned before really the mechanism that we put
3 in place to ask that question is the Landscape and Site and Design overlays. That will be a public
4 process and those issues will be fully considered and vetted through that process and that is the
5 reason why we placed those overlays on this zone change.
6
7 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, that's it. Thank: you.
8
9 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Martinez, then Lippert, and then Tuma.
10
11 Commissioner Martinez: I have a question for the City Attorney. I understand, as you just said,
12 that the easement is not really part of our purview tonight but I wanted to ask, and I hope since I
13 am new you will give me some slack, I wanted to ask if there were another fonn of getting the
14 bicycle-pedestrian access without creating an easement? I know there is the expediency of it but
15 was there another way to do it?
16
17 Mr. Williams: The other way to do it was to purchase it and we did look at the cost of that.
18 Without disclosing the appraisal I would say it is certainly prohibitive given the City's financial
19 situation.
20
21 Commissioner Martinez: I understand that.
22
23 Mr. Williams: That was really the only other mechanism left given that all these other properties
24 had already been subdivided up to this property down Wilkie Way. So there were no other
25 avenues to require it in future developments there.
26
27 Commissioner Martinez: Could it have not also been a condition of approval of the development
28 of the Dinah's property?
29
30 Mr. Williams: It could be left to that however, the dilemma that we were in, and the reason the
31 Council directed us to pursue this in a more timely way was because the SummerHill property
32 there with the park that proposed path that comes out and connects to this easement is dedicated
33 as an easement there on the condition that the City obtain an easement by, it was March of this
34 year and it is now September of this year. Ifwe don't then that easement goes away.
35
36 Now there is another easement about two-thirds of the way down the property towards EI
37 Camino that still could connect but it is not very convenient to getting to the park from there. So
38 this had a timeframe on it. The SummerHill easement connection to the park right there that you
39 see, that thin green strip, is what really was compelling as far as trying to do something in this
40 timeframe. Otherwise we could wait until Dinah's redeveloped and see. We also need to have a
41 legal nexus, which the attorney could speak to, whether that would exist or not with the Dinah's
42 redevelopment to be able to require it. It may not, in which case we couldn't even make that
43 requirement upon the redevelopment.
44
Page 16
1 Commissioner Martinez: I am concerned, not concerned, I just observed that in doing it this way
2 we are committed to the design, construction, maintenance costs of the easement forever.
3 Basically that is true. Do we have an idea of what those costs are?
4
5 Mr. Williams: I don't believe in talking to our Transportation Staff that the costs of construction
6 are really extensive. It is the maintenance, I just don't know what the maintenance would be, but
7 I would think that the construction cost is probably less than $50,000 nlaybe considerably less
8 than that. It depends also on the nature of how much we put into it and what kind of materials
9 we use. Do we go for the Cadillac 130 foot long pathway or do we put decomposed granite and
10 a few strategically placed trees?
11
12 Commissioner Martinez: I appreciate that. Does Dinah's have permission to also nlake use of
13 the easement? For example in grading, grading is grading, drainage goes wherever the water
14 needs to go. Do they have the ability to nln utilities through that to allow surface drainage
15 through our sewer systems? Is that available to them as well?
16
17 Mr. Williams: The Attorney would have to say whether there is a utility. There may be lines
18 subsurface connections that I would think might be allowed within that but that wouldn't conflict
19 with the use of the easement. I don't think grading and construction within it that would in any
20 way impede the landscape and pathway use of the property would be allowable.
21
22 Ms. Tronguet: They shouldn't be doing anything that interferes with our use of that easement.
23 So to the extent that something like that barred public access that would be a problem, but I don't
24 know the details of the utilities there. .so beyond that I really can't speak to it.
25
26 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. I echo Commissioner Holman's concern about making sure it is
27 clear that there is no vehicular access. When we say that there is going to be emergency vehicle
28 access to me that means a 20-foot wide access way for a fire truck. Do we have to include that
29 as a possibility or a certainty to the project? Cannot Dinah's be responsible for getting
30 emergency vehicles in and out of their property?
31
32 Mr. Williams: I think we could potentially revisit that at the time there is a redevelopment on the
33 Dinah's site. At this point I think we want to preserve that potential. I don't think our fire
34 department would require 20 feet clearance. I think they would probably be able to use ten to 14
35 feet and I am anticipating the pathway is going to be probably ten feet wide. But it is not
36 absolutely necessary that we would have to say emergency vehicle use is permitted but I don't
37 think we want to preclude that at this point either. I think it is useful.
38
39 We don't have that. We do have a couple of other points back along Wilkie Way where there
40 have been emergency vehicle access provided through some other developments but it is
41 circuitous to get up to or it would be to get to the Dinah's property. So it is probably worthwhile
42 to have something from Wilkie in that direction as well.
43
44 Commissioner Martinez: Yes, I think if we could sort of steer it so we are discouraging that use
45 of the pathway I think that would support our effort to try to make sure it is not looking like a
Page 17
1 roadway for motorcycles and cars and others that want to take a shortcut. So I would encourage
2 that in the planning of the pathway.
3
4 My last comment is I really want to acknowledge public speakers for their community-
5 mindedness of the importance of making the park accessible to SummerHill and to the rest of the
6 community. Ijust want to say as a person who lived with residential parking permits it is more
7 of a hardship on residents than on others coming to park there. Even though I had plenty of off
8 street parking there were times when I was only going to be in the house for a minute, came
9 back, ticket. When I had out of town guests, ticket. When my teenagers started to drive, ticket.
10 It really becomes, since you feel like you have adequate parking and you are trying to keep
11 others out it actually really comes back to haunt you in so many ways. If we can find another
12 measure to make sure that parking on the street is avail~ble to you I would really look for that
13 effort. Thank you.
1'4
15 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert, Tuma, Holman.
16
17 Commissioner Lippert: In the interest of moving us along I really just have a couple of quick
18 questions and then I will make a couple of comments. On the draft Easement Agreement I have
19 a question on the second page. Number three, no vehicular use, would that prohibit Public
20 Works and maintenance and utility trucks from accessing that site also? Or is that just an
21 oversight and we can include that language so that Public Works can do their maintenance?
22
23 Ms. Tronguet: We can look into it.
24
25 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then with regard to the permit parking issue, Staff is not
26 recommending having permit parking in place by the time the easement or the rezone goes into
27 place it is just merely a study would be done for the permit parking would be done at that time.
28
29 Mr. Williams: We don't anticipate the study would be done by the time the easement or the
30 rezoning goes to Council, which is a month from now. It is going to take awhile. What we want
31 to be sure of is that that analysis and everything is done before go out and build a pathway
32 connection.
33
34 Commissioner Lippert: So an analysis would be done.
35
36 Mr. Williams: Which frankly is not going to happen in the next few months. We just budget-
37 wise need to look at it and so it is going to be down the road a ways before we actually get to
38 funding the design of a pathway, and then coming through the public process, and reviewing
39 that, so there is some time to work on that.
40
41 Commissioner Lippert: So there is no connection at the current time between having the
42 functioning easement and permit parking?
43
44 Mr. Williams: Right.
45
Page 18
1 Commissioner Lippert: With that I would like to make a couple of really quick comments. First
2 of all I want to thank the members of the public that gave their testimony today. I think we
3 really appreciate it and particularly would like to thank Jean Olmstead for her diligence in tenns
4 of her parking count. I bicycle through that neighborhood frequently on weekends. In fact I cut
5 down Edlee and Wilkie Way towards Arastradero Creek to cut across to get to Los Altos and
6 Foothill Expressway. Driving down that street on a Sunday morning you can actually shoot a
7 cannon down that street and not hit anything. That is how wide it is and how much parking there
8 is on that street. What I would really hate to see happen is a bad decision make a series of
9 cascading other bad decisions. I think as Commissioner Martinez had spoken parking pennits in
10 some ways become more of a hardship on the residents along that street or a neighborhood than
11 it does upon the people that are visiting that neighborhood. I think back to studying urban design
12 and reading Jane Jacobs and Making Cities Livable. Parking is a very important component of
13 the life and fabric ofa city in tenns of people having an investment on the street. Ifpeople are
14 not parking on the street they are not watching the street and they are not talking about having
15 safe streets. Parking goes in hand-in-glove with the idea or the notion of having activity. We do
16 have in place a series of ordinances already that number one, we don't have people sleeping in
17 cars. The police can take action if there is a neighbor complaining about that. Number two, you
18 are not supposed to be parking Winnebago's or trucks overnight on streets. They are supposed
19 to be either in driveways or in other areas. Number three, a neighbor can call if a car has been
20 left abandoned for up to three days and that can be tagged and towed at the owner's expense.
21 What I see here is that a mistake or an oversight on the part of Staff or another Board might have
22 made with regard to Arbor Real and enclosed garages, and reducing parking by having those
23 spaces used as storage spaces is potentially impacting the adjacent street. However, it sounds
24 like Arbor Real is beginning to make movement in the direction of correcting that problem
25 thereby bringing the parking back on their site again. I would hate to see us make a rash decision
26 or make a decision that would tie our hands in tenns of pennit parking in a neighborhood that
27 would then impact that neighborhood in a way that would be really detrimental to undennining
28 the urban fabric and neighborhood character.
29
30 With that the merits of the easement I think are quite important. We have in place in the
31 Comprehensive Plan a commitment to provide neighborhood parks for every 5,000 units of
32 housing. The proposed park that and easement that is there we are going to lose that opportunity
33 to have a connection to the adjacent neighborhood on Wilkie Way if we don't take action and
34 decide to rezone that little piece of property by putting in that connection. That little
35 neighborhood is going to miss the opportunity to have a neighborhood park and connection. So
36 again what I am saying here is I think that a series of perhaps one bad mistake is beginning to
37 cascade into another series of other potentially bad judgnlents.
38
39 So those are basically my comments. I am in support of the rezone. I think it is a great
40 opportunity here and if we don't act on it soon it will be an opportunity lost.
41
42 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Tuma and then Holman.
43
44 Vice-Chair Tuma: Just one quick question for Staff. Could you just reiterate very clearly what
45 the consequence of not doing this by September is?
46
Page 19
1 Mr. Williams: The consequence is that the easement connection between the park and this strip
2 of land is lost. It won't be consummated and recorded by SummerHill Homes.
3
4 MOTION
5
6 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, thank you. With that I would like to move the Staff recommendation.
7
8 SECOND
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: I will second that.
11
12 Chair Garber: Would the maker of the motion like to speak to their motion?
,13
14 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yes, a couple of brief comments. First, I think that the concerns of the
15 neighborhood are certainly legitimate and need to be addressed, but I am also very comfortable
16 that a project will come back to us. So I am quite confident that this Commission as well as the
1 7 public through the process will make sure that the concerns that the public has had get addressed.
18 What the outcomes of those will be we don't know yet but I am confident that through that
19 process we will make sure that those concerns are addressed.
20
21 Further, I am able to find that the public interest, health, and welfare will be bettered by an
22 amendment to the Zoning Map and that such changes would be in accordance with the purpose
23 and intent of the zoning title and Comprehensive Plan. Also, that the Comprehensive Plan
24 Amendment will benefit the public interest, health, safety, and welfare of Palo Alto and the
25 surrounding region in that the changes will bring consistency to the land use designation of the
26 area, and will facilitate the developnlent of a better buffer and transition between surrounding
27 land uses. Those are my reasons for making the motion.
28
29 Chair Garber: Thank you. Would the seconder like to speak to their second?
30
31 Commissioner Lippert: I concur with Vice-Chair Tuma's comments. I would just like to add to
32 that with regard to the issue of the trees we do have an Architectural Review Board, they do look
33 at landscaping issues, and it will come back to us for Site and Design issues. So I think we are
34 pretty well covered with regard to those aspects. I think the overlay D designation works more
35 than adequately in terms of covering the last items including any closures or impediments we
36 would want to place.
37
38 Chair Garber: Discussion. I have lights from Commissioners Holman, Fineberg, and Keller.
39
40 Commissioner Holman: I have one question for City Staff still. Top of page two, the Easement
41 Agreement, and this goes to are we going to get what we say we are going to get? It starts on the
42 previous line, public access easement subject to Section 2 below, etc. Top of page two it says,
43 collectively the grantee parties a nonexclusive easement. So if it is nonexclusive who else has
44 right to use this easement?
45
Page 20
1 Ms. Tronquet: It is an easement for the public so anyone will be able to use it. The intention of
2 the City is to make a public path.
3
4 Commissioner Holman: Well, but it is the public's discretion, excuse me it is the grantee's
5 discretion.
6
7 Ms. Tronquet: Since the terms of the easement itself are not before you I will take note of that
8 and we will review it.
9
10 Commissioner Holman: It is very pertinent to how I am going to vote frankly because if what
11 we are looking at is if the public is going to get a public easement and as our new Commissioner
12 pointed out if it is used also for emergency vehicular access then if emergency vehicles can use it
13 and it is a nonexclusive easement, who else has right to use that property for what purposes?
14 Then are we going to get what we say we are going to get? It goes to the heart of the matter. It
15 is not a matter of what the easement language is it goes to the heart of the purpose of our
16 rezoning and the Comprehensive Plan change.
17
18 Ms. Tronquet: No one is going to be able to do anything that interferes with the rights that are
19 set forth in this easement for the City. If they do we will be able to enforce the rights that are in
20 this easement.
21
22 Commissioner Holman: So you can point me somewhere in the easement agreement, because I
23 do note that in the Easement Agreement it says if I read it correctly and quickly, that the use of
24 the easement would not interfere with the enjoyment of the property by the owners of Dinah's
25 property. So I did not run across any language that said that the use of the Dinah's property
26 would not interfere with the public's right of enjoyment of the easement. If you can point me
27 somewhere that corrects that I am very, very happy to hear it.
28
29 Ms. Tronguet: I am not clear on what the question is.
30
31 Chair Garber: May I? It may be helpful to focus the issue if maybe there is an example of how
32 you are thinking this may be taken advantage of.
33
34 Commissioner Holman: So if it is a nonexclusive easement then is there anything that the City
35 could do to preclude the emergency access to Dinah's through this easement, for instance?
36
37 Ms. Tronguet: Well, we said we would look at the emergency access issue. I didn't negotiate
38 this. I imagine there was a reason that they put emergency vehicle access. I think its stated
39 under the agreement pretty clearly which are to build and maintain a public walkway,
40 landscaping and related improvements, and to provide members of the public pedestrian and/or
41 bicycle access to, from, over, along, and across the easement property. So those are the rights
42 that the City is getting and this easement gives the City.
43
44 Mr. Williams: It is granting rights in this easement to the grantee. It is not for somebody else to
45 be able to use this. The nonexclusive as Melissa said is to assure that we can't keep someone
Page 21
1 else from being able to use these for these purposes. So I sort of understand where you are
2 coming from but I think this language covers all that and it is just legal jargon to some extent.
3
4 Commissioner Holman: Well, if I could suggest that perhaps the language might be clarified a
5 little bit for Council before it goes to Council. I will make a couple of conmlents and then I will
6 ask for a couple of amendments if I could.
7
8 I came here thinkingl I would'support this and I still am going to support it but I have to say I am
9 not enthusiastic. The reason is because, and I empathize with Staff because I think Staffis in a
10 very, very difficult negotiating position with this. We are giving up an awful lot to get
11 something that again, I am not 100 percent comfortable that we are going to get what the purpose
12 IS.
13
14 So the couple of amendments that I would like are to be noted I guess this doesn't have to an
15 amendment to the motion but just to make sure that it is noted that the changes within the
16 easement agreement per previous having to do with Exhibit A, those changes will be made, and
17 that the grantor language will be changed on the first page of the Easement Agreement.
18
19 Also ask of the maker of the motion that we use the alternate language for the life, health, safety
20 language, the alternate language that was provided as a response to questions.
21
22 Vice-Chair Tuma: I did. I actually did use the alternate language when I made the motion.
23
24 Commissioner Holman: I didn't understand that. I am sorry. Thank you very much.
25
26 Also that Staff consider some way of, and if maker would accept this, the Staff look at making
27 some kind of memo that could be attached to this agreement so that the addressing of redwoods,
28 oaks, and the parking permit system could happen with this. Understand that it can't be a part of
29 this document but a memo attached to it. The reason is because the reasons I stated previously
30 and I can just see this coming to the ARB, yes they are going to do their job, Planning
31 Commission is going to do their job, and also the public is going to have to birddog it yet again
32 to see that they are getting what they are told they are going to get. If maker would consider that.
33
34 Ms. Tronguet: Just to clarify. The comments on the easement can't be part of the motion
35 because the easement is not on the agenda. But we will certainly take note. I am not sure if I
36 understood you.
37
38 Commissioner Holman: I wasn't trying to make those as a part of the motion just a clarification
39 that those were being addressed by Staff. Thank you.
40
41 Vice-Chair Tuma: Mr. Planning Director do you have a comment on that?
42
43 Mr. Williams: I am not quite sure, I think the best we can do is note in the record that these
44 things are intended. I don't know what you attach a letter to. It can't be to the easement. A
45 letter attached to the zoning is as you pointed out you are not going back and looking at the
46 zoning amendment itself. You have the zoning, the controls in place are the D and L overlays
Page 22
1 that require a Conditional Use Permit and Site and Design Review when these things come
2 through. If the Commission chooses to recommend that we could try to work something up but I
3 think we would recommend to Council that they not include that.
4
5 Chair Garber: Commissioner, a suggestion. If I am understanding you correctly what you are
6 recognizing is that there is no way to utilize the actions that are before us to tie those particular
7 issues to. We can't make that connection. To talk about it in a slightly different way what you
8 are really wanting to do is create a memo to file so we don't forget this stuff.
9
10 Commissioner Holn1an: Exactly, and especially in this case because we have already been
11 through this once with these same neighbors saying that this wouldn't happen and now it is
12 happening. I just think if we could fmd a way to do it, and I am not saying how it should be
13 done.
14
15 Chair Garber: So just as perhaps an unusual way of doing this but is it imaginable that we could
16 create a Colleague's Memo that is essentially to ourselves on this topic? It is sort of circular.
17
18 Mr. Williams: I don't see why can't provide as part of the record in the minutes that this is what
19 you are directing that these things be addressed as part of the project.
20
21 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman.
22
23 Commissioner Holman: That is very satisfactory.
24
25 Chair Garber: Okay.
26
27. Commissioner Holman: Does the maker accept that?
28
29 Chair Garber: Was there an action there or just simply an acknowledgement that the let me ask
30 you, Commissioner Holman, what do you think the action is there relative to the inclusion of the
31 minutes?
32
33 Commissioner Holman: Well there is some agreement among Commissioners that that action
34 take place.
35
36 Chair Garber: Let's do this, straw poll?
37
38 Vice-Chair Tuma: I am amenable let's just amend the motion.
39
40 Chair Garber: Okay, we will leave it as an amendment. The seconder?
41
42 Commissioner Lippert: Sure I will go along with it.
43
44 Chair Garber: Okay. Anything else? Commissioner Fineberg and then Keller. I am going to
45 remind everybody that we are at our hour and one-half mark so let's move forward.
46
Page 23
1 Commissioner Fineberg: In my mind this project is very right and very wrong, more so than I
2 think anything else we have deliberated on. Our Comprehensive Plan is very clear that we value
3 walkable neighborhoods, we value parkland for our residents, and we value comfortable good
4 spaces for people to live in. Having a landlocked park in a walled community is not consistent
5 with our Comprehensive Plan. What is before us tonight is kind of the last chance to fix it in a
6 good way. That is the right part about this proposal.
7
8 The wrong part is that what we are doing is burdening the taxpayers with a public park on an
9 easement that will have to be maintained by the City. We are shifting the impacts of parking
10 potentially to the single family residents that were promised protections. None of that would
11 have been necessary if the original projects had been planned correctly and planned with the
12 values implemented that we have in our Comprehensive Plan. So to fix it we do what is on the
13 proposed action tonight.
14
15 As far as Commissioner Holman's comments about sort of those additional assurances to the
16 residents, the protections, or the kind of memory of what our intentions are I absolutely agree
17 with the value in doing that. I am not sure I am clear right now whether we as a body have
18 determined what those intentions are. I am hearing that some of us want some protected trees,
19 that some of us want restrictions or minimization of access for emergency vehicles. I am hearing
20 that some of us want restrictions from the Dinah property so that it doesn't become a channel for
21 offsite parking from the Elk's. That might possibly be a fence when there is a project before us.
22 Were there other things? The list of Commissioner Holman's suggestions, we have had different
23 people throwing up different ideas through the night. So can we have one list so it is in one
24 place?
25
26 Ms. Tronquet: That will be something you will be able to consider when the actual design of the
27 path comes back to you.
28
29 Conlffiissioner Fineberg: Okay. My concern with that is what happens if that comes back to the
30 Commission in five years, in ten years, or in 20 years? I know that CUPs get lost. I know that
31 minutes get lost. If it is 20 or 25 years from now there are still going to be people in those single
32 family homes that don't want overflow parking. So to me it is just urgent that there be some
33 organizational memory that it remains in a place that people can find it. So can we have a .
34 summary of what those item all were and rather than it being my suggestion, your suggestion, if
35 we can maybe straw poll so it is clear that we agree?
36
37 Commissioner Holman: Chair Garber if I might, and I am sorry to inteIj ect. The only intention
38 that I had was that it carried forward was the consideration of oaks and redwoods per the
39 neighbors' specific request. The consideration of redwoods and oaks such as are described in the
40 request and the consideration and discussion with the neighbors about a permit parking system.
41 Those are the only two things that I had intended to be included in that memo.
42
43 Vice-Chair Tuma: That is what I understood was being added to the motion as well.
44
45 Commissioner Lippert: That is what I understood that it was purely a list to tickle the memories
46 of people.
Page 24
1
2 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so several people talked about consideration of restricting access
3 from Dinah's basically building across to the property line. Would we want to add that or no?
4
5 Chair Garber: Commissioners? I think we can't touch that because it is not part of the nexus of
6 the items that are in front of us. Is that correct? However, I think to the Commissioner's point
7 this would be on the memory list of things that would be captured as part of the minutes of this
8 project that would then be a part of an item that would come to us that would look to make
9 modifications to the Dinah property, etc.
10
11 Mr. Williams: My understanding is that the highlight of, and the minutes of issues the
12 Commission highlighted were as Commissioner Holman just stated those two items. I think
13 there were several other things that were brought up, they are in the minutes of the meeting, but
14 what we will do for the Council purposes is highlight as subsequent to the motion that these
15 couple of issues were particularly identified as issues to be considered at the time design and
16 parking programs come forward.
17
18 Chair Garber: Commissioner is that?
19
20 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, I am fine with that but I am not sure that I understand why
21 sonlething like a parking program offsite would be in our purview but the intention of restricting
22 access or a fence wouldn't be. So we don't have to pick nits on that and I am fine if that is the
23 consensus of the group I am comfortable with that.
24
25 So I will be supporting the motion in particular with the changes to the wording of the findings
26 that were stated by Conlffiissioner Tuma. Thank you.
27
28 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
29
30 Commissioner Keller: So most parks in Palo Alto have limited hours of access. Would the City
31 of Palo Alto be able to limit access to the easenlent to the access when the park is open?
32
33 Ms. Tronguet: I think so but that will probably be something that is determined as part of the
34 Conditional Use Permit process when the landscape and Site and Design is considered.
35
36 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I assume that the start of paragraph one of the agreement
37 which basically refers to invitees that those invitees are effectively members of the public that
38 are referenced in I and II down further? Thank you.
39
40 I have a question about number five. The last sentence in number five basically says if repairs or
41 special maintenance to the property become necessary as a result of the use of the easement
42 property or grantees improvements thereto, as grantor may determine in its reasonable discretion
43 grantee shall reimburse grantor for all the reasonable costs and expenses associated with
44 performing such work with respect to the property. I would encourage you to tighten up that
45 language that essentially doesn't allow, basically the grantee could decide that they want better
Page 25
1 pavement or whatever because they don't like the way it is and the City could be stuck paying
2 for it. So I would be very cautious about that language.
3
4 Ms. Tronquet: It is fairly standard language actually but we will take it under advisement.
5
6 Commissioner Keller: In addition of the important issues of the nonexclusive easement in item
7 one is that because it is nonexclusive Dinah's retains access to the easement and therefore based
8 on the wording of the easement we are essentially allowing Dinah's to provide, unless it is
9 prohibited through some other mechanism, allowing Dinah's to use that as an easement from
10 their property for pedestrian and bicycle use from their property to Wilkie Way. Now whether
11 we want to allow that or not this rule does not prohibit that.
12
13 Ms. Tronquet: It states in paragraph one that it is for public use.
14
15 Commissioner Keller: Dinah's guests and whatever are just as members of the public as any
16 residents in the area. Public is public so they would qualify wouldn't they?
17
18 Ms. Tronquet: Yes, sure.
19
20 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So let me make a comment or two. The first thing is that it
21 will be years before the path opens. I understand from Staff that the City will be addressing the
22 parking and overflow issues before the path opens. However, once the path opens the parking
23 overflow issues may get worse so I am not sure how that will be addressed because it will be the
24 path that increases the overflow potentially. However, even though this is a potential which we
25 have to do now in order to perfect the easement from SummerHill nonetheless Dinah's by virtue
26 of this rezoning now whether a path is ever built gets increased density on their property for
27 potential future development. So that is worthwhile making clear. Dinah's gets something as a
28 result of this and the City gets the ability to build a path for which it pays for. I guess that is
29 because we didn't take advantage of the ability to force SummerHill to have a path at the time
30 that SummerHill was developed, in which case they would have paid for the path and its
31 maintenance. So that is something to consider.
32
33 The reason that we are all here because of the worry about whether there should be access to
34 Wilkie or not is because our parking requirements have minimum parking requirements. While
35 developers could have more parking than the minimum that is required there is no obligation to
36 do, there is no financial incentive to do so, in fact there are plenty of financial incentives for
37 them not to do so. There is no mechanism for the City to force them to provide for parking. So I
38 will take this opportunity to encourage the rest of the Commission that at some point in the
39 future when it reviews the parking ordinance to have a basic parking rule that says unless you are
40 in a parking assessment district for which offsite parking makes sense, and you pay for that, all
41 projects are self-parked. If that requires additional parking then is otherwise required by the
42 minimum in the Zoning Ordinance then so be it but essentially any project of a particular size
43 has to do an analysis of how much parking you would need and provide it. So I think that would
44 help in the future.
45
Page 26
1 I will support this motion. In some sense this is fixing a series of mistakes that have been made
2 and as Commissioner Lippert said not cascading them. In some sense we are leaving certainly
3 problems potentially for the future.
4
5 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
6
7 Chair Garber: Thank you. As the Chair I will be supporting the motion for the reasons that the
8 maker and seconder have stated. I do think that even though the action before us does not
9 include the easement that had we gotten it a little earlier we may have been able to keep some of
10 the conversation out of the meeting and could have alleviated some of the issues that we had to
11 deal with this evening.
12
13 Let's get to the question. We will close the public hearing. All those in favor of the motion as
14 stated say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? The motion passes unanimously.
Page 27
ATTACHMENT I
18.16.010 Purposes
Chapter 18.16
NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMUNITY, AND
SERVICE COMMERCIAL (CN, CC and CS) DISTRICTS
Sections:
18.16.010
18.16.020
18.16.030
18.16.040
18.16.050
18.16.060
18.16.070
18.16.080
18.16.090
18.16.100
18 .. 16.010
Purposes
AppJicabJe Regulations
Definitions
Land Uses
Office Use Restrictions
Development Standards
Parking and Loading
Perfonnance Standards
Context-Based Design Criteria
Grandfathered Uses
Purposes
The commercial zoning districts are intended to create and nlaintain sites for retail, personal services,
eating and drinking establishments, hotels and other business uses in a manner that balances the
needs of those uses with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods.
(a) Neighborhood Commercial [CN]
The CN neighborhood commercial district is intended to create and maintain neighborhood
shopping areas prilnarily accommodating retail sales, personal service, eating and drinking,
and office uses of moderate size serving the immediate neighborhood, under regulations that
will assure maximum conlpatibility with sunounding residential areas.
(b) Community Commercia] [CC]
The CC community commercial district is intended to create and maintain major commercial
centers' accommodating a broad range of office, retail sales, and other commercial activities
of cOlnrnunity-wide or regional significance. The CC community commercial district is
intended to be applied to regionaVcommunity commercial centers identified by the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan.
(c) Community COll1ll1ercial (2) Subdistrict [CC(2)]
The community commercial (2) (CC(2)) subdistrict is intended to modify the site
development regulations of the CC community commercial district, where applied in
combination with such district, to allow site specific variations to the community commercial
uses and development requirenlents in the CC district.
(d) Service COlllmercial [CS]
The CS service conmlercial district is intended to create and maintain areas accommodating
citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood or pedestrian-
Ch.18.16 Pagel (Supp. No 13 101112007)
18.16.020 Applicable Regulations
oriented shopping areas, and which generally require automotive access for customer
convenience, servicing of vehicles or equipment, loading or unloading, or parking of
conunercial service vehicles.
(Ord. 4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006)
18.16.020 Applicable Regulations
(a) Applicable Chapters
The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and procedures
established by other relevant chapters of the Zoning Code shall apply to the CN, CS, and CC
distIicts, and the subdistrict designated as CC(2), as shown on the city s Zoning Map. The
term abutting residential zones, where used in this chapter, includes the Rl, R2, RMD,
RM-15, RM-30, RM-40, or residential Planned Community (PC) districts, unless otherwise
specifically noted.
. (b) A pplica ble Combining Districts
The combining districts applicable to the CN, CS, CC and CC(2) distIi.cts shall include, but
shall not be limited to,. the following districts:
(1) The retail shopping (R) combining district regulations, as specified in Chapter
18.30(A), shall apply to the area of the CN, CS, and CC districts designated as R
combining district as shown on the city s Zoning Map.
(2) The pedestrian shopping (P) combining dishict regulations, as specified in Chapter
18.30(B), shall apply to the area of the CN, CS, CC and CC(2) dishicts designated
P combining district as shown on the City s Zoning Map.
(Ord. 4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006)
18.16.030 Definitions
For the purposes of this section, the following terms are defined:
(a) Charleston Shopping Center is defined as all properties zoned CN and bounded by
East Charleston Road, Middlefield Road, and Cubberley Community Center.
(b) Midtown Shopping District is defined as a11 properties zoned CN in the vicinity of the
intersection of Colorado Avenue and Middlefield Road which border Moreno A venue,
Bryson A venue, Colorado A venue, and San Carlos Court, or which border Middlefield
Road in the area extending from Moreno Avenue to San Carlos Court.
(c) Town and Country Village Shopping Center is defined as all properties zoned CC and
bounded by El Camino Real, Embarcadero Road, Encina A venue, and the Southern
Pacific right-of-way.
(d) Stanford Shopping Center is defined as all properties zoned CC and bounded by El
Camino Real, Sand Hill Road, Quarry Road, and Vineyard Lane.
(e) Neighborhood-serving offices are medical offices, professional offices, travel
agencies, and insurance agencies that fit the definition of a neighborhood-serving use.
(Supp. No 13 I ()!lI2007) Ch. 18.16 Page 2
18.16.040 Land Uses
(f) A neighborhood serving use is a use that prunarily serves individual consumers and
households, not businesses, is generally pedesuian oriented in design, and does not generate
noise, fumes or truck traffic greater than that typically expected for uses with a local
customer base. A neighborhood-serving use is also one to whlch a significant number of
customers and clients travel, rather than the provider of the goods or services traveling off-site.
(g) Ground floor shall mean the first floor that is above grade.
(h) Mixed use development shall mean a combination of nonresidential and residential
uses ananged on a site. The uses may be combined in a vertical configuration (within a
building) or in a horizontal configuration (separate buildings).
(Ord. 4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006)
Land Uses
The uses of Jand allowed by this chapter in each commercial zoning district are identified in the
following tables. Land uses that are not listed on the tables are not al1owed, except where otherwise
noted. Where the last column on the following tables ( Subjectto Regulations in ) includes a section
number, specific regulations in the referenced section also apply to the use; however, provisions in
other sections may apply as well.
(a) Commercial Zones and Land Uses
Permitted and conditionally permitted land uses for each commercia] zone are shown in Table 1:
TABLE 1
CN, CC, CC(2) AND CS PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES
[P = Permitted Use • CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required]
Accessory facilities and activities customarily associated with
or essential to permitted uses, and operated incidental to the
principal use.
Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted
uses (J)
Tire, battery, and automotive service facilities, when operated
incidental to a permitted retail service or shopping center having
a gross floor area of more than 30,000 square feet.
:~bU,CATIONAL/R'E~lGlbU$/AN.b'A$SEM~LY·'·
'USES '" . "
Business and Trade Schools
Churches and Religious Institutions
Private Educational Facilities
Private Clubs, Lodges, or Fraternal Organizations
P
CUP
P
CUP
CUP
IContinued on Next Pagel
Ch.18.16-Page3
P P
CUP CUP
CUP
P P
P P
P P
P P
18.42
18.42
18.42
(Supp. No 13 10/112007)
18.16.040
Administrative Office Services
Medical Offices
Professional and General Business Offices
Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility services but
excluding construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities,
or corporation yards.
Multiple-F amily
Home Occupations
Residential Care Homes
.:.:: ... -: .... : ... :: .. : ',;', ..
::F{~:r:P.IL. U$E~ ..
Eating and Drinking Services, excluding drive-in and take-out
services
Retail Services, excluding liquor stores
Liquor stores
Shopping Centers
Ambulance Services
Animal Care, excluding boarding and kennels
Boarding and Kennels
Automobile Service Stations
Automotive Services
Convalescent Facilities
Day Care Centers
Small Family Day Care Homes
Large Family Day Care Homes
Small Adult Day Care Homes
Large Adult Day Care Homes
Banks and Financial Services
P
P
CUP
CUP
P
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
IContinued on Next Page]
(Supp. No 13 1011/2(07) Ch. 18.16 -Page 4
Land Uses
P P
P P
P P
P 18.16.060(e)
CUP CUP
P P
CUP
CUP CUP 18.30(G)
CUP
P P
P P
P P
P P
P P
P P
P (2) p(2)
18.16.040
General Business Services
Hotels
Mortuaries
Neighborhood Business Services
Personal Services
Reverse Vending Machines
Farmer s Markets
Temporary Parking Facilities, provided that such facilities shall
remain no more than five years.
~;. ::.;~ .. ~ . .. . , :·IRANSf»;QgIAT~~Nyq~,g§ /:U·",i:;:'··'· .
Parking as a principal use
T ransportation Terminals
P = Permitted Use
Land Uses
CUP P
P P 18.16.060(d)
CUP P P
P 18.16.060(D
P P P 18.16.060(D
P P P
CUP CUP
CUP CUP
CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required
(1) Residential is only permitted as part of a mixed use development, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 18.16.060(b), or on sites designated as Housing Opportunity Sites in the Housing Element
of the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.060(c).
(2) Except drive-in services.
(3) So long as drive up facilities, excluding car washes, provide full access to pedestrians and
bicyclists. A maximum of two such services shall be permitted within 1,000 feet, and each use shall
not be less than 150 feet from one another.
(4) For properties in the CN and CS zone districts, businesses that operate or have associated
activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. require a conditional use
permit.
(b) Late Night Use and Activities
The following regulations restrict businesses that operate or have associated activities at any
time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., where such site abuts or is located
within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties.
(1) Such businesses shaH be operated in a manner to protect residential properties from
excessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources during those
hours.
(2) For properties located in the CN or CS zone districts, businesses that operate or have
associated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall
be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of
approval as are deemed necessary to assure that the operations or activities are
compatible with the nearby residentially zoned property.
Ch. 18.16 -Page 5 (Supp. No J 3 1(11/2007)
18.16.040 Land Uses
(c) eN District: Special Use Requirelnents in the Charleston and Midtown Shopping
Centers
The following regulations shall apply to areas of Charleston Center and the Midtown
Shopping Center as defined in Section 18.16.030.
Table 2 shows the uses permitted and conditionally permitted on the ground floor of the
applicable areas of the Charleston Center and Midtown Shopping Centers. Pennitted and
conditional uses specified in subsection (a) of this section shall only apply to the ground floor
of the areas of the Charleston and Midtown Shopping Centers as ]jsted in Table 2. Uses
lawfully existing on January 16,2001 may be continued as non-conforming uses but may
only be replaced with uses permitted or conditionally permitted under this subsection.
TABLE 2
CHARLESTON AND MIDTOWN SHOPPING CENTERS GROUND FLOOR USES
P = Permitted Use • CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required • X = Prohibited Use
Churches and Religious Institutions
Private Educational Facilities
~~.~N:~.~~p:rY·:R~.~~::~N:p ....
;:eRP:<p~~$J.N~ IJ$~?~:··
Neighborhood-serving offices that do not exceed 2,500
square feet in floor area.
Neighborhood-serving offices exceeding 2,500 square feet
in floor area.
Administrative office uses and general business office uses
(other than neighborhood-serving travel agencies and
insurance agencies) other than those legally in existence
on January 16, 2001
Medical offices not exceeding 2,500 square feet in area,
professional offices, travel agencies, and insurance
agencies
'. '.":" .. "-.',", ;::pUBLiCI6UASI~P,lJBLltlJSES ..
Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility services but
excluding construction or storage yards, maintenance
facilities, or corporation yards.
P
CUP
x
CUP
IContinued on Next Page]
(Supp. No 13 10/112007) Ch.18.16-Page6
18.16.050
18.16.050
x 18.16.050
CUP 18.16.050
CUP
18.16.040
Ambulance Services
Animal Care, excluding boarding and kennels
. Automobile Service Stations
Convalescent Facilities
Day Care Centers
Financial Services
Mortuaries
Neighborhood Business Services
Personal Services
Reverse Vending Machines
................................. , -". .., +E~:~:~~~y 0$'ES'
Temporary Parking Facilities, provided that such facilities
shall remain no more than five years.
CUP CUP
P P
CUP CUP
CUP CUP
P P
CUP CUP
CUP CUP
P P
P P
P P
CUP CUP
CUP CUP
P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required
(d) Charleston Shopping Center: Additional Use Restrictions
Land Uses
18.30(G)
x = Prohibited Use
(1) Any office use first occupying space at the Center on or after January 16,2001, shall
obtain a written determination from the director of planning and community
environment that it qualifies as a neighborhood serving use, as defined in this chapter,
before occupying its premises. The applicant shall submit such information as the
director shall reasonably require in order to make the detennination, and the director
shall issue the determination within 30 days of receiving a complete application. Failure
to submit the required information shall be grounds for determining that a business is
not neighborhood-serving.
Ch. 18.16 -Page 7 (Supp No]3 ](Yl/2007)
18.16.050 Office Use Restrictions
(2) No more than 7,850 square feet of total floor area at the Center shall be occupied by
office uses at any time.
(3) Prior to approving a conditional use penuit for neighborhood-serving offices larger than
2,500 square feet in total floor area, the city shaH find that the proposed use will be
neighborhood-serving, that it will be conducted in a manner that will enhance and
strengthen the Center as a neighborhood resource, and that 1t will not diminish the retail
strength of the center.
(e) Midtown Shopping Center: Additional Use Restrictions
(1) An existing ground floor office may be replaced with another office if
(a) the new tenant or owner will continue the existing business or practice; or
(b) a conditional use permit is issued for the new office use.
(2) No conditiona1 use pennit shall be issued for any new office use on the ground floor
unless, in addition to the findings required for a conditional use permit as specified in
Section 18.76.010, the City finds that the proposed use will be neighborhood serving,
that it will be conducted in a manner that will enhance and strengthen the Midtown
Shopping District as a neighborhood resource, and that it will not diminish the retail
strength of the District.
(3) For properties at 711,719, and 721 Colorado Avenue, and 689 Bryson Avenue,
buildings not fronting on Middlefield Avenue, designed and used for office purposes,
and not well suited to other uses are exempt from tbe provisions of this subsection (b).
(Ord. 4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006)
18016.050 Office Use Restrictions
The following restrictions shall apply to office uses:
(a) Conversion of Ground Floor Housing and Non-Office Commercial to Office
Medical, Professional, and Business offices shall not be located on the ground floor, unless
such offices either:
(1) Have been continuously in existence in that space since March 19,2001, and as of such
date, were neither non-conforming nor in the process of being amortized pursuant to
Chapter 18.30(1);
(2) Occupy a space that was not occupied by housing, retajl services, persona] services,
eating and drinking services, or automotive service on March 19,2001 or thereafter;
(3) In the case of CS zoned properties with site frontage on EI Camino Real, were not
occupied by housing on March 19, 2001;
(4) Occupy a space that was vacant on March 19, 200 1 ;
(5) Are located in new or remodeled ground floor area built on or after March 19,2001 if
the ground floor area devoted to housing, retail services, eating and drinking services,
personal services, and automobile services does not decrease;
(Supp. No 13 101112(07) Ch. ] 8.16 Page 8
18.16.060 Development Standards
(6) Are on a site located in an area subject to a specific plan or coordinated area plan, which
specifically allows for such ground floor medical, professional, and general business
offices; or
(7) Are located anywhere in Building E or in the rear 500/0 of Building C or D of the
property at the southeast comer of the intersection of Park Boulevard and California
. Avenue, as shown on sheet A2 of the plans titled 101 California Avenue
Townhouse/Commercial/Office, Palo Alto, CA by Crosby, Thornton, Marshall
Associates, Architects, dated June 14, 1982, revised November 23,1982, and on file
with the Department of Planning and Community Environment.
(b) Size Restrictions on Office Uses in the CN and CS Districts
(1) In the CN district, office uses shall be governed by the following regulations:
(A) Total floor area of pennitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25% of the lot area,
provided:
(i) A lot shall be permitted to have at least a total floor area of 2,500 square feet of
office uses, provided the uses meet all other zoning regulations.
(ii) No lot shall be permitted to have more than a total floor area of 5,000 square feet
of office uses.
(B) Such uses may be allowed to exceed the maximum size, subject to issuance of a
conditional use permit in accord with the provisions of Chapter 18.76. The maximum
size for any conditional use shall be established by the director and specified in the
conditional use pennit for such use.
(2) In the CS district, office uses shall be governed by the following regulations:
(A) No lot shall be pennitted to have more than a total floor area of 5,000 square feet of
office uses.
(B) Such uses may be allowed to exceed the maximmll size, subject to issuance of a
conditional use pennit in accord with the provisions of Chapter 18.76. The maximum
size for any conditional use shall be established by the director and specified in the
conditional use permit for such use.
(Ord.4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006)
18.16.060 Development Standards
(a) Exc1usively Non-Residential Uses
Table 3 specifies the development standards for exc1usi vely non-residential uses and
alterations to rion-residential uses or structures in the CN, CC, CC(2) and CS districts. These
developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following
requirements and the context-based design cl1teria outlined in Section 18.16.090, provided
that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and
approved by the director of planning and community environment, pursuant to Section
18.76.020.
Ch. 18.16 -Page 9 (Supp. No 13 1011/2007)
18.16.060 Development Standards.
TABLE 3
EXCLUSIVELY NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Ij'i',,~ ~:~~ ~,,,,,, .. !til :t'~~1~1';~il:''''~';:;;'~~~ I~~~' ~,': ~~~~ -.; ~~;'~Jf~~;;~ ,~~." ~::tf~~~~~:.~:~:t_J:~~~:~'OQ~r
Minimum Site
Specifications
Site Area (fe)
Site Width (ft)
Site Depth (ft)
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (ft)
Rear Yard (ft)
Interior Side Yard (ft)
Street Side Yard (ft)
Minimum Yard (ft) for
lot lines abutting or
opposite residential
districts or residential
PC districts
Build-To-Lines
Minimum setbacks
from alleys for
structures other than
public parking
garages (ft) (3)
Corner lots, from rear
lot line on the alley
Corner lots, from side
lot line on the alley
All lots other than
corner lots
Maximum Site
Coverage
(Supp No 13 101112(07)
None Required
0-10'to 0-10'to 0-10'to
create an create an create an
8' -12' None 8'-12' 8'-12'
effective Required effective effective
sidewalk (8) sidewalk sidewalk
width width width
(1). (2). (8) (1).(2). (8) (1).(2). (8)
None required
20' (2) None required
10' (2) 10' (2) 10' (2) 10' (2)
50% of frontage built to setback (7)
33% of side street built to setback (7)
8'
Not applicable None
20'
Not
applicable
50% None Required
IContinued on Next Page]
Ch. 18.16 -Page ]0
Setback lines
imposed by a
special
setback map
pursuant to
Chapter 20.08
of this code
may apply
18.16.060 Development Standards
Maximum Height (tt)
25' and 50' 37' (4) 50' Standl?rd
Within 150 ft. of a
residential zone district
(other than an RM-40
or PC zone) abutting or
located within 50 feet of
the site
2 r--------r--------+-------~
Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) for Hotels
Daylight Plane for lot
lines abutting one or
more residential zone
districts other than an
RM-40 or PC zone
Initial Height at side or
rear lot line (ft)
Slope
stories
0.4:1
N/A
-(6)
-(6)
35' 35' 35'
2.0:1 0.4:1 1B.1B.060(e)
-(5) 2.0:1 2.0:1 1B.1B.060(d)
-(6) -(6) -(6)
-(6) -(6) -(6)
(1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet
adjoining the street property line of any required yard.
(2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped
screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and B feet in
height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.
(3) No setback from an alley is required for a public parking garage.
(4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures
may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no
more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane.
(5) See additional regulations in subsection (e) of this Section 1B.16.050.
(6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone
abutting the site line in question.
(7) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement does not
apply to CC district.
(B) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along EI Camino Real frontage.
(b) Mixed Uses
Table 4 specifies the development standards for new residential mixed use developments. These
developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following requirements
and the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.16.090, provided that more restrictive
regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director
of planning and community environment, pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
Ch. 18.16-Page 11 (Supp. No 13 1011/2(07)
18.16.060 Development Standards
TABLE 4
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
li'r'~'''''"';;;'''''''I:! -~\c.~. : )'1. ~ '!t-F~: ,~c. I:"--~" :~ ?j.~~~:;;':"';~ I~~."~'."''''''~''~i
I' ~1:e!,;",) ~~lb' , i~'b .• ~ ,4!or::J:.\l.;i:t'D ~;>o;;r~·~;.·:nrM~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ?".} r~ t:N . .. C it; ~qt~.·~ ., g~1 gns.!1: '~?~ ~_j'~;." '" . :~\". "'. ~r '.~"'" :",' ~'. ~i ' I~'~~!tt ~~>I:~.~Jf, .. :.5'-. rj. ~ ~~~ ~ ,...:1. ,'.'0 ,.~}A~ tJ~ ~~,~} >".,"-~.~ ',rJ"~ ,,:.:;. . -:~ .. ---.~. ".'.,
Minimum Site Specifications
Site Area (if)
Site Width (ft) None required
Site Depth (ft)
Minimum Setbacks Setback lines
imposed bya
special
setback map
pursuant to
Chapter 20.08
of/his code
may apply
Front Yard (ft) 0' -10'to 0' -10'to 0' -10'to
create an None create an create an
8'-12' 8'-12' 8'-12'
effective Required effective effective (8)
sidewalk sidewalk sidewalk
width (8) width (8) width (8)
Rear Yard (ft) 10' for residential portion; no requirement for
commercial portion
Rear Yard abutting residential zone 10' district (ft)
Interior Side Yard if abutting 10' residential zone district (ft)
Street Side Yard (ft) 5'
Build-To-Lines 50% of frontage built to setback (1)
33% of side street built to setback (1)
Permitted Setback Encroachments Balconies, awnings, porches, stairways, and
similar elements may extend up to 6' into the
setback. Cornices, eaves, fireplaces, and
similar architectural features (excluding flat or
continuous walls or enclosures of interior space)
may extend up to 4' into the front and rear
setbacks and up to 3' into interior side setbacks
Maximum Site Coverage 50% 50% 100% 50%
Landscape/Open Space Coverage 35% 30% 20% 30%
Usable Open Space 200 sq ft per unit for 5 or fewer units (2); 150 sq ft
per unit for 6 units or more (2)
[Continued on Next Page]
(Supp No 13 10/1/2(07) Ch. 18.16 -Page 12
18.16.060 Development Standards
,',H _'1':( .... ~~~~"' ..... ; :;.,,-...,..~. . .' .-~' .:. .' • ...... : ... ~.< ... '"J~~~ ....... :/.,,; ~' .. -... "f "";" ; I~>'r ~" :l/;:':.~ ~ ;i~:-~~ ~ ,~tf,l.f~i -r,.~: .'1" r: ft.J.. '.
,! '-. : ",; .. ubJect )c
'~ t~ .~, .' 'j,.~f.· I.~.:' ~.'''~ :.! €·c. ', .. -~CC(2) .~ I'!~:~€ :~ egu tations: '.f%[~:~ 1 '::.J: L~:Fr.;'ljaf~:~l' r • If " . t -t' -.,': -. \: ifJ~~' ~\"~ -'I ':', ~,·tr.. ~;;.'>:;;;~~ ~ . " :. ~ Jf!"£ ~"',"I;,rr.sc Q~~~'~.:rr ·;.7~;"'·y>.j~;< "','.-,. .. ' ."'. ,~1 ' • : ,-.'.~'~ ~ i.~' .1, .~~ ."
Maximum Height (tt)
Standard 35' (4) 50' 37' 50'
Within 150 ft. of a residential zone
district (other than an RM-40 or PC 35' 35' (5) 35' (5) 35' (5)
zone) abutting or located within 50
feet of the site
Daylight Plane for 16t lines abutting Daylight plane height and slope shall be
one or more residential zoning identical to those of the most restrictive
districts residential zoning district abutting the lot line
Residential Density (net) (3) 15 30 30
Maximum Residential Floor Area 0.5:1 (4) 0.6:1 0.6:1 Ratio (FAR)
Maximum Nonresidential Floor 0.4:1 See sub-2.0:1 0.4:1 Area Ratio (FAR) section
Total Mixed Use Floor Area Ratio 0.9:1 (4)
(e) below
(FAR) 2.0:1 1.0:1
Minimum Mixed Use Ground Floor 0.15:1
Commercial FAR(6) 0.15:1 0.25:1 (7)
0.15:1
Parking See Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 (Parking) 18.52, 18.54
(1) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement does not
apply to CC district.
(2) Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2)
does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space);
(3) minimum private open space dimension six feet; and (4) minimum common open space
dimension twelve feet.
(3) Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of
the site devoted to commercial use,
(4) For CN sites on EI Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet and the FAR may
increase to a maximum of 1.0:1 (0.5:1 for nonresidential, 0.5:1 for residential).
(5) For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned Community (PC)
district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet.
(6) Ground floor commercial uses generally include retail, personal services, hotels and eating and
drinking establishments. Office uses may be included only to the extent they are permitted in
ground floor regulations.
(7) If located in the California Avenue Parking Assessment District.
(8) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along EI Camino Real frontage.
(1) Residential and nomesidential mixed use projects shall be subject to site and design
review in accord with Chapter 18.30(1), except that lnixed use projects with four or
fewer residential units shall only require review and approval by the architectural review
board.
Ch. 18.l6-Page 13 (Supp. No 13 1(11/2007)
18.1S.060 Development Standards
(2) Nonresidential uses that involve the use or storage of hazardous materials in excess of
the exempt quantities presclibed in Title 15 of the Mumcipal Code, including but not
limited to dry cleaning plants and auto repair, are prohibited in a mixed use
development with residential uses.
(3) Residential mixed use development is prohibited on any site designated with an
Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District overlay.
(c) Exclusively Residential Uses
Exclusively residential uses are generally prohibited in the CN, CS, CC, and CC(2) zone
districts. Such uses are allowed, however, where a site is designated as a Housing
Opportunity Site in the Housing Elenlent of the Comprehensive Plan. Such sites shall be
developed pursuant to the regulations for the multi-family zone designation (RM-15, RM-30,
or RM-40) identified for the site in the Housing Element.
(d) H.otel Regulations
(1) Hotels, where they are a permitted use and generate transient occupancy tax (TOT),
may develop to a maximum FAR of 2.0: 1 (except in the CC district, see Section
18.16.060(e) below).
(2) Hotels may include residential condominium use, subject to:
(A) No more than 25% of the floor area shall be devoted to condominium use~
(B) Nomore than 250/0 of the total number of lodging units shall be devoted to
condominium use~ and
(C) A mimmum FAR of 1.0 shall be provided for the hotel/condominium building(s).
(e) CC District Shopping Center Floor Area Ratio Regulations
(1) The maximum floor area ratio for the Town and Country Village Shopping Center shall
be .35 to 1; and office uses at said shopping center shall be limited to 150/0 of the floor
area of the shopping center existing as of August 1, 1989. Hate] use shall not be
included as part of the .35 to 1 maximum floor area ratio, but shall not exceed an
additional .25 to 1 floor area ratio, for a maximum site floor area ratio of .60 to 1.
(2) The maximum floor area ratio for mixed use development for the Town and Country
Village Shopping Center shall be limited to .50 to 1 ~ provided that no more than .35 to 1
floor area shall be nonresidential, consistent with part (1) above, and not more than .15
to 1 floor area shall be residential.
(3) Stanford Shopping Center shall not be permitted to add more than 80,000 square feet of
floor area to the total amount of floor area of the shopping center existing as of June 14,
1996, 1,332,362 square feet, for a total square footage not to exceed 1,412,362. Any
hotel or mixed use development for the Stanford Shopping Center shall only be
included if approved as part of a Development Agreement for the site.
(f) Size of Establishments in the eN District
In the CN district, permitted commercial uses shall not exceed the floor area per individual use
or business establishment shown in Table 5. Such uses may be allowed to exceed the
(Supp. No 13 1 (}II 12007) Ch.18.16 Page 14
18.16.060 Development Standards
maximum establishment size, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with
Section 18.76.010. The maximum establislnnent size for any conditional use shall be
established by the director and specified in the conditional use permit for such use.
TABLE 5
MAXIMUM SIZE OF ESTABLISHMENT
',,," '"
Personal Services 2,500
Retail services, except grocery stores 15,000
Grocery stores 20,000
Eating and drinking services 5,000
Neighborhood business services 2,500
(g) Nuisances Prohibited
All uses, whether permitted or conditional, shall be conducted in such a manner as to
preclude nuisance, hazard, or commonly recognized offensive conditions or characteristics,
induding creation or emission of dust, gas, smoke, noise, fumes, odors, vibrations, particulate
matter, chemical compounds, electrical disturbance, humidity, heat, cold, glare, or night
illuminations. Prior to issuance of a building permit, or occupancy permit, or at any other
time, the building inspector may require evidence that adequate controls, measures, or
devices have been provided to ensure and protect the public interest, health, comfort,
convenience, safety, and general welfare from such nuisance, hazard, or offensive condition.
(h) Outdoor Sales and Storage
(1) In the CN district, all permitted office and commercial activities shall be conducted
within a building, except for:
(A) Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden supplies occupying no
more than 500 square feet of exterior sales and display area,
(B) Farmers markets that have obtained a conditional use permit, and
(C) Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit.
(2) In the CC district and in the CC(2) district, the following regulations shall apply to
outdoor sales and storage:
(A) Except in shopping centers, all permitted office and commercial activities shall be
conducted within a building, except for:
(i) Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden supplies occupying no
more than 2,000 square feet of exterior sales and display area,
(ii) Outdoor eating areas operated incidental to permitted eating and drinking services,
(iii) Farmers markets that have obtained a conditional use permit, and
(iv) Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit.
(B) Any permitted outdoor activity in excess of 2,000 square feet shall be subject to a
conditional use permit.
Ch.18.16 Page 15 (Supp, No 13 1(1112007)
18.16.060 Development Standards
(C) Extelior storage shall be prohibited, except as provided under subparagraph (A)(iv) of
this subsection.
(3) In the CS district, outdoor sales and display of Inerchandise, and outdoor eating areas
operated incidental to pennitted eating and drinking services shall be pennitted subject
to the following regulations:
(A) Outdoor sales and display shall not occupy a total site area exceeding the gross
building floor area on the site, except as authorized by a conditional use pennit.
(B) Areas used for outdoor sales and display of motor vehicles, boats, campers, camp
trailers, trailers, trailer coaches, house cars, or similar conveyances shall meet the
minimum design standards applicable to off street parking facilities with respect to
paving, grading, drainage, access to public streets and alleys, safety and protective
features, lighting, landscaping, and screening.
(C) Exterior storage shall be prohibited, unless screened by a solid wall or fence of between
5 and 8 feet in height.
(i) Recycling Storage
All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor
area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior
enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design,
construction and ac.cessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval
by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board
and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
(j) Employee Showers
Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or for any
addition to or enlargement of any existing building as specified in Table 6.
TABLE 6
EMPLOYEE SHOWERS REQUIRED
Medical, Professional, and General Business
Offices, Financial Services, Business and Trade
Schools, General Business Services
Retail Services, Personal Services, and Eating
and Drinking Services
(Ord. 4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006)
10,000-19,999
20,000-49,999
50,000 and up
0-24,999
25,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000 and up
(Supp. No 13 ]01]/2(07) Ch.18.16-Page 16
No requirement
1
2
4
No requirement
1
2
4
18.16.070 Parking and Lo~ding
18 .. 16.070 Parking and Loading
Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for an permitted and conditional uses in
accord with Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 of this title. All parking and loading facilities on any site,
whether required as minimums or optionally provided in addi tion to Ininimurn requirements, shaH
comply with the regulations and the design standards established by Chapters 18.52 and 18.54.
(Ord.4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006)
18.16.080 Performance Standards
In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all development in the eN, CS, ec,
and CC(2) districts shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the
Zoning Ordinance. All mixed use development shall also comply with the provisions of Chapter
18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance.
(Ord. 4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006)
Editor's Note
The text of this chapter continues on the next page.
The remainder of this page has been left blank intentionally.
Ch.18.16 Page 17 (Supp. No 13 101112007)
ATTACHMENT J
1 Use Limitations
Chapter 18.30(E)
LANDSCAPE COMBINING DISTRICT (L) REGULATIONS
Sections:
18.30(E).010 Specific Purposes
18.30(E).020 Applicability of Regulations
] 8.30(E).030 Zoning Map Designation
18.30(E).040 Use Limitations
18.30(E).010 Specific Purposes
The landscape combining district is intended to provide regulations to ensure the provision of
landscaped open space as a physical and visual separation between residential districts and intensive
commercial or industrial uses, and in selected locations where landscaped buffers are desirable.
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.30(E).020 Applicability of Regulations
The landscape combming district may be combined with any other district established by this title, in
accord with the provisions of Chapter 18.08 and Chapter 18.80. Where so combined, the provisions
of this chapter shall apply in lieu of the corresponding provisions of the general district with which
the landscape combining district is combined.
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.30(E).030 Zoning Map Designation.
The landscape combining district shall be applied only adjoining site lines or property lines, where
consistent with the purposes of this chapter, and shall be designated OJ:} the zoning map by the sYlnbol
"L" within parentheses, following the general district designation for the district with which it is
combined. The dimension of the landscape combining district, measured at right angles to the
property line, shall be indicated on the zoning map.
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.30(E).040 Use Limitations
(a) Permitted Uses
Within the landscape combining district, permitted uses shall be limited to the following uses
only, in lieu of any uses prescribed for the general district:
(1) Landscaping and screen planting;
(2) Such fences or walls adjoinmg the property lme as may be required, by the provisions
of the general district regulations.
Ch. 18.30 -Page 11 (Supp No 13 -l0f1i2007)
18.30(E) .040 Use lim itations
(b) Conditional Uses
Within the landscape combining district, conditional uses shall be limited to the fonowing
uses only, in lieu of any uses prescribed for the genera] district:
(1) Noncommercial recreational activitie~ and facilities, when conducted primarily in
open, unenclosed .landscaped areas, and when conducted accessory to or in
association with uses listed as pennitted uses or as conditional uses in the general
district;
(2) Pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian pathways, walkways and trails, or vehicular access
drives, when serving uses listed as permitted or conditional uses in the general
district.
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
(Supp. No 13 -101112007 Ch. 18.30 Page 12
ATTACHMENT K
18.30(G).040 Design Approval Required
Chapter 18.30(G)
SITE AND DESIGN (D) REVIEW COMBINING DISTRICT
REGULATIONS
Sections:
18.30(G).010 Specific Purposes
18.30(G).020 Applicability of Regulations
18.30(G).030 Zoning Map Designation
18.30(G).040 Design Approval Required
18.30(G).050 Application
18.30(G).055 Application Process
18.30(G).060 Action by Commission
18.30(G).070 Action by Council
18.30(G).080 Tenn Expiration
18.30(G).010 Specific Purposes
The site and design review combining district is intended to provide a process for review and
approval of development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including established
community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased
traffic or other disruptions, in order to assure that use and development will be harmonious with other
uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with environmental and ecological objectives, and
will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
(Ord. 3890 § 18,1989: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.30(G).020 Applicability of Regulations
The site and design review combining district may be combined with any other district established by
this title, in accord with the provisions of Chapter 18.08 and Chapter 18.80. Where so combined, the
site and design review process established by this chapter shall apply to all sites. In addition, the
provisions of this chapter shall apply to all sites in the OS open space district, and shall apply to all
sites in the AC agricultural conservation district.
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.30(G).030 Zoning Map Designation
Where combined with any general district other than OS or AC, the site and design review district
shall be designated on the zoning map by the symbol "D" within parentheses, following the general
district designation for the district with which it is combined.
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.30(G).040 Design Approval Required
Site and design approval shall be secured prior to issuance of any permit or other approval for the
construction of any building or the establishment of any use on any site within the site and design
Ch. 18.30 Page 17 (Supp. No 13 1011/2007)
18.30(G).060 Action by Commission
review, combining district, or on any site which is made subject to the provisions of this chapter by an
express requirement of any other provision of this code.
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.30(G).050 Application
Application for site and design review shall be made to the director and shall be accompanied by the
application fee prescribed in the municipal fee schedule. The application shall include the following:
(a) A site plan showing the location of all proposed buildings, structures, planted or
landscaped areas, paved areas, and other improvements, and indicating the proposed
uses or activities within the site;
(b) Drawings or sketches showing the elevations of all proposed buildings, sufficiently
dimensioned to indicate the general scale, height, and bulk of such buildings.
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.30(G).055 Application Process
(a) The applicant seeking site and design approval shall initially submit to the planning
commission a site plan and elevations as described in Section 18.30(G).050. The plans
and elevations may be preliminary in nature but must show all pertinent information
requested by the director.
(b) If the planning commission recommends denial, a detailed site plan and elevations
consistent with the planning commission recommendation shall be forwarded directly to
the city council.
( c) If the planning commission recommends approval, a detailed site plan and elevations
consistent with the planning commission recommendation shall be forwarded to the
architectural review board for review, except in the case of single-family and accessory
uses. The architectural review board shall make a recommendation on the plans and
elevations based on the findings for architectural review in Section 18. 76.020( d).
( d) The plans and elevations, as approved by the planning commission and the architectural
review board, are submitted with recommendations to council for [mal action.
(Ord. 4826 § 120,2004: Ord. 3108 § 15,1979)
18.30(G).060 Action by Commission
Unless the application for design approval is diverted for minor architectural review under Section
18. 76.020(b )(3)(D), the planning commission shall review the site plan and drawings, and shall
recommend approval or shall recommend such changes as it may deem necessary to accomplish the
following objectives:
(a) To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly,
harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
(Supp. No 13 10/1/2007 Ch. 18.30 Page 18
1S.30(G).OSO Term -Expiration
(b) To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or
educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas.
(c) To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be
observed.
(d) To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
(Ord. 4826 § 121,2004: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
lS.30(G).070 Action by Council
To the extent that site and design review is contemplated under this chapter, and upon receipt of the
recommendation of the planning commission, the council may 'approve, modifY, or disapprove the
proposed plans submitted pursuant to this chapter. No. building permit or other permit or approval for
building construction or use of the site shall be issued or granted until the plans have been approved
by the city council, or by the director of planning and community environment as provided in Section
18.76.020(b)(3)(D).
(Ord. 4826 § 122, 2004: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
lS.30(G).OSO Term -Expiration
In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the effective
date of approval thereof, said approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Whenever a
vesting tentative map is approved or conditionally approved pursuant to Chapter 21.13 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code and the Subdivision .Map Act, the approval pursuant to this chapter shall be
valid until the expiration of the vesting tentative map, or expiration of development rights under the
final map. Applications may be made for extensions, but only in conjunction with applications for
extensions of the vesting tentative map or the final vesting map pursuant to Chapter 21.13 and the
Subdivision Map Act.
(Ord. 3689 § 5, 1986: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
Ch. 18.30 Page 19 (Supp. No 13 -1011/2007)
Attachment L
('i '{r-.,,·y OIJ p;\ 'I' t) !~ f 'T"("~ ,/ 1 .,...,'-. .t\ . ..ILj 1. }
(~():rvlPREHENS I'TE PLA.N 1998 -2010
L/1ND 1J SE D EFL'\iITI () NS
The following definitions correspond to the categories on the Land Use and Circulation Map. Each definition
includes standards for density or intensity of use. For residential categories, densities are expressed in terms of
persons per acre as well as housing units per acre. The number of persons per acre is based on the number of units
muJtiplied by the 1990 average household size of 2.24 persons. The standards for population density are intended
to be a planning guideline and are not intended to establish an absolute limit. In non-residential areas, intensity is
expressed using "floor area ratios" or FAR. FAR is the ratio of building area to lot area on a site. The FAR
standards are consistent with those contained in the City's Zoning Ordinance. They were initially established to
estimate daytime population and employment in different parts of the City. In the definitions below, FARs
represent an expectation of the overall intensity of future development. Actual F ARs on individual sites will vary.
COfllmercial
Neighborhood Commercial: Includes shopping centers with off-street parking or a cluster of streetfront stores
that serve the immediate neighborhood. Examples include Alma Plaza,/Charleston Center, Edgewood Center, and
Midtown. Typical uses include supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber shops, restaurants, self-
service laundries, dry cleaners, and hardware stores. In some locations, residential and mixed use projects may
also locate in this category. Non-residential floor area ratios may range up to 0.4, except for mixed use projects on
El Camino Real where non-residential floor area ratios may range up to 0.5.
Regional/Community Commercial: Larger shopping centers and districts that have wider variety goods and
services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as
department stores, bookstores, furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters, and non-retail
services such as offices and banks. Examples include Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country Village, and
University AvenuelDowntown. Non-residential floor area ratios range from 0.35 to 2.0.
Service Commercial: Facilities providing citywide and regional services and relying on customers arriving by
car. These uses do not necessarily benefit from being in high volume pedestrian areas such as shopping centers or
Downtown. Typical uses include auto services and dealerships, motels, lumberyards, 'appliance stores, and
restaurants, including fast service types. In almost all cases, these uses require good automobile and service access
so that customers can safely load and unload without impeding traffic. In some locations, residential and mixed
use projects may be appropriate in this land use category. Examples of Service Commercial areas include San
Antonio Road, El Camino Real, and Embarcadero Road northeast of the Bayshore Freeway. Non-residential floor
area ratios may range up to 0.4. Floor area for hotel uses may range up to 2.0.
Commercial Hotel: This category allows facilities for use by temporary overnight occupants on a transient basis,
such as hotels and motels, with associated conference centers and similar uses. Restaurants and other eating
facilities, meeting rooms, small retail shops, personal services, and other services ancillary to the hotel are also
allowed. This category can be applied in combination with another land use category. Floor area ratio may range
up to 2.0 for the hotel portion of the site.
Attachment M
Design Guidelines and the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines,
endorsed by the City Architectural Review Board in June 2002. This
impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by
implementation of Mitigation 7-2, which would require changes in
the Project design to comply with these design guidelines. The
revised Project (May 2004) would implement this mitigation measure
by deleting the hotel land use and surface parking lot and placing
'surface parking behind the residential buildings that front El
Camino Real.
D. Transportation and Parking
Impact 8-1 concerns initial Project impacts on Year 2010
operation at the Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection. The
initial Project would have caused this intersection to fall below
acceptable levels of service during the peak commute hours. This
impact .will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by
implementation of Mitigation 8-1, which would require either: 1)
the installation of an additional eastbound, right-turn lane from
Charleston Road onto southbound Alma Street; or 2) by revising the
size and design of the Project so that the additional traffic from
the Project does not warrant this right-turn lan.e. The revised
Project (May 2004) would implement this mitigation measure in that
the size and scale of the residential density.of the Project has
been reduced by 40%, the hotel land use has beeh eliminated 'from
the Project, and site access has been modified (access from El
Cami'no Real and Wilkie Way only) so that the right-turn lane
improvement is not warranted. .
Impact 8-1A concerns secondary initial Project impacts to
bicyclists and the bicycle lanes along Charleston Road resulting
from the implementation of the eastbound~ right-turn lane at the
Charleston. Road/Alma Street intersection, recommended in Mitigation
8-1. The installation of this right-turn lane would require
relocation and/or elimination of the bicycle lanes. This secondary
impact is unavoidable and cannot be reduced to a less-than-
significant level. However, as noted above, the revised Project
(May 2004) would eliminate the need to install a right-turn lane at
this intersection. Therefore, the bicycle lanes would be retained
and this secondary impact would be eliminated.
Impact 8-1B concerns secondary initial ·Project impacts
associated with the necessary right-of-way to implement Mitigation
8-1 (installation of the eastbound, right-turn lane at the
Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection) . and retain the existing
bicycle lanes. Additional right-of-way would need to be
secured/purchased to accommodate the right-turn lane and bicycle
lanes, as well as the relocation of the existing railroad crossing
gates and signal standards. This secondary impact is unavoidable
and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. However,
6
040712 syn 8250072
as noted above t the revised Project (May 2004) would eliminate the
need to insta.ll a right-turn lane at this intersection. Therefore,
the securing of additional right-or-way would not be necessary and
this secondary impact would be eliminated.
Impact 8-2 concerns initial Project impacts at the
Charleston Road/Wilkie Way intersection. The initial Project would
have generated an increase in left-turn movements from westbound
Charleston Road onto Wilkie Way to access the Wilkie Way driveway,
This ;i.mpact will be mit~gated to .a less-than-significant level by
implementation of Mitigation 8-2, which requires changes in the
s1'gnal phasing (split phase) at this intersection. Implementation
of this mitigation measure will be required as a conditioI1-of
revised. Project approval.
Impact 8-3 concerns initial Project impacts to the traffic
flow and operation along Charleston Road, reSUlting from eastbound
left-turn movements into the easterly, main Charleston Road
driveway. This impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant
level by implementation of Mi tigation 8-3, which requires the
installation of a left-turn deceleration lane on the westbound
Charleston Road approach to this ,driveway. However, the revised
Project (May 2004) would 'eliminate this potential impact and this
mitigation would not be required in that: '1} the revised project
proposes' that no access driveways along the Charleston Road
frontagei and 2) the recently adopted Charleston/Arastradero
Corridor 'Improvement Plan' (2004) recommends the installation of a
center tree planting median at this location, which would prohibit
.left-turn movements at this location.
Impact 8-4 concerns initial, Project impacts on the traffic
flow and operation along Charleston Road, resulting from outbound,
left-turn movements from the main Charleston Road driveway onto
westbound Charleston Road. This impact will be reduced to a
less-than-significant level by implementing Mitigation 8-4, which
requires the installation of a left-turn acceleration lane on
westbound Charleston Road. However, the revised Project (May 2004)
would eliminate this potential impact and this mitigation would not
be required in that: 1) the revised project proposes no access
driveways along the Charleston Road frontagej and 2) the recently
adopted Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan (2004)
recommends the installation of a center tree planting median at
this location, which would prohibit left-turn movements at this
location.
Impact 8-4A concerns the, secondary impact that would result
from potential diversion of initial Project traffic from the
easterly, main Charleston Road driveway to the Wilkie Way driveway
in the event a center median is' installed along Charleston Road.
The installation of a center median would prohibit all inbound and
7
040712 syn 8250072
ou·tbound lefJc-turn movements at this Charleston Road driveway,
which would cause the diversion. Implementation of Mitigation 8-4A
would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant llevel by
prohibi ting project access onto Wilkie Way or by reducing the
number of residential trips.
It is noted that the FEIR analyzed project traffic to
determine the potential for impacts to the ,character of Wilkie'Way,
as a local residential street. This impact was analyzed based on
the completion of a Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment
(TIRE) Index Assessment, which is summarized in the FEIR. The TIRE
Index Assessment was prepared using a threshold of 0.2, consistent
with the threshold used for the TIRE Index Assessment in the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan EIR. The assessment found that the initial
Project would not contribute the amount of traffic to Wilkie Way
that wouid' reach this 0.2 threshold and, would therefore not result
in a significant traffic impact. As the revised Project (May 2004)
would result in fewer vehicle trips at this driveway, this \
conclusion would not change for Wilkie Way_ The impact on Edlee
Avenue would be significant using the 0.2 TIRE analyses since Edlee
Avenue has such a low average daily trip count. For comparative
purposes, another TIRE Index Assessment was completed in June 2004
'to assess impacts to Wilkie Way from the revised Proj ect (May
2004). This comparative assessment used a more stringent threshold
of 0.1 and found that the revised Project (May 2004) would
contribute the amount of traffic to Wilkie Way that would reach the
more stringent threshold of 0.1. Using this more stringent
threshold of 0.1, the revised Project (May 2004) would generate 558
net new daily trips, which is more than the 0.1 threshold of 380
trips. As part of the project review, it will be reconunended that
the Wilkie Way driveway be limited to emergency vehicle access
, only'.
Impact 8-5 concerns initial Project impacts to the traffic
flow and operation along Charleston Road, resulting from outbound,
left-turn movements from the westerly Charleston Road driveway onto
westbound Charleston Road. Implementation of Mitigation 8-5 would
reduce this impact to a less~than-significant level by prohibiting
left-turns from this driveway onto westbound Charleston Road. The
revised Project (May 2004) would eliminate this westerly driveway;
therefore, this potential impact would be eliminated.
Impact 8-6 concerns inadequate emergency vehicle access at
two locations on the Project site plan. Implementation of
Mitigation 8-6 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level by requiring that the Project site plan be revised to comply
with the emergency vehicle access requirements of the Fire
Department. The revised Project (May 2004) incorporate emergency
vehicle access, which would reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level.
8
040712 syn 8250072
Impact 8-7 concerns initial Project impacts to neighboring
residential streets from inadequate hotel. parking supply and the
potential for parking overflow into the adjacent residential
neighborhood~ Implementation of Mitigation 8-7 would reduce this
impact to a less~than-significant level by either: 1) revising the
hotel parking so that it complies with the City's off-street
parking requirements; or 2) requiring the preparation and
implementation of an on-going parking management program, which
would moni tor. hotel .event· parking over time 0 The revised Proj ect
(May 2004) reduce this· impact to a less-than-significant level in
that.: 1) the hotel land use component has been eliminated from the
Project; and 2) the site plan has been designed to comply with the
City's off-street parking standards and requirements.
Impact 8-8 concerns initial Project impacts to bicycle
safety at the westbound and northbound approaches to the EI Camino
Real/Charleston Road intersection. The initial Project would have
generated addi tional bicycle trips t contributing to exist.ing,
bicycle safety deficiencies at this intersection. Implementation
of Mitigation 8-8 .. would reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level by requiring the Applicant to: 1) dedicate
additional right-of-way along the project frontage of El Camino
Real and Charleston Road to permit the widening of the bicycle
routei and 2) contribute a fair share cost to eliminate the
existing \\pork chop" island on the northbound EI Camino Real
approach to this intersection. These measures will be required as
a condition of revised Project approval.
Impact 8-9 concerns impacts and damage to existing public
roadways associated with initial Project construction.
Implementation 0,£ Mitigation 8-9 would reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level by requiring that the Applicant prepare
and comply with a ·Construction Logistics Plan, which would include
a "before and after" pavement evaluation program. This measure
will be required as a condition of revised Project approval.
9
040712 syn 8250072
Executive Offices
Mr. Curtis Williams~ AICP
Chief Planning/Transportation Official
Planning & Community Environment Department
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Attachment N
RE: Planning & Transportation Commission Division Staff Report to the City of Palo
Alto Planning & Transportation Commission dated July 8, 2009.
Dear Mr. Williams.
Dinah's Hotel, a California corporation and owner of the Dinah's Garden Hotel property
located at 4261 El Camino Real in Palo Alto (Santa Clara County Assessor's Parcel
Number 148-01-005) understands that the City of Palo Alto proposes to change the
zoning of the portion of said property extending from the Hotel site to Wilkie Way from
RM-15 to CS(L). Dinah's Hotel Corporation has no objection to this proposed zoning
change.
Sincerely,
DINAH'S HOTEL, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
George O. McKee~ President
Dinah's Garden Hotel
4261 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, California 94306-4405
650 • 493 • 2844
Fax 650· 856 • 4713
800 • 227 • 8220
www.dinahshotel.com
Attachment 0
Charleston Meadows Association
cmaboard@googlegroups.com
To: Planning and Transportation Committee
From: Board of Directors, Charleston Meadows Association
Cc: Planning Director Curtis Williams, Planner Elena lee
Date: July 8, 2009
Re: 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real (Dinah's Hotel Property Zoning amendment)
We are writing on behalf of the Charleston Meadows Association Board of Directors. Our neighborhood
association comprises nearly 350 single family homes in the neighborhood bounded by Alma and EI
Camino Real, and by Adobe Creek and W Meadow Dr and traces its roots to the original development of
our neighborhood in the early Fifties.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our board's perspective on the proposed zoning change and
on the pedestrian/bicycle access path to the SummerHill park. We first want to thank Staff, particularly
Planning Director Curtis Williams and Planner Elena lee for their efforts in engaging with members of
our neighborhood. We have had several discussions with them, including a well attended special
neighborhood meeting. We were able to have a detailed discussion on the merits and potential impacts
of the planned access.
This is a sensitive issue for us as a neighborhood because historically Wilkie Way has been, and
continues to be, plagued by overflow parking from developments along EI Camino: from years with
events at the Hyatt and Elks, to current ongoing problems generated from Arbor Real, and our concern
is that, in the absence of mitigations, these parking issues may be exasperated in the future by both
access and this zone change. Unfortunately the SummerHill development suffers the same trifecta of
parking flaws as the host of developments that were approved around the same time. It is characterized
by:
1. narrow private streets with no on-street parking,
2. resident parking that relies entirely on garage parking (with no driveway or apron) and
3. the city's guest parking allocation formula for these types of planned communities which has
been demonstrated to be inadequate.
So we are concerned that access to the SummerHill development will encourage residents of that
complex to use Wilkie Way as a convenient parking lot. In addition, we are concerned that the
enhanced zoning and corresponding higher FAR for Dinah's could be problematic for the neighborhood
since it is being considered absent any information about their future plans for redevelopment or sale.
At the same time we recognize the benefits of pedestrian access for both our own neighborhood and for
the future residents of SummerHill, who would have easier pedestrian access to our neighborhood,
Robles Park, the bridge to Mountain View, etc.
So, as a matter of equity and in keeping with the assurances of prior City Councils and City Staff to
protect our neighborhood from overflow parking, we support the pedestrian and bicycle access plan on
the condition that the following mitigating strategies be implemented concurrent with any rezoning of
this parcel:
a) that to correct the current issue and diminish anticipated future problems with overflow parking,
a permit parking program be put into effect on Wilkie Way and the affected residences on the
intersecting streets from Whitclem to Charleston Road, inclusive (since the Charleston-
Arastradero plan prevents on-street parking on Charleston).
b) that Dinah's be required to underwrite funding for this permit parking program in consideration
of the enhanced zoning they are poised to receive.
c) that in order to assure that access in this area will always be limited to pedestrian and bicycle
access and that *no* vehicular access will be granted in the future, the access path itself be of a
width to preclude vehicular use and that the remainder of the easement be planted with mature,
protected tree species (Redwoods and Oaks) so future City Councils, Staffs and Commissions will
find it all the more difficult to reverse the current commitment of no vehicular access to Wilkie.
Thank you for your work and consideration of our neighborhood's concerns.
Respectfully,
Charleston Meadows Association Board of Directors
Sara Armstrong, President
Nancy Fox, Director
John Hofer, Director
Roger Kohler, Director
Keri Wagner, Director
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 363:09
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2009
REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: Adoption of an Un codified Ordinance Extending The Life Of Valid
Permits Which Are Currently Active Or Are Approved By June 30,
2010, Pursuant To Title 18 (Zoning) Of The Palo Alto Municipal Code
EXEClTTIVE SUMMARY
The City has received an increasing number of requests for extensions of both building permit
plan checks and planning entitlements associated with major construction projects. Along with
these requests, there has been a decrease in both the issuance of new major building permits and
the submittal of major planning applications, coinciding with substantial changes in the local,
national and world ,economy. It is likely many planning entitlements and building permit plan
checks will expire before retail, office, and residential tenants can be found and financing can be
obtained to pay for development impact fees and project construction. The attached un-codified
ordinance is designed to allow for additional extensions of valid permits beyond the existing one-
year extensions currently allowed, so that affected projects can remain ready for a turnaround in
the finance market, enabling applicants to pay impact fees in effect at time of building permit
issuance, obtain building permits and begin construction. The ordinance would also allow the
City to recover the processing costs for extensions and to require projects benefitting fronl
additional extensions to comply with green building requirements adopted after the initial
approval of the entitlement. On July 29,2009, the Planning and Transportation Commission
recomnlended approval of the ordinance, allowing an automatic one-year extension and a second
year at the discretion of the Planning Director for most permits. For Site and Design and Planned
Community approvals, however, extensions would only be allowed upon approval by the City
Council after recommendation from the Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommends that the City Council adopt
the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) to include:
• Automatic one,..year extensions of approved planning entitlements for certain permit types
(excluding Site and Design Reviews and Planned Community zoning, and excluding
CMR: 363:09 Page 1 of7
residential properties eligible and potentially eligible for listing as historic structures)
once other currently allowable extensions are exhausted;
• An additional one-year extension by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment (Director) beyond the extensions currently allowed by zoning regulations
for those applications, based on specific findings and subject to modification of
conditions (including imposition of green building requirements);
• Council review and approval of extensions for Site and Design Review approval and
Planned Community zoning, based on specific findings after recommendation by the
Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC); and
• The collection of fees to recover staff costs in processing such extensions.
Staff generally concurs with the PTC recommendations, but differs with respect to the Site and
Design and Planned Con1ll1unity projects. Staff recommends an automatic one-year extension
for those projects as well, with subsequent extensions requiring PTC review and Council
approval.
BACKGROUND:
This ordinance is presented as "uncodified" (not intended for placement within the Palo Alto
Municipal Code) since it is designed to "sunset" (become null and void) within a short time
period following adoption. The regulations in the following chapters of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code would be affected by the proposed uncodified ordinance:
Chapter 18.38 Planned Community District Regulations
Chapter 18.30(G) Site and Design (D) Review Combining District Regulations
Chapter 18.76 Permits and Approvals
Chapter 18.77 Processing of Permits and Approvals
The PTC reports and minutes provide additional background regarding the connection with
recent state law for subdivisions. The proposed ordinance would not apply to subdivision map
approvals because extensions are already available in accordance with State law. Lists of major
approved planning entitlements which have not commenced construction, and major projects for
which decisions are likely to be made prior to June 30, 2010, were provided to the PTC and have
been updated for Council (Attachment G). Recently, Council approved a development
agreement to extend approvals for the 200 San Antonio subdivision map and architectural review
for up to five years, so that project does not appear on the list of projects. Staff is concerned that,
unless Council approves the ordinance allowing additional extensions of valid permits, additional
development agreement applications will be submitted, necessitating the expenditure of
extensive City resources to process those requests.
Requests for extensions of Building Permit plan checks with associated major and minor
planning entitlements have been received with increasing regularity since early 2009. Staff has
been concerned that, unless additional extensions are allowed via Council approval of the draft
ordinance, building permit extensions approved by Building Division staff after review and
approval by the proj ect planner may result in permit issuances past the effective date of already
extended planning entitlements, with associated missed opportunities to require that projects
meet more recent legislation such as the City's mandatory green building ordinance.
CMR: 363:09 Page 2 of7
Director's Approvals
Most Director-approved planning entitlements expire if the use or construction has not
commenced prior to the expiration of the entitlement within one year of the effective date of the
approval, unless extended by the Director once for an additional year, totaling two years
(pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18.77). The effective date is considered to be 14 days after the
approval date. One exception to the two-year expiration is the phased Architectural Review
approval, which may be requested for major Architectural Review projects requesting phased
construction up to a maximum of five years and approved by the Director in conjunction with the
initial approval. The Director's approvals subject to the proposed ordinance are associated with
three different processes: (1) the Standard Staff Review Process (Variances, Conditional Use·
Permits and Neighborhood Preservation Exceptions); (2) the Architectural Review Process
(Major and Minor Architectural Reviews and Design Enhancement Exceptions); and (3) the Low
Density Residential Review Process (Single Family Individual Reviews and Home Improvement
Exceptions). Major architectural reviews are heard at an Architectural Review Board (ARB)
public meeting. The other Director's approvals listed above do not involve automatic public
hearings, but hearings may be requested within 14 days after issuance of a tentative Director's
decision.
Council Approved Entitlements
Discretionary planning permits approved by the City Council that would be subject to this
ordinance include Planned Conununity (PC) Zone Changes and Site and Design Reviews, and
appealed Director's approvals. Currently, PC zonings may be extended one time by Director's
approval for a period of one year after the approved development schedule; any additional
extensions can only be approved by Council. Staff recommends that Council approve a one-
year, automatic extension beyond the currently allowed one-year Director's extension of the PC
development schedule, whereas the PTC does not recommend an automatic extension. PC
development schedules are submitted by applicants with application materials and often are
outdated or otherwise unrealistic by the time the PC application and associated applications, such
as subdivision maps, are acted upon by City Council.
Currently, Site and Design Review permits expire after two years, unless associated with a
Vesting Tentative Map, and there are no extensions of time available by the Director's approval.
Staffrecommends that Council approve a one-year, automatic extension, whereas the PTC does
not recommend such automatic extension.
DISCUSSION:
The draft un-codified ordinance (as recommended by the PTC) is included as Attachment A, and
Attachment B indicates the permit life extensions that could result from Council adoption of the
proposed ordinance. The draft ordinance also includes that, beginning the first quarter of2011,
the PTC would review the ordinance for potential changes, then annually thereafter until it is
either repealed or extended. The planning permits that would be considered valid for application
of this ordInance are those permits still active as of July 1, 2009 and any permits approved
through June 30, 2010.
The proposed ordinance is intended to address the permit and project uncertainties resulting from
extraordinary current economic conditions. Director's and Council extensions would require the
CMR: 363:09 Page 3 of7
applicant possessing valid permits to submit a letter requesting such extension. Automatic
extensions following discretionary extensions would not require submittal of an extension
request and these extensions would not affect other performance or time requirements imposed
or associated with the subject permit, such as conditions of approval.
The projects that would qualify for application of this ordinance ("valid" permits) would include
active entitlements and entitlement applications that have been both filed ("pending" permits)
and approved before June 30,2010. The attached table (Attachment B) indicates the proposal
for planning entitlement time extensions and overall "permit life" for each type of permit.
For the proposed additional one-year Director's extension (beyond the one year Director's
extension already allowed as set forth in Titles 18 and the one-year automatic extension), the
Director would need to make specific findings as set forth in the draft ordinance, and would have
the discretion to add conditions of approval to the previously issued conditions of approval;
particularly, a condition requiring compliance with the City's Green Building Ordinance.
Active Planning Entitlements
Active planning entitlements are those entitlements that have been approved to date but have not
received a building permit and which have not yet expired. One example is an active project
reviewed by the ARB and initially approved by the Director in September 2007. The project
received a one-time, one-year extension in September 2008 but the applicant is not able to pay
fees and pick up a Building Permit in September 2009. The ordinance would allow the
automatic extension of the permit approval for one year and the potential for one additional year
extension by the Director until September 2011.
Pending Discretionary Review Proj ects
Pending discretionary review projects are those project applications that have not yet completed
the public hearing process and/or staff review process. June 30,2010 is proposed as the "cut-off'
date for approvals that may benefit from the time extensions set forth in the proposed ordinance,
such that a Director's approval issued between the effective date of the ordinance and June 30,
2010 would have one year on the original approval, and could request a one-year extension from
the Director under current regulations, followed by an automatic one-year extension if still
needed and then a request for a subsequent year at the Director's discretion. A Director's
approval issued June 30, 2009 could be stretched to June 30, 2013 under the proposal, rather than
2011 as allowed currently.
Return to Current Ordinance Regulations July 1, 2010
Beginning July 1, 2010, initial project approvals would once again be subject to the permit
expirations and extensions currently set forth in the Zoning Code, such that an applicant for a
Site and Design Review or Architectural Review (AR) application approved July 1, 2010, would
have to pay fees, pull a building permit and begin construction by July 1, 2012 (with one
extension in the case of the AR approval) to exercise that planning entitlement. However, given
that the proposed ordinance includes an annual review of the ordinance until repealed, the
extension process could be revised again at that time.
CMR: 363:09 Page 4 of7
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On July 22 and July 29, 2009, the PTC held public hearings regarding the proposed ordinance.
There were three speakers at the first hearing and two speakers at the second hearing. The PTC
staff reports, meeting minutes, and responses to Commissioner questions are attached to this
report as Attachments C-F (for Councilmembers only) and are available on the City's website at
http://www .cityofpaloalto.orglci vica/filebank/blobdload.asp ?BlobID= 16640
The PTC voted unanimously (5-0-2, with Garber and Rosati absent) to recommend Council
adoption of the draft ordinance that was presented with the July 29,2009 report with changes
and amendments incorporated into the annotated revised draft (Attachment A).
The PTC changes included moving the fee language, adding language allowing for the Director's
denial of an extension request based upon public health and safety findings and/or upon findings
related to compliance with applicable Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan changes adopted
since the original application was deemed complete, and allowing adjustment ofproject approval
conditions to address such changes. The PTC also added conditions to allow automatic
extensions only after all other available extensions have been exhausted or the project would
otherwise expire, only for projects on non-historic properties (eligible and potentially eligible
residential properties included), and to disallow automatic extensions of Planned Community
zoning and Site and Design Review approvals. The PTC also added language to require the
ordinance to return to the PTC for review in the first quarter of 20 11, then annually thereafter
until it is either repealed or extended.
Items discussed by the PTC but not included in motions, amendments or the vote included the
addition of wording "substantially changed physical conditions" having to do with Site and
Design and PCs and also whether public notice of Director's extensions was appropriate. The
PTC also did not support requiring public notice prior to considering extensions by the Director.
ALTERNATIVES
An alternative or amendment to the PTC recommendation, as recommended by staff, would be to
allow automatic extensions to (1) extend Site and Design Reviews one year (one-time only), and
(2) extend Planned Community zones (PCs) by one additional year beyond the currently
allowable one-year Director's extension of a PC approval. The reasons staff continues to
recommend one-time, one-year automatic extensions for these permits include resource impacts
and public hearing scheduling concerns. If the Council supports this alternative, Ordinance
Section 2, item (a) 3 would be deleted, and items (b) 3 and (c) would be modified.
A variation of this alternative would allow the Director, based upon the same approval findings
as set forth in the draft ordinance, to extend the permit approvals for an additional year prior to
review and approval by the PTC and City Council. The reason staff would support this option is
to address the concern expressed by the PTC regarding automatic extensions for such projects, to
allow the Director to adjust approval conditions or deny the extension request based upon public
health and safety and any applicable Zoning and Comprehensive Plan changes. Implementation
of this variation would necessitate changes to items (a) 3, (b) 3 and (c) of Ordinance Section 2.
CMR: 363:09 Page 5 of7
RESOURCE IMPACT
The proposed ordinance would generally not affect City revenues or costs, but would preserve
opportunities to move forward with development projects (with attendant economic benefits),
and would minimize City costs associated with processing Development Agreements or other
forms of extension requests. The extensions allowed by the proposed ordinance would not reduce
the amount of impact fees received by the City. Development impact fees are generally due upon
issuance of building permits and are assessed at the rate in effect at the time of building permit
issuance. Some fees, such as Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fees, nlay be required at the submittal
of a Final Map or Parcel Map. Other fees are also due at the time of building permit issuance.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policies were shared with the PTC and are contained
in the PTC staffreport of July 22,2009 (Attachment D). Some of the major projects on the list
shared with the PTC (updated for Council as Attachment G) have the potential to bring new
businesses to Palo Alto to enhance economic vitality. By extending the life of these permits,
development can occur with nlinimal delay once financing is obtained. The City would be
positively affected by being able to accommodate these developments as soon as the economy .
turns around.
If the ordinance is not enacted, applicants of major and minor discretionary projects would need
to re-apply and go through public hearings all over again. Staff might need to process each major
project approval extension request as an individual ordinance amendment or development
agreement. Having to refocus on past approved projects in addition to new project planning
applications would consume staff, ARB, PTC and Council time and resources and could result in
insufficient staffing to process all of the applications and other special projects, such as the retail
protection ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3), this ordinance is
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that it is
not a project which has the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
Previously approved proj ects would have undergone environmental review during the initial
approval process.
PREPARED BY:
. H
Planning Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR: 363:09 Page 6 of7
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Draft Ordinance Extending Valid Planning Entitlements
Time Extensions for Valid Planning Entitlements
PTC staffreport dated July 29,2009 (w/o attachments)
PTC staffreport dated July 22,2009 (w/o attachments)
Excerpt Minutes ofPTC meeting July 29,2009 (Council only)
Excerpt MinutesofPTC nleeting July 22, 2009 (Council only)
Updated List of Approved and Pending Major Projects
COURTESY COPIES:
Architectural Review Board
Larry Perlin, Chief Building Official
CMR: 363:09 Page 7 of7
NOT YET APPROVED
Ordinance No. ----An Uncodified Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Extending the Life of Specific Permits Which Are
Currently Active Pursuant to Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo alto
Municipal Code
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals.
A. Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (P AMC) establishes
permit types, specific plan districts and general procedures including approval process, life of
permit and extensions, and
B. PAMC Title 18 provides that permits shall become null and void if not
exercised within one (1) year from the date of approval by the final review authority, with the
exception of Site and Design Review Permits which shall become null and void if not exercised
within two (2) years of such approval; and
C. PAMC Title 18 allows the Director of Planning and Community
Environment to approve extensions of time up to one (1) year to exercise certain permits if
requests for an extension of time are received and approved prior to the expiration of the original
permit; and
D. The City of Palo Alto has approved numerous permits of varying scale
pursuant to Title" 18 of the Municipal Code. Such permits have been reviewed and approved by
the Director of Planning and Community Environment or City Council. Current timelines
established by Title 18 will result in the expiration of such permits within the near future; and
E. The current economic climate caused many construction projects to be
deferred until adequate finanCing can be secured by applicants and property owners. The current
time line established for permits issued by the City of Palo Alto is an undue hardship on these
applicants and requires interim local government assistance; and
F. On July 22, 2009, the Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a
public hearing to consider this ordinance and on July 29, 2009, the Commission recommended
approval to the City Council.
SECTION 2. Permit Extensions -Uncodified Ordinance.
(a) All permits, approved pursuant to the provisions of the City of Palo Alto
Municipal Code, Title 18, that are valid as of July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010, are granted an
additional one (1) year Automatic Extension in which to exercise the permit, subject to the
following limitations:
1
090901 syn 0120391
NOT YET APPROVED
(1 ) Automatic Extensions may only be applied after all other existing extensions
available in the zoning code have been exhausted and the project would otherwise expire;
(2) Project approvals that involve historic structures (including those identified as
potentially eligible for California Register designation) may only be extended with approval of
the Director pursuant to item (b) below; and
(3) Site and Design Review approvals and Planned Community zoning approvals
may only be extended with City Council approval pursuant to item (c) below.
(b) In addition to the provisions in ( a) above and all other extensions of time that
are allowed (Allowed Extensions) pursuant to Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, any
permit approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment or City Council that
is valid as of the adoption of the this ordinance through June 30, 2010, may be granted up to an
additional one (1) year (Additional Extension) by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment if approved before the pending expiration date of the permit, subject to the
following limitations or allowances:
(1) The Director must find that the project would not adversely affect public
health or safety and would not substantially conflict with any applicable Zoning Code or
Comprehensive Plan changes that have been adopted by the City Council since the original
application was deemed conlplete, and may otherwise adjust project conditions to address minor
changes. The Director shall deny an extension request if either of these findings are not made.
(2) The Director may grant two one (1) year extensions for project approvals that
involve historic structures (including those identified as potentially eligible for California
Register designation) and did not receive an Automatic Extension; and
(3) Site and Design Review approvals and Planned Community zoning approvals
may only be extended with City Council approval pursuant to item (c) below.
(c) Site and Design Review approvals and Planned Community zoning approvals
may be extended for a maximum of two (2) years with City Council approval after review and
recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission. In order to grant such an
extension, the City Council must find that the project would not adversely affect public health or
safety and would not substantially conflict with any applicable Zoning Code or Comprehensive
Plan changes that have been adopted by the City Council since the original application was
deemed complete, and may otherwise adjust project conditions to address minor changes. The
City Council shall deny an extension request if either of these findings are not made.
(d) All Additional Extensions shall be subject to compliance with the City's
Green Building Requirements set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.44 as further defined in Green
Building requirements adopted by Council Resolution.
2
090901 syn 0120391
NOT YET APPROVED
(e) Fees for all extensions shall be collected to recover staff costs of
processing such extensions.
(f) This ordinance shall be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation
Commission and City Council not later than March of 2011 and annually thereafter to determine
whether it should remain in effect, be repealed or further extended.
(g Nothing in this ordinance shall affect other performance or time
requirements imposed or associated with the subject permit (Conditions of Approval).
SECTION 3. Constitutionality; Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence,
clause or phrase 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 this ordinance, and each
section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that anyone or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first (31st) day after
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
090901 syn 0120391
3
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
ATTACHMENT B
Time Extensions for Valid Planning Entitlements
Permit Type
ARB, DEE, CUP, V AR,
IR, HIE, NPE
Site and Design Review
Planned Community
Table 1 (PTe recommendation)
Time Extension -Permit Life
Current Code Requirements
Initial Permit Allowed
Life Extension(!SJ . ~~
1 year 1 year 1 year;
available
only after
Allowed
Extensions
2 years unless 0 o years
associated with
a Vesting
Tentative Map
Per 1 year o years
development
schedule
-~-~,--~---~ .... ~ "4~O_ .. ~.
I-year Up to 4 years
extension by unless
Director associated with a
Vesting Tentative
One Up to 4 years
extension by unless
Council up to associated with a
two Vesting Tentative
additional Map
rears
One Up to 3 years +
extension by timeline in
Council up to development
2 additional schedule
1. The proposed ordinance would apply to column one permit types valid from ordinance adoption through June 30, 2010.
2. Project applicants must apply for any extension prior to the permit expiration date.
3. Maximum permit life may be acquired through a combination of initial permit life, allowed extensions, additional extensions and
automatic extension.
ATTACHMENT C
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO: PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: Amy French
Planning Manager
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Comnluluty Environment
AGENDA DATE: July 29,2009 (continued from July 22,2009)
SUBJECT: Un-Codified Ordinance -Time Extensions affecting the expiration and
allowed extensions of various planning entitlenlents as permitted through
the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18, Zoning Code
BACKGROUND:
On July 22, 2009, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) heard from three speakers
on this item and continued the public hearing after taking a "straw poll" of PTC members. The
consensus vote by PTC mernbers was for:
• No automatic extensions;
• Up to two, one-year extensions by the Director;
• Green Building requirements apply to extended projects;
• Director can add conditions to address changes to Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan;
• No demolitions before issuance of building permits for extended projects, unless unsafe;
• Site & Design and Planned Community approvals extended by Council after PTC review.
One Commissioner requested information about approved major entitlements having exceptions,
noted past practice for extending approved entitlements, and corresponded with staff after the
PTC hearing regarding her concern about extending approvals for historic properties which may
not have been previously subject to CEQA review.
RECOMMENDATION AND DISCUSSION:
Staff recommends that the PTC recommend Council approval of the attached ordinance
(Attachment A), revised to address the July 22,2009 PTC comments. The attached ordinance as
revised does not include any automatic extensions; however, staff continues to advocate for at
least a one year automatic extension for all permits except Site and Design Reviews and Planned
Communities, to facilitate workload and address financial issues of applicants for smaller
projects approved within the past several years.
Page 10f2
The revised ordinance provides for up to two additional one-year extensions by Director of
Planning and Con1ll1unity Environment (Director) approval, except for Site and Design Review
and Planned Communities, in addition to current code regulations for extensions. For Site and
Design Reviews and Planned Communities, the revised ordinance proposes an additional
extension up to two years by Council upon recommendation by the PTC, beyond the one-year
Director's extension currently allowed for Planned Community approvals but not allowed for
Site and Design Review approvals. The revised table (Attachment B) attached to the Ordinance
provides further specificity.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
PREPARED BY:
Revised Draft Ordinance Extending Valid Planning Entitlements
Revised Time Extensions for Valid Planning Entitlements
Amy French, AICP, Current Planning Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
Curtis Williams, AICP, Director
City of Palo Alto Page 2 of2
ATTACHMENT D
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO: PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: Amy French
Planning Manager
AGENDA DATE: July 22,2009
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
SUBJECT: Un-Codified Ordinance -Time Extensions affecting the expiration and
allowed extensions of various planning entitlements as permitted through
the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18, Zoning Code
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend Council
approval of the attached ordinance (Attachnl~!lt A), which would automatically extend valid
planning entitlements two years and would allow for an additional year of extension by the
Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) beyond the one-year extension
currently allowed for most entitlements as well as to allow the Director to extend Site and Design
Review approvals up to a year beyond the automatic extension. The planning permits which
would be considered valid are those active permits as of July 1, 2009 and approved permits
through June 30, 2010. The table (Attachment B) attached to the Ordinance provides further
specificity.
BACKGROUND:
Since late 2008 there has been a steady decline in the issuance of rp.ajor building permits, and a
decrease in the submittal of major planning applications beginning the first quarter of 2009. This
reduction coincides with dramatic changes in the local, national and world economy. The City
has received an increasing number of requests for extensions of building permit plan checks and
planning entitlements associated with major construction projects. In one recent case, an
applicant submitted a development agreement to extend approvals for up to five years. Due to the
current state of the economy, it is likely many planning entitlements and building permit plan
checks will expire before financing can be obtained to pay for development impact fees and
project construction.
Page 1 of6
Development impact fees are generally due upon issuance of Building Permits and are assessed
at the rate in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Some fees, such as Parkland
Dedication In-Lieu Fees, may be required at the submittal of a Final Map or Parcel Map. Other
fees are also due at the time of building permit issuance. To facilitate implementation of
approved projects and projects pending approvals within this fiscal year, staffhas prepared an
un-codified ordinance to allow these projects to remain ready for a turnaround in the finance
market, so that applicants may quickly respond to pay impact fees, obtain building pennits and
begin construction.
Connection with Subdivision Expirations
On July 15, 2008, the California State Senate approved Senate Bill (SB) 1185, which provides a
one year automatic extension of subdivision maps due to the current economic state. This is
similar to past legislation adoptea in the 1990' s which also extended the life of subdivision nlaps
due to a recession. SB 1185 is an important piece of legislation that allows developers to retain
valid subdivision maps and thus future financing once the economy improves. The proposed
ordinance does not pertain to approved Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps, since
extensions of subdivision approvals are covered by state law.
However, the legislation does not address planning permits that have been issued by local
government. Title 18 sets forth the expiration of discretionary permits from the effective date of
the approval and for most applications, allows for a one-time, one-year extension by the
Director. Therefore, planning permits for construction projects may expire before the associated
subdivision map if a developer does not obtain necessary building permits and commence
construction. This leaves the developer in the awkward position of having to re-apply for the
same or similar planning entitlements.
Director's Approvals
Most Director-approved planning entitlements expire if the use or construction has not
commenced prior to the expiration of the entitlement within one year of the effective date of the
approval, unless extended by the Director for an additional year, totaling two years. The
effective date is considered to be 14 days after the approval date. One exception to the two-year
expiration/is the phased Architectural Review approval, which may be requested for major
Architectural Review proj ects requesting phased construction up to a maximum of five years and
approved by the Director in conjunction with the initial approval.
As set forth in Chapter 18.77 'Processing of Permits and Approvals', Section 18.77.090
'Expiration of Approvals', permits automatically expire after twelve months unless otherwise
provided in the permit or approval unless the proposed use of the site or construction of the
building has conlillenced or unless a request for a one-year, one-time extension has been
received by the Director prior to the permit expiration.
The Director's approval is associated with four processes: (1) the Standard Staff Review Process,
which includes Variances, Conditional Use Permits and Neighborhood Preservation Exceptions;
(2) the Architectural Review Process, which includes Major and Minor Architectural Reviews
and Design Enhancement Exceptions; (3) the Low Density Residential Review Process, which
includes Single Family Individual Reviews and Home Improvement Exceptions; and (4) the
City of Palo Alto Page 2 of6
Preliminary Parcel Maps (without exception) Process, which allows the Director to approve
subdivisions of land into four units or less. As noted earlier, the proposed ordinance would not
apply to subdivisions since extensions are already available in accordance with state law. Major
architectural reviews are heard at an Architectural Review Board (ARB) meeting, and
preliminary parcel maps (without exceptions) are heard at a Director's Hearing. The other
Director's approvals listed above do not involve automatic public hearings, but hearings may be
requested within 14 days after issuance of a tentative Director's decision.
Council Approved Entitlements
Discretionary planning permits approved by the City Council include Zone
AmendmentslRezonings and Comprehensive Plan Amendments (which do not expire), Planned
Community Zone Changes, Site and Design Reviews, Tentative Subdivision Maps and
Preliminary Parcel Maps with Exceptions, Vesting Tentative Maps, and Development
Agreements.
Planned Community zonings can be extended one time by the Director's approval for a period of
one year after the approved development schedule, but any additional extensions can only be
approved by Council. Site and Design Review permits expire after two years, unless associated
with a Vesting Tentative Map, and there are no extensions of time available by the Director's
approval.
Affected Code Sections
The regulations in the following chapters of the Palo Alto Municipal Code would be affected by
the un-codified ordinance:
Chapter 18.3 8
Chapter 18.30(G)
Chapter 18.76
Chapter 18.77
DISCUSSION:
Planned Community District Regulations
Site and Design (D) Review Combining District Regulations
Permits and Approvals
Processing of Permits and Approvals
The proposed, un-codified ordinance is intended to address the extraordinary, current economic
conditions. The proposal is for a two-year automatic extension beyond the initial approval
effectiveness for valid permits, such that no hearings would need to be held nor paperwork
processed for the automatic extensions. The automatic extension would not require submittal of
an extension request by the applicant, and the extension would not affect other performance or
time requirements imposed or associated with the subject permit, such as conditions of approval.
"Valid" permits would include both active entitlements, and pending entitlen1ents approved on or
before June 30, 2010.
For the proposed additional year extension by the Director beyond the one year Director's
extension already allowed as set forth in Titles 18, the Director would have the discretion to add
conditions of approval to the previously issued conditions of approval; particularly, a condition
requiring compliance with the City's Green Building Ordinance. The attached table (Attachment
B) graphically indicates the proposal for planning entitlement time extensions and overall
"permit life".
City of Palo Alto Page 3 of6
Active Planning Entitlements
Active planning entitlements are those entitlements that have been approved to date but have not
received a building permit and which have not yet expired~ A list of the active major planning
entitlement projects is provided as Attachment C. Hundreds of other smaller projects, such as
Individual Reviews and minor Architectural Reviews, are also active but are not included on the
list for brevity.
One example is an active project reviewed by the ARB and initially approved by the Director in
Septenlber 2007. The project received a one-time, one-year extension in September 2008 but the
applicant is not able to pay fees and pick up a Building Permit in September 2009. The
ordinance would allow the entitlement to remain in the active state until September 2011, when
development fees must be paid at rates then in effect in order for the building permit to be issued.
Construction must commence to maintain the active status, and the project would be subject to
the same conditions of approval issued in 2007. If the applicant were still unable to pull a
building permit, the applicant could then request a second, one-year Director's extension to
September 2012, but would be subject to meeting the City's Green Building regulations and
. other additional conditions at the discretion of the Director. Architectural Review approvals that
included phasing as a part of the initial approval could also benefit from the ordinance. Phased
Architectural Review approvals have been uncommon in recent years.
Pending Discretionary Review Proj ects
Pending discretionary review projects are those project applications that were submitted prior to
the effective date of the proposed ordinance, but which have not yet completed the public
hearing process and/or staff review process. A list of pending major planning entitlement
projects is provided as Attachment D.
June 30, 2010 is proposed as the "cut-off' date for approvals which may benefit from the time
extensions set forth in the proposed ordinance, such that a Director's approval issued between
the effective date of the ordinance and June 30, 2010 would have three years on the original
approval, and could request two more one-year extensions from the Director. Therefore, a
Director's approval issued June 30, 2009 could be in effect until June 30, 1014, subject to two
Director's extension approvals and any additional conditions imposed. A Council approved
project such as a Site and Design Review approval issued by June 30, 2010, could be in effect
until June 30,2015, with an automatic four years effectiveness plus one year Director's
extension.
Return to Current Ordinance Regulations July 1, 2010
Beginning July 1,2010, initial project approvals would once again be subject to the permit
expirations and extensions currently set forth in the Zoning Code, such that an applicant for a
Site and Design Review or Architectural Review application approved July 1, 2010, would have
to pay fees, pull a building permit and begin construction by July 1,2012 (with approval of one
extension in the case of the architectural review approval) to exercise that planning entitlement.
Green Building Requirements
It was not intended that the proposed automatic, two-year-Iong extension of valid approvals
would result in minor projects being subject to the City's green building requirements, as long as
City of Palo Alto Page 4 of6
the project was initially approved prior to the effective date of the ordinance. However, staff
anticipates that the PTC and C9uncil may wish to require major projects to comply with the
City's Green Building regulations in effect at the time of the extension. Requests for extension
beyondthe initial, automatic extension would be subject to the Director's discretion, and all such
projects would likely be subject to the City's green building requirements.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policies below provide support for the proposed
time extensions:
• Goal B-3 states, "New businesses that provide needed local services and municipal
revenues, contribute to economic vitality and enhance the City's physical environment."
Under Goal B-3, Program B-2 states, Implement the City's Economic Resources Plan;
objectives of the plan include revisiting past policies that affect business to determine
whether they are still relevant, and establishing a market perspective within the City
organization.
Staff s approach to the proposed extensions is in response to market conditions. Some of the
projects on the lists (Attachments C and D) have the potential to bring new businesses to Palo
Alto to enhance economic vitality.
• Goal B-4 states, "City regulations and operating procedures that provide certainty and
predictability and Help Businesses Adapt to Changing Market Conditions." Under Goal
B-4, Policy B-16 states "encourage streamlining of City administrative and regulatory
processes wherever possible. Reduce inefficiencies, overlap and time delays associated
with these processes." Program B-1 0 states, "Revise zoning and other regulations as
needed to encourage the revitalization of aging retail areas."
By extending the life of these permits, development can occur with minimal delay once
financing is obtained. The City would be positively affected by being able to accommodate
these developments as soon as the economy turns around. If the ordinance is not enacted,
applicants would need to re-apply and go through public hearings all over again, or staff would
need to process each project approval extension request as an individual ordinance amendment
or development agreement, which would consume much more staff, ARB, Commission and
'Council time and resources.
NEXT STEPS/TIMELINE:
The ordinance is tentative scheduled for City Council consideration on September 21, 2009. The
Council could adopt the ordinance with time frames as suggested, or with modified time frames
or other modifications, or take no action.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section lS061(b)(3), this ordinance is
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that it is
not a project which has the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
City Page 5
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Draft Ordinance Extending Valid Planning Entitlements
Time Extensions for Valid Planning Entitlements
List of Approved Major Projects without Building Permits
List of Pending Major Discretionary Review Projects
COURTESY COPIES:
McNellis Properties
James E. Baer, Premier Properties
Friends of Alma Plaza
Dr. VanDer Wilt
PREPARED BY: Amy French, AICP, Current Planning Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
City of Palo Alto
Curtis Williams, AICP
Interim Director
Page 6of6
ATTACHMENT E
1 Planning and Transportation Commission
2 Verbatim Minutes
3 July 29, 2009
4
5 EXCERPT
6
7 Review and Recommendation of an Uncodified Ordinance relating to Time Extensions for active
8 pennits previously approved pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18, Zoning Code.
9 Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
10 Quality Act (CEQA) requirements pursuant to Title 14 of California Code of Regulations,
11 Section 15061 (b )(3). (This item was continued from the July 22 Special PTe Meeting).
12
13 Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: Yes, and emailed to you yesterday what is at
14 places tonight, an addendum update citing the six bullet points of the straw poll taken last
15 meeting, as well as reflecting one of the Commissioner's statements in an email. We did have
16 questions from Commissioner Keller today that were responded to again at places so you should
17 all have that. Also included in that was a response to Commissioner Holman's question that was
18 forwarded to Julie Caporgno.
19
20 So basically we came back with a revised ordinance to reflect what had gone through the straw
21 poll last time. There is an associated table, revised Attachment B that is attached to that updated
22 memo showing kind of the elimination of any automatic extension though Staff still would
23 support an automatic extension if desired, and showing kind of the maximum pennit life if
24 extended out with these additional extensions. I will leave it at that.
25
26 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. At places I am seeing just the response to Commissioner Keller's
27 question. I see on the back is Commissioner Holman's.
28
29 Okay, Commissioners we came just short of a motion at our last meeting. So I think where we
30 left off was we had taken a straw poll on the items that are identified in this week's Staff memo.
31 There were some other items that we didn't poll on that obviously are still fair game for this
32 evening's discussions, but to the extent that we can avoid going back through ground we have
33 been through that would be great.
34
35 At this point I open the public hearing. I don't have any cards from anybody from the public. I
36 do have two cards so Commissioners we will go to the public first and then come back to the
37 Commission. The first speaker is Roxy Rapp followed by Rick Barry. You will have three
38 minutes.
39
40 Mr. Roxy Rapp, Palo Alto: Good evening. As you probably all are aware I kind of grew up here
41 since 1947 and seen a lot of changes in Downtown Palo Alto. I am here to support the City
42 Staff s report. I personally really need it. I have approval for 278 University which is a four
43 story office building where Noah's and Starbuck's used to be right across the street from the new
44 Walgreen's building being built.
45
Page 1
1 Basically there is no financing out there to build it. You are being penalized because you have
2 retail on the ground floor and the lending community because of the recession that we are in is
3 penalizing you for having retail. Then the other thing is that there is so much vacancy they are
4 requiring you to have it three-quarters vacant when you go out to get a construction loan or even
5 a permanent loan. You just can't get one.
6
7 I wish I could see the light at the end of the tunnel. I really feel it is going to be a good year or
8 two years. I really feel it is closer to two years before we are going to see a change on this. So I
9 think it is going to support all of us. I talked to John McNellis. I talked this evening with Chop
10 Keenan. He couldn't be here. He is in support of this also. So I am just here to say Amy, thank
11 you for writing up this excellent report, and I am here to support it for the future. I want improve
12 Downtown Palo Alto and as soon as the financial market changes I am going to get started
13 immediately. Thank you.
14
15 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. Rick Barry. Welcome.
16
17 Mr. Rick Barry, Palo Alto: I also have a project in Downtown and I also am here to encourage
18 you to support this ordinance. We have a project on University Avenue and given the current
19 situation I agree with Roxy. I think it is going to be a couple of years before we can really
20 proceed with this given the retail situation, given the financial situation with the banks fmancing
21 is difficult, retail tenants are difficult to find, and the requirements the banks are putting on us are
22 just ridiculous at this point We can't meet them. So in short I would just like to thank Staff for
23 recognizing what is going on in the Palo Alto community, and I strongly encourage you to
24 support this. Thank you.
25
26 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. Commissioners, so far I have a light from Commissioner
27 Lippert. Do you want to get us started?
28
29 Commissioner Lippert: No.
30
31 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, Commissioner Keller.
32
33 Commissioner Keller: So I asked a few questions and I would like to make some comments on
34 that, or do you want questions first?
35
36 Vice-Chair Tuma: Go ahead and do comments and questions together. Are these follow-ups to
37 the questions?
38
39 Commissioner Keller: Yes, they are some analysis of the questions I asked. So it seems to me
40 that in terms of the answers to my questions, it seems to me that allowing an automatic one-year
41 extension on the projects that would otherwise expire after exhausting all extensions in the
42 period from the ordinance enactment to June 30, 2010 seems like a reasonable thing to do.
43 Essentially if you do A on my list then B is moot the way it should be worded which is,
44 exhausting all other possible extensions. The other thing is if you do that you have a maximum
45 one-year discretionary extension. So if you have the automatic extension then you have one
46 more year after that as opposed to two extra years, if that makes sense. So a maximum of two
Page 2
1 total. So that is A. A is only exhausting all available extensions that would otherwise expire
2 during the year through June 30, 2010.
3
4 B basically says that you get two extensions, either two discretionary or one automatic and one
5 discretionary.
6
7 With respect to C and D I think that the con1ffients back from Staff indicate something to the
8 effect of would like to have minor and major ARB for multifamily residential but not ARB only
9 mixed use on 195 Page Mill. I actually like that division myself. So I would actually go for D,
10 which is an automatic one-year extension applies only to residential projects, no actually applies
11 to but also there is the issue of historic. So I am wondering what people's thoughts are in
12 terms of residential or commercial. I certainly agree with Karen Holman's question and the
13 implication of her comment on the back about I-C. So I would like to hear from other people
14 and then maybe I will make a motion.
15
16 Vice-Chair Tuma: Planning Director, I know we got answers to questions here but did you want
17 to make any comments on the various different options we are looking at here with respect to the
18 automatic extensions in terms of what is workable?
19
20 Ms. French: Sure. Well, automatic makes it easy. A one-year automatic that would be great. If
21 we want to exclude from that automatic extension mixed use projects, residential projects that
22 are on the Historic Inventory or Eligible for California or National register that's fine, if you are
23 leaning towards allowing a one-year automatic for certain types of projects. It would be not hard
24 to craft that wording to send to Council.
25
26 As far as the other responses, what about the cost recovery? Right now we don't take in any fee
27 to extend because it is not a lot of effort to extend permits as long as they have met the timeline.
28 With the Commission's proposal to send it to the Planning Commission and Council for a
29 decision on permit extensions for Site and Design and Planned Communities that would incur
30 Staff time so we would need to come up with a fee to cover that. So those are my comments.
31
32 Mr. Curtis Willianls, Planning Director: Just to add to that I think we had originally
33 recommended two years automatic extension. So our preference certainly of these options is
34 probably I would think B, which is that if you are not comfortable with two years automatic then
35 oh, yes C and a variation of -you are saying D.
36
37 So essentially having a one-year automatic in addition to whatever they are allowed now and
38 then having a discretionary one additional year and that's it kind of thing. As you mentioned, for
39 PCs and Site and Designs that would be more of a discretionary type of exception where we
40 would come to the Commission and Council. So I think the only difference probably between D
41 and where we would really prefer to be is that for the ARB projects, mixed use or strictly
42 commercial, that it seems to us that one-year automatic is appropriate there too but if you are not
43 comfortable with that then we would suggest the two one-year discretionary exceptions that Mr.
44 Keller's motion had in last week. So we think those are generally clean projects and those are
45 exactly the kind of situations that Mr. Rapp spoke about, well both speakers spoke about,
46 projects that are in that category. It seems like to have at least one-year automatic would be a
Page 3
1 reasonable way to go but we can certainly live with two one-year Director discretionary
2 exceptions if that is what you are comfortable with.
3
4 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Lippert, you had a follow on to that?
5
6 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I am interested with regard to the Housing Element of the
7 Comprehensive Plan. If there was a project that was zoned as part of our Housing Element and
8 the approval on that expired, in other words the discretionary approval on it, would that impact
9 us then not being in compliance with our own Comprehensive Plan?
10
11 Mr. Williams: No, it doesn't. The Housing Element never is tied to actually constructing the
12 housing anyway. It is just that you have planned to do that. Now if for some reason the City
13 reversed course on that and said before the site was approved and now weare not going to allow
14 it to be extended and we are not going to approve a new proj ect on there that would be
15 something. In this case, the reality is, and I think there is only one project on this list that is a
16 designated housing site that is out there. We certainly wouldn't want to lose that affordable
17 housing but by the same token we happen to know that on that project they are getting hopefully
18 some federal funding that is going to make this a very fast tracked construction project, and a
19 real project in a hurry. If that doesn't happen for some reason then there is some dilemma there,
20 but I don't really think legally it affects our Housing Element.
21
22 Commissioner Lippert: Okay.
23
24 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg.
25
26 Commissioner Fineberg: My question is for Planning Director. Can you recap the conditions or
27 findings that would apply in the discretionary reviews? Let's say it is a PC or a multifamily
28 housing project where there is no automatic extension and it comes to you with discretionary
29 review, what findings would be applied or be required?
30
31 Mr. Williams: There are no findings that are specifically outlined in the code. I don't think we
32 have outlined specific findings for.
33
34 Conlffiissioner Fineberg: Does that mean then if someone comes with an application you must
35 approve it?
36
37 Mr. Williams: It doesn't mean we must approve it. It says that the Director n1ay approve it. It
38 doesn't say shall approve it. What the criteria are are not specified. My thought is that generally
39 we have approved those and unless there was some really substantive change in conditions where
40 there were drastically different codes in effect or there is a new Comprehensive Plan designation
41 for that site or something like that had happened that we would extend it, and that is what we
42 have done. I am not aware of a case where we have not approved a request for extension. We
43 had talked last time about if it is desirable in this case where it says that the Director can make an
44 extension, these one-year extensions, there is language that says the Director may adjust project
45 conditions via these additional extensions to address any applicable zoning code, and
46 Comprehensive Plan changes that have been adopted by City Council since the original approval.
Page 4
1 So we would be looking at that aspect of it if there were new code changes or Comprehensive
2 Plan changes then we could use that and adjust the conditions for the proj ect, or I assume if they
3 were really completely out there that it didn't even allow us to do that we would deny the
4 extension.
5
6 We could change that and make that a finding. In fact that might be a good idea to say that they
7 may find if there are not these conflicts that now exist or something like that.
8
9 Commissioner Fineberg: I would wonder, and appreciate the thoughts and comments of my
10 colleagues about whether - I guess I am thinking having a discretionary review with absolutely
11 no guidance puts a lot of pressure on Staff, gives them the most authority in terms of approval,
12 but then maybe doesn't give them authority for denials. I am wondering if there are conditions
13 that can be foreseen where we would want the findings to give Staff the authority so it doesn't
. 14 appear to be capricious and has the weight of the ordinance. I am not sure what those conditions
15 would be so if there could be some thought to that.
16
1 7 Vice-Chair Tuma: Let me ask a clarifying question of your question here. Did I understand you
18 to say that you were concerned about the discretionary approval for Staff on things like PCs?
19
20 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes.
21
22 Vice-Chair Tuma: Well, PCs are not - I think what we are doing here is saying that anything
23 that requires PC and Sight and Design Review has to go back to Commission and then to
24 Council. That was a change that was made as a result of the discussions last week. So when you
25 look at the Table in Attachment B with PCs there is no automatic extension and the additional
26 extension is only the result of Council action. So I think what we are looking at here are the
27 other projects. I don't disagree with you, I think that having some criteria against which to make
28 a decision is always a good thing, makes it more defensible, and makes the job a little bit more
29 straightforward. It also makes it more predictable for the development community if they know
30 kind of what the standards are. So I am supportive of that concept. I think we need to make sure
31 that we are clear, and it is a bit complicated or confusing at times. We are not talking about PCs
32 and Site and Design Review. Those are out of this equation.
33
34 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you for the correction. I acknowledge that I missed that.
35 Which of the projects then would go to the Director or Staff for a discretionary review, if there
36 are automatic reviews for the housing?
37
38 Ms. French: If you look at Attachnlent B, the Table there, you might find this is reflecting the
39 straw poll that said no automatic extensions, no way. If you were inclined to allow one-year
40 automatic extensions for that first row, ARB, DEE, CUP, Variance, IR, HIE, NPE, those
41 Director level approvals that is where you would be focusing that one-year automatic. Whereas,
42 the Site and Design and Planned Community, as I have noted there, would be eligible for two
43 years extension only by Council approval.
44
45 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, got it. Thank you.
46
Page 5
1 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Holman.
2
3 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. This is probably the easiest one to pick off, to go to the
4 single family residence issue the response is actually given in response to Commissioner Keller's
5 question I-C. It talks about automatic extensions for approvals involving demolition of single
6 family homes except for those listed on the City's Historic Inventory Categories 1 through 4, and
7 Eligible for National or California Register, but allowing autonlatic extensions for projects
8 involving potentially eligible homes. That is counter to what the new process is in place.
9
10 Ms. French: It is not counter. I spoke with Julie before this meeting. Eligible for California and
11 Eligible for National Historic are the ones that are subject to the new process. Potentially
12 Eligible for California are not. That is the policy.
13
14 Commissioner Holnlan: I don't disagree with that except there is a nuance that definitely does
15 create a difference to this. That is that Potentially Eligible for California or National does
16 require notification. So anybody who has the expertise and thinks that those are actually Eligible
17 and not Potentially Eligible there can be evaluation made as to whether they are Eligible or not.
18 In other words, because the City has never finished that survey there are these properties out
19 there that should be swept up and I thought were being swept up, had been told that they are
20 being swept up in this new process in the Development Center.
21
22 Mr. Williams: I see the distinction that you are making. So the process is for all those other
23 ones clearly there is a CEQA review that is associated with those. If we have not done that in the
24 past then we would need to do that before any extension could occur. That involves notice as
25 well. So then we have the Potentially Eligible category which what I think Julie and Amy are
26 saying is not assunled to require a CEQA review, but as you are pointing out there is a notice
27 associated with the IR review and during that process and timeframe there is an opportunity for
28 someone to come forward and essentially document that this Potentially Eligible house should be
29 considered Eligible and historic and that CEQA should be carried out for it. That has not been
30 done previously so we are sort of missing the opportunity to do that again, or get that notice out
31 at least and see if anybody does come forward. Isn't that the crux of it?
32
33 Commissioner Holman: That is exactly what I was saying and thank you for that. What is a
34 concern is it seems like if we give automatic extensions to these properties it seems like we
35 would be in violation of CEQ A again.
36
37 Mr. Williams: What I am thinking is maybe in that category we indicate that the extension
38 requires notice in which case someone could conle forward and challenge it on that basis.
39
40 Commissioner Holman: Yes. It needs to be consistent with the new process so that we are not
41 violating CEQA.
42
43 Ms. French: I would just say then if you are going to want to have notice, you are going to
44 exempt all those other ones from automatic, so it wouldn't be automatic it should be Director's
45 discretion then for those Potentially California Eligible, right? We would be sending a notice
46 out. You wouldn't want to do it automatically. The way I responded to Commissioner Keller's
Page 6
1 question 1-C was saying allowing automatic extensions for Potentially Eligible so I think the best
2 course with this discussion would be to not allow automatic extensions for those. Throw those in
3 with all the other historic ones.
4
5 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. So what you said was not inaccurate it just wasn't quite
6 complete. That's all. So thank you for that.
7
8 The question that Commissioner Keller had raised about fees, it would seem to me that there
9 should be some fee identified or associated with any kind of extension, whatever kind it is,
10 because to write a letter, to process a letter it takes time and there should be an appropriate fee. I
11 am not going to say what that fee should be if it is $100 or $300. I leave Staff to determine what
12 that is but it should be some kind of cost recovery. I think that is the responsible thing to do and
13 I think it is an appropriate thing to do. Did Staffhave something to add?
14
15 Ms. French: We do have something that we do now that we charge $50.00 or something that is a
16 Zoning Letter where we have to do some research, and talk about a property. Maybe we can say
17 that this is a Zoning Letter for now because we don't have a fee structure setup. Or we could
18 come back at midyear to specifically put in a fee for extensions.
19
20 Commissioner Holnlan: I can't imagine anything being done for $50.00.
21
22 Mr. Williams: That is about right. That's why I think we don't want to go sort of outside. It is a
23 pain to amend the Fee Schedule. So in the next cycle of the Fee Schedule, which is mid year,
24 which means it would probably be February or March of next year before the fee is actually in
25 there, but we are not going to get a whole lot of requests just in that timeframe. I think we can
26 look at and we can put in a fee at that tinle. We should probably have one that is just a
27 Director's detemlination and another one ifit has to come through the Commission and Council.
28 Then we definitely need to have a deposit and cost recover for that kind of extension request. So
29 we will do that in conjunction with our midyear budget review and we will probably have other
30 amendments to the Fee Schedule at that time as well.
31
32 Commissioner Holman: So it could be tracked, if there could be some way whatever Staff
33 suggests, some way to see that that information travels with the Staff Report so that it somehow
34 or other it can be captured coming up.
35
36 The questions about the new revised ordinance talk about projects that can be extended. It is
37 akin to Commissioner Fineberg's question. It says, the Director may adjust project conditions
38 and has to do with findings. On the B of that, on page 2 at the top, talking about Site and Design
39 and PCs it says that upon review and recommendation by the Planning and Transportation
40 Commission if request is submitted prior to the pending expiration date, etc. So the question
41 there is how would we be reviewing this? What is the purview? Would it just come to us? It is
42 akin to findings. Is it a cursory review of some fashion? Is it changing conditions? What is it?
43
44 I can imagine for instance a project coming to us, in either extreme, and saying well it has been
45 approved before so all you are doing is looking at it to see if .... So if we don't have some kind
46 of clarity here on what our purview would be of the Planning Commission and Council in
Page 7
1 reviewing an extension then we are just in the dark arid flailing and nlaybe even open to
2 challenge.
3
4 Mr. Williams: Possibly. What I think might be most appropriate as I look at this, I was playing
5 with this language up here as Commissioner Fineberg was pointing out in terms of fmdings, and
6 thinking that maybe the last sentence of the section above that could say something like Director
7 may approve, instead of saying may adjust project conditions, etc. It may say the Director may
8 approve the extension if the Director finds that any applicable zoning code and Comprehensive
9 Plan changes that have been adopted by City Council since the original approval do not
10 substantially conflict with the project, and may otherwise adjust project conditions for the
11 extension to address such changes. So it would give the Director in the Director's Review
12 opportunity to look at those changed conditions, if they were substantive we could say no, if they
13 were fairly minor it might have some more conditions, if they were not changed at all then they
14 would probably approve it. We could put language very similar to that in this next section under
15 B and that would be essentially what you are looking at as well. So that if you feel like it is just
16 a higher level and more discretionary review but if that is what you feel like those
17 Comprehensive Plan and zoning is roughly comparable to what was there before or didn't
18 conflict with it then you would not be bound to approve it but it sort of would direct you that
19 way. If you saw that there were major conflicts then you could deny it. If you saw that there
20 were just a few minor things and adjusting some conditions would address those that would give
21 you the purview to do that. So I think some language like that would help.
22
23 Then also I just noticed, back to the previous question about fees, that there is language at the
24 end of that paragraph about fees for such extensions shall be collected. I am thinking that nlaybe
25 we put a new E under here and put a new statement down there to cover everything. That covers
26 all the projects, fees for such extensions. The fees would be different obviously for the ones that
27 conle to you, but just say fees for any extension shall be collected to recover Staff costs and
28 processing such extensions.
29
30 Commissioner Holman: That would be great because as you note here the only one that is
31 collecting fees is the PC review. So as an example, if the PC Ordinance because this
32 Commission has been working on revising the PC Ordinance for some time, so if the PC
33 Ordinance changes for instance if an old project comes to us for extension then the new PC
34 Ordinance would apply. Do I interpret that correctly?
35
36 Mr. Williams: I'm sorry say that again. I was writing down the notes that Ijust said.
37
38 Commissioner Holman: If a PC comes to us or a Site and Design comes to the Commission and
39 the Council and there is a new PC Ordinance, which this body has been working on for awhile
40 could it be applied to a project that is coming to us for an extension?
41
42 Mr. Williams: I don't see why it couldn't be applied. I think there is again discretion if you feel
43 like it is, and I know you have to determine whether this is conflicting. I think it should
44 primarily be sort of the substance of that ordinance as opposed to the process. If the process of
45 PC had changed that probably wouldn't be a very good basis for denying an extension. If there
Page 8
1 were substantive criteria in there then I don't know. I think Don probably should weigh in on
2 that.
3
4 Mr. Donald Larkin, Assistant City Attorney: I actually agree with what the Director just said.
5 The thing I was going to add, not to confuse the issue, but to make sure the Commission has
6 information to make a decision, one caveat if this comes to fruition and down the road this comes
7 up. Under state law a change in condition is something that could have been applied to the
8 Tentative Map at the time the original application was filed then it wouldn't be able to be
9 imposed later even if the ordinance was changed. So in other words, if there was something, to
10 use an example if street width was something that was changed in the intervening time if we
11 could have applied that to the Tentative Map at the time it was originally applied for then we
12 couldn't apply it through some other means.
13
14 Commissioner Holman: How would that apply or not to a revised or changed PC Ordinance or
15 Site and Design criteria?
16
17 Mr. Larkin: To the extent that the Site and Design is captured in the Tentative Map then we
18 would have difficulty. Essentially what the state law says is you can't do through a zoning
19 ordinance what you could have done through a Tentative Map that has gotten extensions on their
20 Tentative Map. That is nothing to do with the ordinance itself it is more because it is something
21 the Commission should be aware of for future reference, particularly when coming up with these
22 findings.
23
24 Commissioner Holman: I am sorry to take the time with this. I apologize for that. It is the
25 details that are either going to kill us or bless us going forward. What we are doing is not just
26 changing the rules say for Tentative Maps. We are considering extensions, changing the process
27 so that we are allowing an extension and at this point it is discretion that we are taking to do that.
28 So that is a little different I think than the example that you present.
29
30 Mr. Larkin: Actually, that is why I was raising it, because the state has already given these
31 extensions for Tentative Maps, automatic, no discretion, and said that the cities can't apply new
32 conditions on the projects that they could have applied on the Tentative Map originally. It is
33 more just a caution if the Commission is going to add findings other than just the zone changes
34 and Comprehensive Plan changes that are already in here. It is a caution to the Commission that
35 those conditions may not be enforceable if they are the types of conditions that could have been
36 imposed on the Tentative Map.
37
38 Commissioner Holman: Last one and I will pass. It is, but significant to a PC Ordinance could
39 be applied.
40
41 Mr. Larkin: They could and this is where the caution comes in. They could as long as they are
42 not conditions that could have been imposed on the Tentative Map. In other words, if a
43 developer came forward with a project, got their Site and Design Review, submitted a Tentative
44 Map that conformed to the Site and Design Review, and then got the extensions on the Tentative
45 Map, and then applied for the extensions on their Site and Design Review and the Commission
46 requested a change to that Site and Design Review that will impact that Tentative Map that has
Page 9
1 already been approved then those changes may not be applicable to that project. I know it is
2 confusing but I wanted to put that out there.
3
4 Commissioner Holman: I am trying to get some clarity on something here and I am not getting
5 it. I am sorry. Let's say for instance, I will use an example because it is a topic of conversation
6 much in the community. Let's say for instance a project comes to us and the public benefit that
7 is offered by a project does not begin to satisfy what the new ordinance is. That is different than
8 Site and Design although I understand the project the way it is laid out the public benefit is
9 included in some location on the Site and Design. That is what I am trying to get at and I am not
10 getting there.
11
12 Mr. Larkin: Well it is difficult to talk about in the abstract. I think in general if it is not going to
13 impact a condition that could have been imposed on the Tentative Map then it could be done. So
14 for example the public benefit is a park and the City decides that that no longer is going to be
15 accepted a public benefit and they would like that parcel that was going to be a park rezoned as
16 something different then that is something that could be done. If it there was a new condition
17 that now all projects have to have parks that could have been done through the Tentative Map
18 that would probably not be something that could be done.
19
20 Commissioner Holman: Thank you.
21
22 Vice-Chair Tunla: I assume it would also make a difference in that some PCs have maps and
23 some don't. So if you have a PC that doesn't have a map then the previous SB 1125 or whatever
24 it was wouldn't apply. So if we are looking at a PC that didn't have a subdivision map then this
25 issue would not be pertinent, is that right?
26
27 Mr. Larkin: That is correct. It is just the state has done this for those projects that are getting
28 extensions on their maps.
29
30 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Lippert.
31
32 Commissioner Lippert: I just basically had a couple offollow-ups on Comnlissioner Holman's
33 questions. Again regarding the historic, I guess it is the properties that would be Potentially
34 Eligible Historic Honles. Wouldn't the original approval sort of codify or identify these as
35 historic homes and therefore all we are really doing is extending the time period by which the
36 project can be or the approval is implemented? It is not changing anything. Nothing is changed
37 in terms of the potential eligibility of that house and its approval. Is that correct?
38
39 Mr. Williams: Generally that is correct. I think the point that Commissioner Holman has made
40 is that we have a process when you go through the IR review now where as part of that public
41 notice period if someone believes that that Potentially Eligible house is actually historic and
42 provides documentation to that effect then we need to do CEQA on it, which we wouldn't
43 otherwise do, and make a determination. Now, that either didn't happen the first time through its
44 original approval and we didn't do CEQA, and there wasn't any identification of an issue, or it
45 was identified and we sort of cleared it under CEQA and the project. If the latter happened,
46 which is an unusual case, then it would make sense probably to just extend that. In most of these
Page 10
1 cases that hasn't happened and I think her point is that two years have gone by and now we are
2 going to extend something that may be recognized or more recognizable as an historic structure
3 at that point in tinle, or potentially should be looked at least as that, and there may be more
4 documentation or evidence or something like that or somebody is aware of it that wasn't before.
5 We shouldn't just automatically extend that for another year. We should at a minimum provide
6 notice of that and if someone does have that information come forward.
7
8 You are speaking to sort of the fundamental issue around extensions which is do you essentially
9 assume that it was done right the first time that process happened and the extension should occur
10 at the back end, which is where we started from as well I think. That is just a sort of difference
11 in philosophy of it is, the extension sort of something that should happen because they ran the
12 gauntlet in the first place and now it is just another year or is this another opportunity to at least
13 check in on it and be sure that we don't have some conflict that has arisen now and take a little
14 more time to check that out before granting the extension which is where I think Commissioner
15 Holman is with that. We are comfortable either way with that and certainly understand the point
16 that is being made. I don't think in 95 percent of the cases it is going to be an issue but there
17 may be one out there that comes up.
18
19 Commissioner Lippert: Let me just point out where I am coming from, which is that we do have
20 a review process for a number of discretionary approvals. That process is supposed to be
21 thorough in terms of flushing out what the issues are. I admit that like any process it is not a
22 perfect process, but it is the process that we have. What is distinguishing this from I guess where
23 I would hate to see this go is that why not make the applicant reapply for a new application to
24 begin with if we make this too cumbersome. Then in fact we are just going back to the
25 beginning again. I can understand circumstances changing. When I say circumstances changing
26 I mean the Zoning Ordinance change in terms of our development regulations and having to
27 conlply with those, our Sustainability and Green Building code changing and having to comply
28 with those rules. I can understand us making changes to the Comprehensive Plan and again
29 applicants having to comply with those rules. But if everything is status quo and hasn't changed
30 why make an applicant go back through the process again or create other impediments that well,
31 we might as well just go back to the beginning again.
32
33 I also understand that in terms of developers and applicants wanting to change the scope of their
34 projects as well, saying I can't build the whole thing so I will only build a portion of it. Again.
35 that is going back to the beginning and that is not what we are saying here. This is the approval
36 nothing has changed other than the timeline. What we are recommending putting in there is
37 automatic extension and then the discretionary additional extension by the Director, which is just
38 simply making sure that things are in compliance with what the approval was. I have ended my
39 comments.
40
41 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Fineberg.
42
43 Commissioner Fineberg: Actually one really quick one and one question. Regarding the fee
44 recovery I think it is great to be able to do that so projects are net neutral at worst. I would
45 caution the $50.00 fee. My guess is it costs the City more to collect and process it than the funds
Page 11
1 generated. So I would concur that waiting for the fee structure change would be the time to
2 implement it at whatever the appropriate amounts are determined to be.
3
4 Second thing, I am still grappling with the issue on what discretion or what purview Council or
5 the Planning Commission would have in a situation let's say where there is Site and Design
6 Review with a Vesting Tentative Map. If the state law trumps and the Vesting Tentative Map
7 gets the extension based on state law and it comes back to the Commission and then Council for
8 discretionary review, what would we have discretion to review?
9
10 Mr. Williams: Well you wouldn't have much to review as far as the Map purview goes. So
11 things that were associated with the Map as far as easements and street widths and a lotting
12 pattern or something like that probably wouldn't be up for review. The use of the property and
13 such would and Don can talk about some nuances where even those would be affected. It is not
14 any different than the situation you are in right now without being able to extend it somebody's
15 Site and Design permit expires, and they have a Tentative Map, well they have to start over again
16 with a Site and Design permit and they don't automatically just because they have a Tentative
17 Map get to approve the same uses and FAR and all that kind of stuff as they originally had
18 approved in the Site and Design. What is likely to happen there is that in order to effectuate
19 something meets the Site and Design regulations they may have to tweak the Map in the end to
20 make that work.
21
22 So I think in the end you are looking at it as long as it is the zoning criteria related to what the
23 appropriate land use is, what the intensity of that land use is kind of thing you have discretion
24 over those aspects of the project in the Site and Design or PC review. If you feel like the codes
25 and Comprehensive Plan have changed so much at that point in time that it is really not
26 consistent and you can't extend it then you don't, and they are in the same situation they would
27 be in today if all their permit extensions had expired. On the other hand if you think it is pretty
28 close and any changes are minimal then you make that determination and you can continue them
29 along their way for another year or two.
30
31 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so let me see if I understand it. I appreciate the chance to clarify
32 this. Staying strictly in the hypothetical, let's say there is a PC that has been approved with
33 mixed use. Let's say the PC Ordinance has changed zoning, everything has changed, different
34 universe out there in several places. Would the Commission or Council then be able to say no
35 we don't want this to be a mixed use? We want this to be let's say all houses or all retail. Would
36 that kind of use decision or recommendation be possible even though it is impossible given the
37 existing Tentative Map?
38
39 Mr. Larkin: I guess yes and no. It is hard to talk about in the hypothetical. To the general extent
40 yes you can apply zoning. In your first question you said Vesting Tentative Map as opposed to
41 just plain Tentative Map, Vesting Tentative Map vests the rules and regulations as they exist at
42 the time the Map is filed. So a Vesting Tentative Map maybe not but the regular Tentative Map
43 yes you can apply the zoning and regulations that are in place at the time they come for the
44 extension. That may not work in every case but in n10st cases that is going to be applicable.
45
Page 12
1 Commissioner Fineberg: So in a Tentative Map there would be something that there would be
2 purview. In a Vesting Tentative Map why would we bother to do a discretionary review then?
3
4 Ms. French: Well, with a Site and Design in particular the Site and Design would not expire.
5 That was in the first Staff Report from last week. So if it was a Vesting Tentative Map there
6 would be no need to request an extension of Site and Design because the Site and Design would
7 still be active with that Vesting Tentative Map. You would never see it. It is only if it is a
8 Tentative Map or no Tentative Map that a Site and Design would come to you if they requested
9 an extension.
10
11 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. I have a question and then we are going to go to Commissioner Keller
12 and I think he is pretty close to having a motion. The one piece of this that I am still struggling
13 with a little bit is if we look at Commissioner Keller's I-D saying that the automatic extension
14 does not apply to commercial or mixed use. I don't see a rationale for making that distinction. I
15 don't know why we would not allow the automatic extension to apply to commercial and mixed
16 use assuming they are not PC or subject to Site and Design Review. So I guess that is more ofa
17 comment than a question. Maybe I would direct that question to Commissioner Keller as to why
18 we would make that distinction. I understand that there may only be a limited number of
19 projects that fall into that category but I still don't see a rationale for that distinction.
20
21 Commissioner Keller: I guess you are calling on me. Let me address that question by asking the
22 question, if you look at Attachments C and D from last week, the annotated ones. If you
23 basically consider based on my questions say I-A, so if I-A is used in other words only those
24 things which have their final expiration prior to June 30, 2010 how many things would be subject
25 to automatic extension? So I assume that D, none of those would expire during that one-year
26 timeframe, is that right?
27
28 Ms. French: Are you talking about Attachment D now?
29
30 Commissioner Keller: Attachment D and Attachment C. Attachment D I am assuming that none
31 of those would have any final expiration date in the one-year period that ends with June 30, 2010
32 so that wouldn't even apply. In terms of Attachment C there seemed to be very few of those.
33
34 Ms. French: Yes, Attachment D these would not expire before the end of the year and going
35 with your I-A saying they have to exhaust other possible extensions you can just stop thinking
36 about Attachment D, yes.
37
38 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
39
40 Mr. Williams: But aren't we saying that Attachment D if they are approved before July of next
41 year would have this extension provision attached to it.
42
43 Ms. French: Yes, but they will still have to exhaust all of their.
44
45 Mr. Williams: They would still have two years from then before they wOl1ld be up for an
46 extension.
Page 13
1
2 Commissioner Keller: So in other words, nothing in Attachment D would be eligible for the
3 automatic extension under the rule that it only applies to those things which if you took I-A,
4 which says you only can do an automatic extension if they are about to expire.
5
6 Ms. French: No, well the way it is written it would be anything that on Attachment D if these
7 got approved this year or through June 30 of next year they could be allowed to get an automatic
8 extension after they have exhausted, if we are going to go with I-A, after they have exhausted
9 their one-year extension. So let's sayan ARB project gets approved in December, they can
10 come back next December and say I need another year. They can come back before the
11 following year, or we can say it is an automatic extension if it goes that way or here is another
12 additional extension.
13
14 Commissioner Keller: I think that may be misinterpreting what intended. What I intended is
15 that these are things that would exhaust all of their extensions between 2009 and 2010 and no
16 further extensions are eligible during those years. We are going to give them automatic
17 extensions of one-year.
18
19 Mr. Williams: That was not our understanding. We thought all you were saying was that if you
20 got the approval before July of 2010 that they had to exhaust all their other extensions before
21 they could apply. They could not come in six months later and ask for an extension that took
22 them out three years or something like that, that they had to go through and exhaust all of their
23 allowable extensions before they could make a request. So that is our misunderstanding of that.
24
25 Commissioner Keller: Sorry if my wording was unclear. What I really wanted was the things
26 that are about to expire we will give them a year automatic because those are clearly the ones
27 that are urgent to deal with. Things that had extra years to go they don't really need the
28 automatic extension. The discretionary extensions are intended based on economic conditions.
29 So actually I will get to that issue in a moment. If you think about it that way there are very few
30 in Attachment C that actually expire in the next year so that is why I was thinking that
31 Attachment C seems to be the ones that are relevant.
32
33 Ms. French: Actually, I was looking today on our tracking system, Excel Ed, and on Attachment
34 C a bunch of building pennits have already been issued for those. So as long as they proceed
35 with the construction we have dropped almost half of those.
36
37 Commissioner Keller: So let me ask three other questions. The first question is in general when
38 we have a Zoning Ordinance change that once the project is deemed complete we do not apply
39 changes to that project. So for example if the CN zone changes and somebody submits a project
40 in the CN zone that is deemed complete that they are no longer affected by those changes to the
41 CN ordinance. It seems to me that what we are basically saying is that if you get an extension
42 you are affected by those changes to the CN ordinance. I am assuming that is what we are
43 talking about.
44
45 Mr. Willianls: You mean in tenns of the discretion to grant the discretion?
46
Page 14
1 Commissioner Keller: Exactly.
2
3 Mr. Willianls: If the CN ordinance changed in some way and the FAR was decreased for
4 instance in it then at that extension point we may either say if it is a small amount revise it to
5 make it consistent or deny the extension based on that. If the CN ordinance hadn't changed we
6 would just grant the extension as far as a discretionary extension goes.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: Okay. So I am not sure if that is explicit in this but if you talk about
9 findings that might be a good way of making that much more clear.
10
11 Can other conditions be applied by the Director? Can we put a catchall that says that the
12 Director can apply conditions to the discretion? For example, say that it is based on economic
13 conditions of the market that if the market has turned around then we are not going to apply extra
14 conditions and if the market is still in bad shape then we will apply extensions.
15
16 Mr. Williams: I don't think that would be a good way to look at it. I think it has to be more of a
17 planning related criteria not based on what the market conditions are doing at that point in time.
18
19 Commissioner Keller: Even if market conditions are the rationale for uS doing this?
20
21 Mr. Williams: I think that is why we have a certain time period. If you felt like that, well you
22 have already taken it down from a two-year automatic extension to something that is more
23 discretionary so that at least if conditions change we have an opportunity to make those changes.
24 I am a little leery of where some of this discussion heads towards creating a complexity of this
25 extension process that gets back to what I think Commissioner Lippert was saying about it
26 almost gets to where you are applying for a new project whenever you ask for an extension, and
27 it kind of defeats the purpose of an extension, at least an automatic extension. That was one of
28 the reasons why we were supportive of that is trying to keep away from getting into a
29 discretionary mode of making those judgment calls, and why it sounds to us like maybe a one-
30 year automatic and then a one-year discretionary thing is a good balance of trying to not extend it
31 out too long automatically and giving us a little more flexibility.
32
33 I think the language we have talked here about changes in zoning conditions and changes in
34 Comprehensive Plan are the kinds of things that we really need to be able to factor into that
35 decision. Very planning related but not trying to base it on economics or something sort of
36 outside the realm of what we would normally be reviewing it for.
37
38 Commissioner Keller: So we couldn't use economics even for Site and Design or PC kind of
39 thing?
40
41 Mr. Williams: Well, I don't know. I will leave that to Don to maybe comment on. I certainly
42 wouldn't advise using it that way.
43
44 Commissioner Keller: Okay. Commissioner Fineberg has two quick things. Con1ffiissioner
45 Fineberg had a comment about whether it is cost effective to collect the $50.00. Wouldn't the
Page 15
1 $50.00 be collected at the Development Center, which has straightforward techniques for
2 collecting money, and so it would not be that expensive to collect the $50.00?
3
4 Ms. French: Well, the $50.00 fee I was thinking of is called a Zoning Letter and I was using that
5 as an example of something that exists already that we could potentially use. It is actually
6 $50.00 minimum and that is supposed to cover about an hours worth of work. So that could be a
7 member of Staff preparing a draft letter for signature. If it goes over that hour then we can
8 continue to charge based on our existing fee schedule.
9
10 Commissioner Keller: That we have mechanisms for and it is cost effective to collect that
11 money? It adds up?
12
13 Mr. Williams: The actual collection isn't an issue for that. I think the fee is what is at issue. I
14 don't want to imply to Mr. Rapp and Mr. Barry that we are charging $50.00 an hour because I
15 know they have both paid a lot more than that for the time that we spent reviewing their projects.
16
17 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. One final question, with respect to what is in a map as
18 defined in the terms of the state two-year extension. Let's suppose we have a project, which is
19 mixed use, and the map seems to have boxes on it that mayor may not necessarily have uses
20 associated. Can we say we want to change some of those boxes from housing to be retail? Is
21 that something that is allowed in a Site and Design that is within the purview of what we can
22 review in terms of a map, a Tentative or Final Map?
23
24 Mr. Larkin: As Curtis said it depends on whether they have sold it or not. Actually, I think you
25 could, speaking in general terms. There are conditions that might change that analysis on a
26 specific case-by-case basis, but as a general proposition yes, if the zoning changes and it is a
27 Tentative Map and right now it is for housing and want to rezone that property to become
28 commercial only then that is certainly something that could be done.
29
30 Commissioner Keller: Or in a mixed use project if we and the Council felt that the old mix of
31 housing and retail was not conformant with the Comprehensive Plan as it currently existed we
32 could say that you need to change the mix?
33
34 Mr. Larkin: In theory.
35
36 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Okay.
37
38 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Lippert had a follow up to that.
39
40 Commissioner Lippert: I wanted to just make a couple of clarifying comments. First of all, Staff
41 are non-union so I think $50.00 an hour probably is more than what it would cost to cover their
42 time to review something.
43
44 We don't set fees. That is not in our purview here. In fact I would caution against it. It is very
45 explicit as to how the City arrives at fees and how they do their cost recoveries and we really
Page 16
1 don't have anything to say about that. So I would just be very, very careful about how we
2 structure that.
3
4 The second thing I wanted to say is that 95, maybe 90, percent of the reviews that we are really
5 talking about here even though they are discretionary reviews they are. either happening at an
6 ARB level or Director's Hearing. They are not really the types of items that come before us in
7 terms of land use and zoning. I think probably when it comes to the Architectural Review Board
8 the one thing that we want to steer away from is becoming very capricious and subjective in
9 terms of our review of quality and character issues. There are very specific findings and
10 guidelines that the ARB need to use, but that Board rotates and its members change at a
11 frequency that is beyond what this review process is. If you begin to open up this can of worms
12 what you are going to wind up with is personal whims are going to begin to enter into that
13 review process as those Board Members rotate off of that Board. What is going to happen is that
14 people that have their approvals and it is based specifically on very, very strict quality and
15 character issues are going to become subject to how new Board Members begin to define or
16 relate to those. It is greatjfyou can do it on the long-term it is not so great ifit is stuff that is
17 turning over very quickly. So the three-year process I am afraid is going to wind up becoming
18 almost a capricious football so to speak. So it becomes more of a game than really having set
19 guidelines.
20
21 The next thing I wanted to say is with regard to the automatic extension versus the additional
22 extension and applying a fee. Automatic extensions have very little work involved. It is a matter
23 of just saying okay the applicant has asked for an automatic extension or it is granted. Whereas
24 something that is an additional extension is subject to review so it really needs to be looked at.
25 What I am trying to say is we could create a process which is going to take a lot of time or we
26 could create a process that seems rather fluid and automatic, and maybe the fee really belongs in
27 the area of where there is actual time spent rather than in something that is automatic.
28
29 So those are really comments. I am in support of moving ahead and trying to allow for some
30 latitude in terms of the approval process to allow for these extensions. It is just a question of
31 how stringent we want to make this. I would really hate for us to become too draconian and have
32 this become so mired under that the applicant has to basically reapply all over again and start at
33 square one.
34
35 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller, you have a motion for us?
36
37 MOTION
38
39 Commissioner Keller: Yes. I move the Staff recommendation with the following changes. The
40 first change is easy. Move the fee language from 1-B to a new paragraph I-E. Then whatever
41 fee process currently exists for assigning fees would exist independent of whatever we do. The
42 next change is that the findings for the extension would be that it is consistent with the then
43 current zoning code, and consistent with the then current Comprehensive Plan. If there is major
44 conflict with these two consistency requirements then that is a basis for denying and if it is a
45 minor conflict then the project can be adjusted to conform to the then current zoning code and
46 then current Comprehensive Plan. Third, that one-year automatic extensions are possible only
Page 17
1 under the following four conditions all of which are applied. One, it applies only after all other
2 available extensions have been exhausted and the project would otherwise expire between
3 enactment of the ordinance through June 30, 2010. Two, if the automatic one-year extension is
4 used then only one additional one-year discretionary extension applies. Three, the automatic
5 extension is not available for historic or Potentially Eligible properties. Four, it applies only to
6 residential projects, not mixed use, commercial, office, or whatever. That is the end of my
7 motion.
8
9 I will entertain a friendly anlendment from Commissioner Holman about how to handle this issue
10 Qf potentially eligible and such because I don't really understand that.
11
12 Vice-Chair Tuma: You need a second first.
13
14 Commissioner Holman: Could you repeat your last point, please?
15
16 Commissioner Keller: My last point is I would entertain a friendly .....
17
18 Commissioner Holman: I'm sorry I was not clear. You gave four conditions under which the
19 one-year automatic extension would apply, or only if those four conditions were met. I didn't
20 catch your fourth point.
21
22 Commissioner Keller: The fourth one is it applies only to residential properties, not mixed use,
23 not commercial, not office projects.
24
25 Vice-Chair Tuma: And also not to PCs and Site and Design Review?
26
27 Commissioner Keller: That is right not PCs and not Site and Design Review, correct.
28
29 Vice-Chair Tuma: So is there a second for the motion?
30
31 SECOND
32
33 Comnnssioner Fineberg: I will second.
34
35 Mr. Williams: Could I make one clarification? The findings part I am assuming belongs for
36 both Band C? Is it B and C, or A and B?
37
38 Commissioner Keller: The findings apply to both I-A and I-B.
39
40 Mr. Williams: So both the Director's discretionary determination as well as the Commission and
41 Council's.
42
43 Commissioner Keller: That is correct.
44
45 Vice-Chair Tunla: Okay, would the maker like to speak to the motion or have you spoken
46 enough?
Page 18
1
2 Commissioner Keller: I think I have spoken enough. I think this affects the market conditions
3 and we are making it more flexible in terms of automatic extensions I think in an area that I think
4 is relatively non-controversial.
5
6 Vice-Chair Tuma: Seconder?
7
8 Commissioner Fineberg: Can I propose a friendly amendment on the first one? I will speak to
9 the nlotion first and then propose a friendly amendment on the first one. I think these
10 amendments will strengthen the force of the ability to give automatic extensions when it is a
11 straightforward project with fewer complications, with fewer things in the environment
12 changing, and yet retain a little bit more control on the more complex projects that are going to
13 probably have more changes in Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. I think that it will go
14 towards not making a complicated review process that subjects developers to a capricious review
15 process. Contrary to what Commissioner Lippert said right now if there is no automatic review
16 every proj ect, or if there are shorter automatic extensions, would then expire and every proj ect
17 would have to start over, and all would be subject to whatever changing minds of the new ARB
18 Members or new PTC or Council Members. So any extension whether it is narrowly defined or
19 broader removes whatever projects get the automatic extension from that changing environment.
20
21 Now that I have spoken to it would it be a time to? Okay. On the first one I think there is a little
22 bit of a stumbling on the language of just how I am sorry the second one that the required - I
23 am sorry. It is the third point but the first of the four where he is saying that it would apply only
24 after all other extensions have been exhausted. Staffhad an issue understanding what that meant
25 and I think that continues to exist. Would it be possible to word it that all available extensions
26 will expire without the ability to apply for another extension? Something so that when the
27 project let's say has two years left they can't apply for an extension with two years left on it.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: Let me suggest this wording, which is the first point, is if the project
30 would otherwise expire and no other extensions are available between the enactnlent of the
31 ordinance and June 30, 2010. Is that much clearer?
32
33 Comnussioner Fineberg: To me, yes.
34
35 Mr. Williams: Say it again.
36
37 Commissioner Keller: Ifno other extensions are available and the project permit or whatever
38 would otherwise expire between the enactment of the ordinance and June 30,2010 then that is
39 one of the conditions for having an automatic extension. In other words, we are dealing with the
40 things that are about to expire and we need to renew them. Those are the things that are most in
41 need of extension and those are the ones for which automatic extensions make the most sense.
42
43 Vice-Chair Tuma: I have a question and a comment related to this motion. On this first item, if
44 there is a proj ect that is in the pipeline but has not been approved yet but gets approved prior to
45 2010 are they still subject to this first component of this?
46
Page 19
1 Commissioner Keller: My understanding -are you asking Staff or me?
2
3 Vice-Chair Tuma: I am asking Staff for your interpretation.
4
5 Mr. Williams: My understanding of it the way it is worded is that they are subject to the
6 allowable extensions but they are not subject to an allowable automatic extension. Theywould
7 be back under the provision that would allow thenl to have two one-year discretionary
8 extensions. Is that right Mr. Keller?
9
10 Commissioner Keller: My intent is that they would be allowed to have two one-year extensions
11 after they have exhausted whatever other extensions they were eligible for.
12
13 Vice-Chair Tuma: But what you are saying is they would be the discretionary extensions not an
14 automatic extension.
15
16 Commissioner Keller: That is correct. If somebody is planning a project now they know what
17 environment they are in, they are still eligible for the two one-year extensions because they are in
18 flight now.
19
20 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. I am not going to be able to support that. You may have people who
21 are "in flight" now but they have been working on a project for a period of time, it is in the
22 pipeline, it is going to get approved in the relatively near future. The logic of what we are doing
23 and the reason why we are doing it you would most definitely apply that same logic to that
24 particular project. Just because they have not made it under the wire and gotten the approval
25 prior to us enacting this ordinance, to me there is no rationale that makes sense to exclude that
26 particular proj ect from an automatic extension because they are one week, or two weeks, or a
27 month after this has gone into place.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: I actually respectfully disagree with my fellow Commissioner. My intent
30 is to give the automatic extension to those things that are about to expire. Therefore anything
31 that is just about to be approved isn't going to expire for at least a year or two from now. So
32 they are on the same footing as those things that would expire after June 30, 2010.
33
34 Vice-Chair Tuma: I understand your intent. I don't agree with it. The original concept here was
35 extensions for any project that would get approved between now and June of20l0. That is given
36 the current economic situation and the forecast for the future that is to me where we should be
37 going. We should not be only for those that are imminently going to expire. I believe that we
38 should be looking at -this is not an economic situation particularly when it comes to commercial
39 development and commercial loans and the ability to finance these projects this is not going to .
40 tum around in a year. I personally am convinced of that and I think what we are doing here is
41 creating more work for the developers, more work for Staff, really without a basis for it. So let
42 me just finish my comments.
43
44 With respect to this not applying to commercial projects for the automatic extension I likewise
45 am not able to support that. I don't see again any rationale for this not applying to commercial
46 projects. There is no difference other than their ability to pay. Just because it is a bigger project
Page 20
1 and there is more money involved that doesn't mean that we should be sonlehow sticking
2 commercial projects with these fees. There is no basis in my mind for distinguishing between
3 what could be a large multifamily project and maybe even a smaller mixed use project. Just
4 because it is mixed use we would somehow require these people to go through the process of a
5 discretionary review with findings that have to be done and the expense to do that. We are in a
6 situation where these things have been approved. There may be some desire on the behalf of
7, some members of the public to undo some approvals that have been done, but that to me is not
8 what this is about. This is about recognizing the fact that we have an economic situation that has
9 created a burden. We don't want this going back through Staff and having to redo these things
10 unless there really, truly are changed conditions. So I am completely unconvinced and not in
11 support of excluding the commercial and mixed use projects other than as we already defined
12 from the one-year extension.
13
14 So those are my two issues with the motion as currently proposed. I have a light from
15 Commissioner Lippert and then Commissioner Holman.
16
17 Commissioner Lippert: I agree with Vice-Chair Tuma that in some ways -well, first of all I
18 would vote in support of the motion because it is necessary. But I find that it is cUITlbersome, it
19 is punitive, and it is almost an arduous task. It is heavily weighted. If there some way to
20 simplify it and just make it easier to administer and use it is going to be far more easily applied.
21 I understand all the distinctions that you are making in terms of your motion but it is running a
22 gauntlet or an obstacle course in order to get there rather than recognizing the fact that we have a
23 very tough economic climate.
24
25 To make things even simpler it would probably make more sense to just enact the ordinance the
26 way it is written and put a sunset date on it that would thereby end it at a time that we think the
27 recession might be over. Then just simply if the recession continues extend that out beyond.
28
29 Vice-Chair Tuma: Isn't there a sunset of June 30, 2010?
30
31 Mr. Williams: We have suggested that projects that are approve by that point would then be in
32 this extension process. If they are after that they wouldn't be unless we came back in a year and
33 said well things are looking even worse and we want to go another year and take another year's
34 worth of projects and offer them an opportunity for extensions.
35
36 Commissioner Lippert: The point that I am trying to make here is that according to Vice-Chair
37 Tuma, why begin to make distinctions here in terms of the use of projects. The only one that I
38 think is really valid is the PC and the subdivisions.
39
40 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Keller.
41
42 Commissioner Keller: Let me ask a question of Staff Does this ordinance vest a right to apply
43 for an extension in the future that is discretionary? In other words, suppose for example that the
44 go-go days appeared just for a hypothetical situation, and we were to determine that 2013 came
45 around and there were still some projects that still had discretionary extensions possible. It is
Page 21
1 possible at that time to day sorry we are going to remove the discretionary extensions because we
2 don't think they are needed any more, or does the discretionary extension vest in some sense?
3
4 Mr. Larkin: The ordinance could be repealed or amended at any time if the circumstances
5 change.
6
7 Commissioner Keller: Would that be the case even for automatic extensions?
8
9 Mr. Larkin: As long as the automatic extension wasn't already approved. You couldn't approve
10 an automatic extension and then repeal the ordinance and say sorry you are out of luck. If a year
11 from now all of a sudden a miracle happened and the economy completely turned around and
12 there were all kinds of construction financing available and we said this is no longer necessary
13 and we repealed it, if somebody came in a week later and wanted an extension we would say no,
14 there is no mechanism for that.
15
16 Commissioner Keller: So let me try to put this out as an idea to see whether it would bring some
17 fellow Commissioners on board. Suppose we allowed an automatic extension in more cases, I
18 am not going to define exactly what those more cases are, but let's assume some definition of
19 more cases, but all of the extensions under this ordinance had to follow all of the other
20 extensions that were currently available to them, in which case that repeal is still possible.
21 Would that make sense?
22
23 Vice-Chair Tuma: I for one am not sure exactly what you are referring to.
24
25 Commissioner Keller: Well, their current ordinance allows for a certain amount of extensions.
26 Doesn't the current ordinance allow for some kind of extensions?
27
28 Mr. Williams: Right, except Site and Design is a two-year period to start with. Most of the rest
29 of them are one-year plus one Director extension.
30
31 Commissioner Keller: Right. So what I am basically saying is that after you can apply for the
32 automatic or the one-year discretionary extension but only after you have exhausted whatever
33 else is available. Therefore if the economy were to turn around we can retract those based on
34 what the attorney said if they have not yet been issued.
35
36 Vice-Chair Tuma: That helps. Let me ask you one other clarifying question about that. What
37 about projects that are in the pipeline but have not yet approved?
38
39 Commissioner Keller: Well, let me put it this way, I have not yet said what exactly what set of
40 projects this applies to. I am just trying to work our way toward something that might make
41 sense.
42
43 AMENDMENT
44
Page 22
1 So let me suggest this. This is kind of editing online if you will. Firstly, in terms of the number
2 three, one-year automatic extension applies only if, it is after all other available extensions. Then
3 delete the termination date of June 30, 2010. Does the seconder agree with that Amendment?
4
5 SECOND
6
7 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes.
8
9 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. The third thing is I am trying to understand which projects it
10 should apply to. I am wondering what people th.illk: about simply saying it doesn't apply to Site
11 and Design Review and PCs and that is the only restriction. I am wondering what other
12 Commissioners think of that potential.
13
14 Vice-Chair Tuma: I would be in favor of it for one.
15
16 Commissioner Keller: We already have the restriction of not historic potentially eligible. That is
17 a separate restriction.
18
19 Commissioner Holman: Is your change then saying that you are removing your fourth point,
20 which said it applied only to residential projects?
21
22 Commissioner Keller: That is right. I am thinking about removing the fourth condition and
23 keeping Site and Design and PC as not applied condition.
24
25 Commissioner Holman: I understand. Thank you.
26
27 Vice-Chair Tuma: Hold on a second. Do you have a question?
28
29 Ms. French: It is maybe more of point. Your point number three was automatic not available for
30 historic. I think the context that we had talked about earlier was with residential ones, if it had
31 gone through Architectural Review it would have been subject to CEQA. SO maybe that is
32 particularly related to residential, that point three.
33
34 Commissioner Keller: Yes, that is for residential. It is for historic and potentially eligible for
35 historic, is point three.
36
37 So I am going to make the amendment of deleting the "applies only to residential" and retaining
38. the "automatic doesn't apply to Site and Design and PC."
39
40 Commissioner Fineberg: Isn't that already in another part of the ordinance as Staffhas stated it?
41
42 Commissioner Keller: Yes, I am just being clear. So I am deleting the fourth bullet which is
43 applies only to residential.
44
45 Commissioner Fineberg: Right, so the whole fourth point is gone because there is nothing extra
46 except for the multifamily and the mixed use.
Page 23
1
2 Vice-Chair Tuma: That is correct.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: Well, there is also commercial and office and all of that. That is all gone.
5 But we do have the condition that it doesn't apply to Site and Design and doesn't apply to PC
6 and that is already there.
7
8 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. So I still have the question I had before, which was under the first of
9 these sub-bullet points for this item. Would the automatic extension be available, as you are
10 envisioning it, for projects that either have been approved or would be approved prior to June 30,
11 2010?
12
13 Commissioner Keller: Yes, but only after they exhaust all the other extensions they have
14 available.
15
16 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. I would be supportive of all of those modifications and therefore
17 supportive of the entire motion. Commissioner Holman.
18
19 Commissioner Holman: I have perhaps a couple of clarifications. Director had suggested a
20 couple of wording changes in A. The Director may approve. So if you want to restate that just
21 so it is on the record. I think the Commission would probably agree with that language.
22
23 Mr. Williams: Yes, and this was a little bit different than the way Commissioner Keller said it.
24 So I am not sure if it still quite works. Then this would also be inserted in B under the
25 Commission and Council purview. The Director may approve the extension if the Director finds
26 that project does not substantially conflict with any applicable zoning code and Comprehensive
27 Plan changes that have been adopted by City Council since the original application, and may
28 otherwise adjust project conditions to address such changes. I don't know if you want to put the
29 'minor.' Maybe we should just say to address minor changes in those circumstances or
30 something like that.
31
32 Commissioner Keller: I think that is fine. The important thing is it should be based on since the
33 application was deemed complete, because obviously there is a period between deemed complete
34 and approval where changes could have happened that should also be applied.
35
36 Mr. Williams: Is that useful to say deemed complete or just say since application?
37
38 Ms. French: The first time the application was approve it was approved based on the operative
39 codes and regulations when it was deemed complete the first time. So are you saying at the
40 extension you could go back to the time it was complete?
41
42 Commissioner Keller: Right. You go back to the time it was complete not merely when it was
43 approved. Because if there were changes made in between the deemed complete and the
44 approval those changes should be taken into account.
45
Page 24
1 Ms. French: So then that leaves out the part that you had said which was if it is a major conflict
2 it can be denied, which I guess is implicit in.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: You can say that if you wish.
5
6 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Lippert. I am sorry, Commissioner Holman was not fmished.
7
8 Commissioner Holman: On B if Commissioners and Staffwould be agreeable to it to add in
9 addition to zoning code and Comprehensive Plan applicable ordinances and changed conditions,
10 having to do with Site and Design and PCs.
11
12 Vice-Chair Tuma: Let me ask a clarifying question about that. You said additional ordinances
13 and changed conditions?
14
15 Conmrissioner Holman: Applicable ordinances, any applicable ordinances, and changed
16 conditions.
17
18 Vice-Chair Tuma: What does, 'and changed conditions' mean?
19
20 Commissioner Holman: Changed conditions meaning the environment can change. Palo Alto's
21 needs may change. It gets addressed in the Staff considerations too.
22
23 Mr. Williams: It might be helpful to say changed physical conditio~ or something like that.
24 Theoretically, suppose it is in the floodplain now and it wasn't before. So changed conditions is
25 pretty broad but I think if you are going to go there I would certainly try to nail it down to
26 something like substantially changed physical conditions or whatever. Then on the ordinance I
27 would steer you away from the subdivision ordinance because as Don said you can't really do
28 anything about that once they have a Tentative Map approved.
29
30 Commissioner Holman: Well, if Staff wants to make recommendation what I am trying to do is
31 just see that we don't have a project that we are extending that is in conflict with significant
32 changes that have been made per ordinance.
33
34 Mr. Larkin: I guess the one I could see is if there were changes to the Unifonn Building Code
35 that would require substantial changes. I think we could say something about significant
36 changes to health and safety, necessary for health and safety, or health, safety and welfare as a
37 way to capture those kinds of things without capturing some of the ones that probably we
38 wouldn't be able to apply.
39
40 Commissioner Holman: That wasn't at all where I was headed. I was headed where the whole
41 conversation we had earlier was where I was headed. So for instance if the PC Ordinance
42 changes significantly.
43
44 Mr. Larkin: Well that would be zoning. We covered 99 percent of what we want to cover in
45 zoning. The only thing I can think of would be health and safety conditions that the City has
Page 25
1 adopted subsequent. If there is a health and safety condition those are things we probably do
2 want to apply.
3
4 Commissioner Holman: Okay. All right then the only other couple of comments or possible
5 suggestions. I have mentioned to Staff a couple of times that there used to be public notification
6 for extensions. That has been my understanding at least.
7
8 Ms. French: I did the research. That was never in any zoning code. It was an attorney
9 suggesting it as a courtesy to do so but that was never written in the code.
10
11 Commissioner Holman: Interesting. We can talk about something that happened in the past.
12 Anyway, public notification would seem like it would be appropriate for mixed use and
13 commercial projects. It doesn't have to be a hearing or anything just a public notification, just as
14 simple as that. So that whatever findings have to be made the public has some, it is a
15 transparency issue, so the public has some knowledge of that.
16
17 Then to along with that it would seem that it would be feasible and meaningful to have some
18 process where a hearing could be asked for if the community definitely disagreed with the
19 Director's opinion.
20
21 Mr. Williams: These are issues for the Commission to discuss. I think they run counter to, I
22 think all they do is raise the potential for someone to tum this into a highly discretionary issue
23 without basis. Just because somebody doesn't like a project it is going-to be extended and with
24 no necessarily particular reason and we end up with the applicant in jeopardy. One of the things
25 we are dealing with here as we talked about last week is we have long lead times for obtaining
26 financing and for preparing plans and getting building permits, all of which have to be done
27 before you are underway and meeting the requirements, you don't need an extension. To put that
28 all in jeopardy because the extension has a notice and somebody in the public can delay it at least
29 months based on that before some kind of hearing and discussion ultimately potentially at the
30 Council I would certainly advise against that.
31
32 Commissioner Holman: I would certainly hope not months but I am just trying to provide some
33 kind of transparency to the process. So if Staff has another suggestion or recommendation?
34
35 Mr. Williams: I don't have another suggestion. I don't think this is a public process. I do think
36 it is a public process for the Site and Design and PCs that are coming to you. But for the Staff
37 process I don't see as anymore than the existing one-year extension is and if it is going to be a
38 different process then it is very different.
39
40 Commissioner Holman: Any Commissioners support that or not?
41
42 Vice-Chair Tuma: First there are two issues that you raise. One dealing with the notice and I
43 think that there are a whole host of approvals that go on all the time that are Director discretion
44 and I think this falls into that category and we don't necessarily do notice. So I think we are
45 opening up a can of worms. We are talking about one-year extensions and then this could take
Page 26
1 several months to get to hearing and you are opening up something there that we don't want to
2 go. So I for one wouldn't be supportive of that.
3
4 . On the other topic of changed conditions I go back to my law school days. What we are trying to
5 do is give Staff and also when these things come to us specific criteria against which to evaluate
6 yes or no. Changed conditions or language like that to me is fairly vague. I think if anything it
7 opens up those decisions to more attack because what is that? When we talk about ordinance
8 changes or code changes or the Comprehensive Plan those are fairly concrete, measurable,
9 identifiable changes. So I wouldn't want to open up the process to sort of getting into a much
10 more wishy-washy area about whether something triggers that. So those are my issues with
11 those topics.
12
13 Commissioner Holman: Well, my purpose here is because marketplaces change and let's say for
14 instance what we have experienced --I am not going to beat this to death, but I will make this
15 comment. There are changed conditions that happen in the marketplace and in the community.
16 Whoever dreanled that we would have the force of so many housing development projects? The
17 community has not been particularly happy that all of that has happened. The marketplace drove
18 that because we had zoning that allowed that much. So if there had been an opportunity to put a
19 halt to some of those proj ects rather than, let's say we were in this situation, if there had been an
20 opportunity to put a halt to some of those nlultifamily projects those are changed conditions.
21 Because we have a schools situation, we have traffic situations, so markets change, and
22 conditions change. That is what I was trying to get at.
23
24 Vice-Chair Tuma: In my mind the distinction though is these are entitlements that have been
25 granted. Yes, there is an extension of time here but the difference between entitlements that have
26 \ been granted and things that have vested and reliance that people make on these things is
27 different. So it is a quarter of nine, and this is a good discussion so I don't want to cut it off, but
28 I do want to be mindful of the time. I have a light from Commissioner Lippert and one from
29 Commissioner Fineberg. Were you done, Commissioner Holman? Okay.
30
31 Commissioner Lippert: I would like to just address Commissioner Holman's comnlent with
32 regard to the notification. I think there is some latitude or sonle room in there. What I would
33 hate to see is for this to - I don't think the intent here is that we want it to reopen the
34 discretionary process. This is really an extension of entitlements and approvals with again
35 additional extensions that are reviewed at the Director's level.
36
37 Where I think we have some latitude however is for instance the Architectural Review Board at
38 the end of its agenda does currently list Staff level approvals. I think that would be an
39 appropriate place, because it is a notification really to the Architectural Review Board. At the
40 end of the agenda let thenl know that an extension has been granted or an extension is being
41 considered for a specific project. Those are publicly noticed agendas so they are posted at the
42 library and in the public domain on the internet. So there is a venue or way by which the
43 community can then voice to either the Director or the Architectural Review Board what their
44 concerns are. It mayor may not affect that extension but the point is that at least then it is made
45 part of the public record.
46
Page 27
1 The second point that I wanted to make and I guess this is more of a question for my colleague,
2 Commissioner Keller. Along EI Camino Real nlany, many, many years ago the City Council
3 rezoned properties along EI Camino Real making them multifamily residential properties. One
4 of the sites is the Palo Alto Bowl. That until recently has been a legally existing nonconforming
5 use. Recently we saw that property again and we made a recommendation on rezoning that
6 property along with reviewing the potential development along there. Two separate things, the
7 rezone of the property and the potential development on that property. What I am little
8 concerned about is where that rezone falls in relationship to the approval of the hotel and the
9 housing that would be going there. If the applicant were not able to find the financing by the
10 time this comes into play to build those then again the Palo Alto Bowl is a legally existing
11 nonconforming use once again. Anything that would be built there would have to follow the
12 approval or the recommendation we made on that property. So what I am concerned about is
13 that we have a rezone, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on that property, a nonconforming
14 use, and then another proposal that if it did not receive its extensions would then become
15 another, you know it is a nonconfornling use, So I am just trying to understand how this would
16 all fit into that approval-extension timeline.
17
18 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Holman you had a clarifying question about Commissioner
19 Lippert's first point? Pass it? Okay. Did you hear the second of Commissioner Lippert's
20 issues?
21
22 Mr. Williams: Sorry I didn't get that. I apologize. Did you?
23
24 Ms. French: Yes, kind of.
25
26 Mr. Williams: Is there a question from it?
27
28 Comnlissioner Lippert: There was a question.
29
30 Mr. Williams: Can I just get the question part?
31
32 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. The question is along EI Canlino Real there are a number of
33 legally existing nonconforming uses. An example is the Palo Alto Bowl site. Recently we saw
34 the Palo Alto Bowl site and we made a recommendation of rezoning the property to something
35 else. It is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, correct?
36
37 Mr. Williams: Well, we rezoned it back to commercial. So it is not nonconforming now except
38 for the back part of it.
39
40 Commissioner Lippert: So you have answered the question. Basically there would be no
41 conflict there.
42
43 Mr. Williams: Right.
44
45 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg.
46
Page 28
1 Commissioner Fineberg: Just two comments on Commissioner Holman's suggestion of public
2 notification. ,If the intent is so that the residents or businesses near a proj ect gain an
3 understanding that the approval is being extended and there is a thought that there is value in
4 that, and I believe that there is, then the public notification needs to be done in a way that those
5 affected will actually get the notification. So while posting it as part of minutes in the library
6 might legally support a definition of public notification, there would not be many residents nor
7 would there be many business owners that actually go to the library and read every set of our
8 minutes. So I think in practice it wouldn't satisfy the intent. Okay, excuse me, on the agenda.
9 So if the goal is for people that are impacted to understand what is happening and have
10 awareness of it it needs to be done in a productive fashion not just a legally satisfactory one.
11
12 On the question about changing conditions and how to handle that I would be hesitant to apply
13 that on a project-by-project basis because that might potentially become capricious. Would the
14 way to approach that be by requiring that the ordinance come back to us annually after 201 O?
15 Then if let's say in June 2011 the miracle of miracles happened and we have a green boom, there
16 is building everywhere, there is free money, lending is on, we could repeal the ordinance. That
17 way we are dealing with it evenhandedly across all projects. It would consider the changing
18 conditions. I don't know if an annual review -and that would mean that they would be entitled
19 to the extension ifit was happening between now and Jmle 2010 and then if the grim conditions
20 continued and we didn't repeal it they would still be entitled to the same extension.
21
22 Mr. Williams: If your suggestion is that it would come back to you in June 2011 I think that is
23 fine. I don't have any problem with that at all. We could reevaluate where we are with it, is
24 there a reason to cutback on it, is there reason because the economy has gotten worse and we
25 want to even extend it some more. I think we could have that. I think that is fine.
26
27 I did want to clarify you mentioned the thing about the notice. We are not suggesting notice. So
28 I think that was maybe mentioned up here but that is not a suggestion of ours that there be notice
29 on it. Certainly if there is notice then your points are well taken that it needs to be beneficial and
30 effective.
31
32 Commissioner Fineberg: Can we do a straw poll on notice and then I would like to propose a
33 friendly amendnlent?
34
35 Mr. Larkin: I don't think a straw poll is appropriate. If you want to make the amendment just
36 make the amendment.
37
38 AMENDMENT
39
40 Commissioner Fineberg: All right. I would like to make a friendly amendment that there be a
41 requirement that the ordinance come back to the Planning Commission annually for review and
42 potential changes beginning June 30,2011.
43
44 SECOND
45
Page 29
1 Commissioner Keller: Can I suggest that be it comes back to us annually starting in the first
2 quarter of20ll? The reason is if you really want to apply some period extension it takes a few
3 nlonths to get through the system. So you probably want us to come back the first quarter of
4 2011 and then annually thereafter until it is either repealed or extended or whatever. Does that
5 make sense? Okay. So I will make that amendment.
6
7 Commissioner Fineberg: I would accept that.
8
9 Vice-Chair Tuma: Are we ready to vote?
10
11 Commissioner Keller: One more thing.
12
13 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay.
14
15 AMENDMENT
16
17 Commissioner Keller: I would like to make the amendment that was suggested by the Attorney,
18 which is that health and safety be added as a condition for the findings for an extension.
19
20 SECOND
21
22 Commissioner Fineberg: I guess I am still accepting the second.
23
24 Vice-Chair Tuma: I am not sure what that means.
25
26 Mr. Larkin: I think that the way that I suggested it is if the Director makes health and safety
27 findings that would be a ground for denying or conditioning the extension.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: That is what I meant.
30
31 Vice-Chair Tuma: All Right. Are we ready to vote? I am not even going to try, Planning
32 Director, do you believe that you have all this?
33
34 Mr. Williams: I think we are there.
35
36 MOTION PASSED (5-0-2-0, Commissioners Garber and Rosati absent).
37
38 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. All those in favor of the motion as made and amended by
39 Comnlissioner Keller say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That passes five to zero. Thank you.
Page 30
Planning and Transportation Comnlission
Verbatim Minutes
July 22,2009
EXCERPT
ATTACHMENT F
1 Review and Recommendation of an Uncodified Ordinance relating to Time Extensions for active
2 pennits previously approved pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18, Zoning Code.
3 Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
4 Quality Act (CEQA) requirements pursuant to Title 14 of California Code of Regulations,
5 Section 15061(b)(3).
6
7 Ms. French: Yes. Due to the current and projected economic conditions Staff has begun to get
8 an increasing number of requests for extensions of planning entitlements, along with requests for
9 extensions of Building Pennit Plan Checks. Developers are having a difficult time retaining
10 building occupants that they initially had as part of the deal and obtaining financing to pay for
11 both the construction and the development impact fees that are due at the time of Building Permit
12 Issuance.
13
14 The entitlement extensions of one year can be granted now by a letter from the Director for all
15 except for Sight and Design Reviews as long as we receive the request before the expiration
16 before the entitlement. To date these extensions have not involved adding new conditions to the
17 extended projects. The uncodified ordinance would extend Planning entitlements approved
18 pursuant to Title 18. It would provide more certainty in uncertain times for previously approved
19 proj ects and would streamline the extension process.
20
21 In exchange for extensions Staff proposes that the City would require future construction to meet
22 our mandatory Green Building requirements even if those requirements were not in place at the
23 time of the initial approvals. The proposed two year automatic extension of active Planning
24 entitlements and for those approved prior to July 2010 is very similar to the state assembly bill
25 that passed just last week, AB 333. It is a new statutory or automatic two-year extension of all
26 unexpired subdivision maps. This extension adds to the extensions that were already added for
27 subdivision maps back in July of last year, SB 1185.
28
29 Chair Tuma had asked Staff to identify the potential effects on resources both positive and
30 negative. First of all I want to make clear it is not going to extend construction periods as they
31 are currently defined now in our Building Department. It is just about getting projects to the
32 point where they can initiate that construction. It would not freeze the amount of fees to be paid
33 for projects. So Plan Check fees, Green Building fees, development impact fees would all be
34 paid at the rate in effect at the time of the Building Pennit submittal and issuance.
35
36 Then applicants for Building Pennits currently in Plan Check would still have to pay to extend
37 the Plan Check if the Plan Check time is nearing expiration. This ordinance would not affect
38 that. Applicants for Building Pennits that have been issued but yet received their inspection with
39 the six-month interval would still have to pay to extend the pennit for inspection purposes. lfthe
40 Building Pennit were to laps and the Planning entitlement had been automatically extended per
Page 1
1 this ordinance the applicant could then reapply for the Building Permit and pay the fees again in
2 effect at that tinle.
3
4 This ordinance could reduce the amount of permit fees and applications received by the City
5 during the coming years, not such a good thing. But since the applicant's would not need to
6 reapply for the same projects that may have otherwise expired. The applicant's would also not
7 have to pay an attorney to prepare a Development Agreement to apply for Council approval of an
8 ordinance associated with such a development permit. However, Staff could then focus on
9 pending entitlement projects, preliminary reviews, and other work on our plate such as
10 Corinnission and Council assigned special proj ects if we just simply extended them.
11
12 Commissioner Keller emailed questions to Staff today and answers are at places at the back of
13 your at places packet there. Per his request, the list of addresses of approved projects currently
14 needing Building Permits and projects that are now in discretionary planning processes have
15 been annotated to show the zone district for each project. Hopefully they came out okay in the
16 copying. If you have questions I can go through that.
17
18 Staff is interested to hear Commission input on the length of time for the automatic extension
19 and the Director extension. The Commission may wish to discuss the amount of time proposed
20 for each type of extension based upon the type of entitlement. So it is quite late. I think we still
21 have a few possibly supports, possibly others who want to discuss this. Thank you.
22
23 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. At this point I have three members of the public. Thank you for
24 sticking with us to this hour. So we are going to hear from the public. The first speaker will be
25 Bruce Barry followed by Bob Moss. You will have three minutes each.
26
27 Mr. Bruce Barry, Palo Alto: Good evening and thank you for your time. I am with Barry Real
28 Estate. I am not going to tell you anything that you already don't know. Sitting out there
29 listening to you and I am very impressed with your knowledge of what is going on in the real
30 estate environment and the economy in general.
31
32 The project that I am going to talk about we started five years when the economy was much
33 better. Things have dramatically changed and we are at a point now were our project is approved
34 and we have until January 11 to pull the Building Permit. At this point our tenant has backed out
35 given the current situation. I work every day trying to talking to retail tenants, talking to office
36 tenants trying to secure tenants, and there is no interest. Every retail tenant I have talked to their
37 plans are on hold indefinitely, pretty much the same with the office tenants. I really believe it is
38 going to be not months but it could take years for things to come back to where they were.
39
40 I am just here to ask that you please support item four and get it passed. There are a lot of great
41 projects out there that should be built that are going to be a great improvement to the city and we
42 just need some time to ride this out to get them done. It is just the lending environment, dealing
43 with the banks, the restrictions that they have put on us. It is almost impossible to get funding or
44 even get a tenant to get your projects approved. So that is where I am at.
45
Page 2
1 Roxy Rapp was going to be here tonight but unfortunately he is flying back from Utah. So he
2 wanted me to convey the message. He has a big project he is working on too. So thank you and
3 I appreciate your time. I am very impressed with your knowledge. You are doing a great job.
4 Thank you.
5
6 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thanks, thanks for sticking with us. Bob Moss followed by Herb Borock.
7
8 Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Vice-Chair Tuma and Commissioners. I think the basic
9 concept of we have an economic problem we should do something about it is correct but the
10 timing is wrong. The recession started 19 months ago and is showing signs of coming out of it.
11 My prediction is it will actually be back in a growth mode probably by November or December,
12 and by this time next year I wouldn't be surprised if the growth is over three percent. So we
13 have gone through this and we are on our way out.
14
15 Of the 20 projects that are listed on Attachment C that are pending and may have to come in for
16 extensions one of them already has an extension to 2014, three of them Building Permits should
17 be issued within the next month. So there are 16 that are at issue and a number of them are good
18 until 2011. So I think it come to something like six or eight that really might be what we would
19 call at risk.
20
21 One of the things that bothers me about this extension is it takes all the pressure off to have
22 somebody really build something. There have been a number of developments in Palo Alto over
23 the years where somebody has come in and gotten an approval and then for various reasons
24 stopped work. You have this site that just sits there unused, vacant, and getting increasingly
25 ugly. There are two housing projects in Barron Park a few blocks from me that have been sitting
26 for nlonths with nobody doing any work. There is one right next to Briones School that has been
27 underway for almost three years, and that is kind of bad.
28
29 So my suggestion is a compromise. Don't give the automatic two-year extension. Allow a
30 second one-year Director's extension so that you can get three years total. Ifwe still find at the
31 end of another year that we have a down economy, we have a problem, then we could have yet
32 another Director's extension. When the Director does the extension he is talking about going
33 with Green Building he should also make sure that if there are changes in the code, Zoning
34 Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan that the extension also imposes whatever those changes are
35 so that we have something that is modem and consistent with current practice rather than
36 something that was approved four or five years ago and you wouldn't want done exactly the
37 same way today. So I think leaving it to the Director and allowing a one-year additional
38 extension is a good compromise.
39
40 What really bothers me is the idea of something sitting there undeveloped for many, many years.
41 That would be unpleasant.
42
43 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. Our last speaker of the evening, Herb Borock.
44
45 Mr. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Thank you Vice-Chair Tuma and Commissioners. I guess the
46 simplest comment I can make is just say no. We have a social contract here for decades that
Page 3
1 there are limits on approvals. In good times when developers were making very high returns or
2 in some cases in relation to the previous item they were putting offices on the ground floor that
3 was prohibited until they got caught. They didn't take that extra money and give it to charity or
4 give to the community that was impacted by the developments.
5
6 The reasons Staff has given, Staff workload for example I don't believe it. The real reason they
7 are concerned is the community standards change, different people are elected to the City
8 Council and if proj ects laps, as they do under the current code, the same proj ect nlight not be
9 approved based on who gets elected. I just think you should say no.
10
11 One comment I would like to make is there are three ways to initiate changes to the zoning code.
12 One of them is the current agenda item where Staff initiates it and places it on your agenda. The
13 other two are either the City Council Of this Commission initiating the zoning change. That is
14 what the previous agenda item was supposed to be. The Commission initiating a zoning change
15 but you did not do that. You did not come to a collective concurrence to direct Staff as to what
16 should be in that ordinance.
17
18 I couldn't make that comment on the last agenda item because I didn't hear that advice from
19 Staffuntil after the public comment has been closed but I think that was a violation of the zoning
20 code. It is not only the first time I have heard the kind of advice you got on the previous agenda
21 item compared to other attorney's who have been here, but I think it is the first time I have heard
22 it during Gary Baum's tenure. Thank you.
23
24 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. Back to Commissioners for questions or comments. Right now I
25 have Commissioner Keller, followed by Holman, followed by Fineberg.
26
27 Commissioner Keller: First I think this is very interesting. I am in sympathy with the comments
28 of Mr. Moss from the pUblic. I heard several different reports indicating that the recession is
29 likely to end sometime in the fourth quarter of this calendar year, and then see some upturn.
30 Nonetheless I do think that it is warranted to be able to provide some degree of extension.
31 Although I had first thought with respect to my question four about one year automatic extension
32 and two one year discretionary extensions I am now leaning towards, especially in response to
33 the comments that discretionary extensions actually are not a lot of work, I would suggest that
34 we have up to two one year discretionary extensions. That if this turns out to not be an upturn
35 within the next two years that we can revisit this further and do that.
36
37 In addition, that these discretionary extensions take into account not only Green Building but
38 also the potential for code and Comprehensive Plan amendment changes, and that we take those
39 into account as well. I appreciate those other suggestions from Mr. Moss.
40
41 I had furthermore suggested this not apply to Site and Design Review. That the process of
42 Development Agreements certainly exists in that and that we avail ourselves of Development
43 Agreements in that regard, as was mentioned in the response to my question number two. Where
44 it says that currently a Director may extend Planned Comnlunities one year; beyond that a
45 Development Agreement would be needed for an extension. Development Agreements executed
46 prior to expiration are currently the only method available to extend Site and Design Review
Page 4
1 approvals. So it looks like the process of Development Agreements already exists for a Planned
2 Community and already exists for Site and Design Review, and it seems to me that that process
3 should be followed. So in particular PCs involve Site and Design Review so I would want this
4 not to apply to Site and Design Review. If the Chair will allow me I will make that motion but if
5 the Chair prefers I can defer that.
6
7 Vice-Chair Tuma: I think it may be helpful just to hear comments from others as well and then
8 we will come back to you for a motion.
9
10 Commissioner Keller: Sure.
11
12 Mr. Williams: Chair, can I make one clarification?
13
14 Vice-Chair Tuma: Absolutely.
15
16 Mr. Williams: The reference is to Site and Design Reviews and you said that PCs require Site
17 and Design Review and that is not true. PCs have a process that is similar to Site and Design
18 Review with the exception of Alma Plaza PCs do not have separate Site and Design Review. So
19 you might want to focus more on the PC than a Site and Design Review or both if you feel it
20 necessary to do both. But you can have Site and Design with out a PC. The PC process has
21 embodied within it review by all three bodies which is essentially what Site and Design Review
22 is but it is not called Site and Design Review. So if you just said Site and Design Review that
23 doesn't necessarily attach to all PCs.
24
25 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller.
26
27 Commissioner Keller: In that case I would want to use the Development Agreement process for
28 both PCs and Site and Design Review. Thank you for that clarification.
29
30 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Holman.
31
32 Commissioner Holman: I have a couple of questions. How many properties are really
33 prompting this? If you go down the list there are 2455 EI Camino Real, it says the Building
34 Permit is issued. 278 University there is already a one-year extension available. There is an
35 extension available for 695 Arastradero it appears. I am just looking at the ones that expire in
36 2009. 49 Wells, 653 Homer one year extensions are available for those. 317-323 University no
37 Building Permit so is there a one-year extension available for that one?
38
39 Mr. Williams: No, that is the one the speaker was talking about before that expires in early
40 2010.
41
42 Commissioner Holman: Okay. Then the Building Permits are issued for the recently issued ones
43 the 2805 EI Camino and 3750 Fabian. They don't have to commence work for another many
44 months. So I guess I am a little bit interested in what is really prompting this. Is it the concern
45 for how long the downturn will last? Why are we looking at this now?
46
Page 5
1 Mr. Williams: Yes, two things. One is that we have had a couple. The main one that really
2 started us thinking about this was Channing House, a Planned Community for Channing House.
3 We just not too long ago wrote them an extension request so they would have to be back in do
4 we have that?
5
6 Ms. French: With a Planned Community they have a development schedule. So they have said
7 that they are going to by October 8,2011 start construction. If they don't start construction on
8 October 8, 2011 they are going to have to come forward with a Development Agreement or if we
9 have done this extension then they don't have to do that. The problem there too is it is OSHPD.
10 They are dealing with a different agency to get through permits, etc.
11
12 Mr. Williams: 200 San Antonio you saw as a Development Agreement that is somewhat
13 different than the other requests in that it is such a big project and involves Mountain View and
14 some other unusual things. Then this 317-323 University is there and then what you don't see on
15 these pages are dozens of single fanlily homes and other remodels and such that are in the same
16 situation. They have expiration dates and they are sitting now and some of them are going to
17 come up in the next six months to a year and some of them might be a little longer than that that
18 can have one additional extension. But again, appreciate what Mr. Moss has said but we are
19 seeing a lot of particularly commercial real estate reports coming out saying 2012-2013 for the
20 timeframe for bouncing back in the conlffiercial sector. It ends up being troublesome for Staff to
21 have to process extension requests and deal with that. It is very troublesome to have to develop a
22 Development Agreement. It has to go through Commission and Council, have to have the
23 Attorneys getting involved and that kind of thing, but what is more troubling is the applicant and
24 the uncertainty. I think this is a good example for 317-323 University. I talked to Rick Barry
25 last week about this and they are in a situation right now and there is a lot of lead-time associated
26 with doing these things. So the fact that we could say well, it has to have a permit by early this
27 says 12-27-09 but he has indicated I think January 10 or 11 or something like that, have to pull a
28 permit by then. Well, if they are going to pull a permit by then they need to have pr()bably their
29 working drawings submitted in the next month or so to Building. So they are at a point where
30 they really have to make a serious commitment of money to do that and then move forward.
31 Even at that they are not sure that they are going to be able to have the financing to make that
32 happen in that timeframe. So it is difficult.
33
34 Certainly, if the Commission wanted to go to something that is less than the two years out,
35 something like Commissioner Keller mentioned, and come back in a year and review and see
36 where things are kind of with the economy and see how things are looking and whether to
37 continue this, and maybe this is a report you see after a year and make a determination whether
38 to continue the extensions or not that would be sonlething that certainly would be better than sort
39 of where we are today.
40
41 Vice-Chair Tuma: I just want to interject a comment here. I spend a lot of time these days
42 reading about the status of the commercial real estate market and everything that I read says that
43 when you look at the statistics on the status of notice of default and foreclosure proceedings in
44 the commercial real estate market it is lagging the residential nlarket by between six and 12
45 months. So what I am reading says very strongly that while the residential market seems to be
46 stabilizing in some areas the commercial market is getting ready for what we went through six to
Page 6
1 12 months ago in the residential market. So I would concur with the comments of the Interim
2 Director that the commercial market may very well be in for a much bigger shock coming up.
3 So I think the worst of it is not over for tne commercial market. So just in terms of the why are
4 we doing this I think there really is a time horizon out here in the future where the commercial
5 market is going to be in a greater sense of disarray if you will. Commissioner Lippert do you
6 want to follow up on that one?
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: I just wanted to follow up on that real quick which is that the state of the
9 economy when it comes to commercial is probably far worse because commercial properties
10 generally have to refmance and they are takeout loans every ten to 15 years. So it is not just the
11 construction loans it is also the takeout loans as well. So it is really quite a terrible situation that
12 we could be facing in the near future if we don't take what we have in the way of permits here
13 entitlements and be able to extend them at least out through another year.
14
15 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, great. Thanks. Now back to Commissioner Holman.
16
17 Commissioner Holman: So unless I am really missing something here is the only one that is
18 really in jeopardy currently, we are not talking about the single family homes, but the
19 commercial ones is the 317-323 University?
20
21 Ms. French: You are looking at major projects. There are others out there that are not on this list
22 that are Individual Review homes, etc. I don't have a list.
23
24 Commissioner Holman: Right, excepting IR proj ects or single family homes, the conlmercial
25 ones.
26
27 Mr. Williams: There may be a few on these lists of the major projects there are not that many
28 that are imminent. But again in terms of planning, their building plans, their financing, etc.
29 trying to get there it is just our feeling that we don't want to wait until we are six months away
30 from their expiration before we do something.
31
32 Commissioner Holman: So how finitely can we say and nay? In other words without getting
33 into a situation of discriminating, it kind of goes to Commissioner Keller's comment perhaps,
34 could we carve out PCs? Could we carve out affordable housing proj ects? How can we slice
35 and dice.
36
37 Mr. Williams: Don might want to add to this but I think you probably can by the type of permit
38 at least. I don't know about affordable housing projects probably but certainly you can do PCs,
39 Sight and Design from architectural review, just standard architectural review or something like
40 that if that is what you would like to do. I don't think that is a problem especially since those are
41 items that go all the way through Commission and Council and that does imply that there is some
42 greater discretion associated with that kind of review.
43
44 Commissioner Holman: Could it also be by size ofproject? The reason I am going there is
45 because times and conditions do change in the real world so that is why I am asking that
46 question. And, a second question is if I understood Amy French's comment and I may not have
Page 7
1 understood it, the fees that are paid are the fees that are paid at the tinle of issuance. So if
2 somebody comes along and they don't get their Building Permit for two years then they pay the
3 fees applicable at that tinle. But if they have already paid the fees -never mind I just answered
4 my own question. So the size ofproject, could we?
5
6 Mr. Larkin: I think you do have a fair amount of latitude. I think the closer you drill down, the
7 more you differentiate, and the closer you drill down to specific types ofprojects the stronger the
8 rationale has to be. You have to come up with rationale for not extending -if you are going to
9 say all PCs except for PCs over 20 acres, just to use an extreme ex amp Ie, I think that is fine but
10 come up with the reason why it makes sense to distinguish those projects.
11
12 Commissioner Holman: Thank you.
13
14 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg.
15
16 Commissioner Fineberg: Could Staff please define proposed uncodified ordinance?
17
18 Mr. Williams: Yes. A lot of times when something is intended to be in effect for a temporary
19 period of time we do that or cities us an uncodified process. It doesn't get into the code because
20 it is not going to be in the code very long. So it is basically outside the code and says this is the
21 way you treat these permits in this case. Then in a couple of years it is gone. So nobody is
22 looking in there ten years in advance and says something is in here about this and it is ten years
23 old and outdated. So using the uncodified process is beneficial in that respect. It doesn't have to
24 be we could put it in the code but that is generally the way it is done. I know we had talked to
25 Sunnyvale and they did something like this too and that is the way they did it for their code.
26
27 Mr. Larkin: It is the kind of thing that could be done by a resolution. In fact our Charter says
28 that we could do legislative acts by ordinance or resolution. The problem with resolution is that
29 it is not tracked at the same level. An uncodified ordinance will at least get entered into the end
30 of the code where they list all the ordinances that are adopted. So if somebody needs to refer to
31 it you will have an ordinance number and can go pull the ordinance.
32
33 Commissioner Fineberg: So what does an uncodified ordinance live in ifit is not part of the
34 code? Are there other uncodified ordinances out there that we are all familiar with?
35
36 Mr. Larkin: There are uncodified ordinances out there that some of us are familiar with. All of
37 the City Council's actions that are legislative are either done by resolution or ordinance. If it is
38 resolution it gets filed in a draw and people may know where to find it. If it is an ordinance it
39 gets listed in the Table of Ordinances but the official record of those ordinances is the Ordinance
40 that is on file in the City Clerk's Office. So the code is a handy reference but it is the Ordinance
41 itself that is on file in the City Clerk's Office that is the implementing document. This would
42 just be an ordinance in the City Clerk's Office that doesn't get printed in the code.
43
44 Commissioner Fineberg: So are all the PC ordinances uncodified ordinances?
45
46 Mr. Larkin: That is actually a really good example. PC ordinances are uncodified ordinances.
Page 8
1
2 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, thank you. Can Staff please clarify the existing conditions, I
3 think I am familiar with them but I just want to make sure, what is the length of time currently
4 allowed for the different types of projects? Then I understand we will be adding the two years or
5 the one-year in this proposal. But what is the baseline that we start from that exists now?
6
7 Ms. French: So there are different classifications. We grouped them during the permit
8 streamlining to be called different things. So if you want to look at the table in Attachment B
9 you can see ARB, DEE, CUP, Variance, IR, HIE, NPE those are all good for a year. If they
10 come in before that year is up and ask for an extension we give it to them through a letter, one
11 more year. So the total amount of time is two years before they have to have pulled their
12 Building Permit and started digging in the ground.
13
14 Then for Site and Design it is a two-year initial period unless it is associated with a Vesting
15 Tentative Map and there are no extensions by anybody. The Planned Community there is a
16 development schedule that is set forth and adopted by Council, and it could have a five year plan
17 it, it just depends, it is case-by-case. Then that can be extended by an additional year by the
18 Director. So that's it.
19
20 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. I had missed Attachment B. So that means that more or
21 less there is one year, plus a one year extension, so the current base condition is two years and
22 we would be going to either four or five years. How does and, where in that process, how does
23 demolition permit fit in there? Will we be having lots that get scraped and then sitting empty
24 five years or do they not get to scrape it until there is some condition that has been nlet? Will we
25 have vacant buildings with no tenants that are getting blighted? What is going to happen?
26
27 Ms. French: Technically in our code right now for let's say Architectural Review Board permits
28 or approvals we would not issue the demolition permit until after the architectural review in the
29 code it says this. We don't issue demolition permits unless there has been an Architectural
30 Review approval. Now we are looking at other policies as far as that goes. In other words,
31 sometimes there are reasons why if there are hazards in the building let's say, they want to
32 demolish it for health and safety reasons so there is an exception to that. The best situation
33 would be to be issuing the Building Permit and that would include the demolition permit and that
34 would come as a package that would include the construction and demolition debris diversion
35 requirements and paperwork, etc. So that is our ideal and that is what we try to work towards
36 with our applicants is to have it all happen in the same issuance.
37
38 Mr. Williams: We have recently affirmed that with the Building Official that for all types of
39 permits that in almost all cases the demolition would not occur prior to a Building Permit being
40 issued with the exception of if somebody does come because there is some unusual circumstance
41 and there is some hazard or nuisance created by a building remaining on a site that there would
42 be the ability for the Building Official and Planning Director to determine that it could be
43 demolished before hand. Up until like six months ago or so I know certainly on single family
44 homes you didn't even have to have an approval of a project for that site before you could
45 demolish. Now we have policy that not only do you have to have approved replacement but you
46 also have to do it simultaneous with the Building Permit.
Page 9
1
2 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so it sounds like the safety mechanisms have been put in place
3 that we won't have the demolitions and then empty lots.
4
5 I don't know if you could answer this tonight but I also have some questions about what the
6 impact in retail tenants would be. In light of our last conversation if we have projects that have
7 ground floor retail or office on second floor and the project is likely to undergo a renovation
8 there is a significant amount of uncertainty introduced for those tenants if they don't know if
9 they are staying one year, two years, or five years. I can imagine that that only degrades their
10 ability to have certainty and to want to have any kind of tenant improvements to want to remain
11 in that space with that uncertainty. So I don't know that it is necessarily a good thing for the
12 tenants. Also if you have spaces that are not the most desirable buildings, buildings that an
13 owner or developer might want to tear down and redevelop, those undesirable spaces add to our
14 less expensive office stock, less expensive housing stock, less expensive retail stock. We have
15 seen this in other areas when we redevelop we redevelop with typically higher density, with
16 better quality space which goes at higher rental rates or higher sales per square foot, the value of
17 the property, and the improvements are increased. So it drives up rents. It drives up land values.
18 It drives up property costs. One way to counteract that would be to not enact this ordinance. So
19 by not enacting this ordinance it would make rents more affordable. It would nlake single family
20 homes more affordable because it keeps that older, lower quality stock. It is kind of
21 counterintuitive to wanting to see everything improved. I would be curious to see more of an
22 analysis on that and whether that would increase our ability for local businesses to remain in
23 existing retail spaces. I am not sure this proposed uncodified ordinance would benefit local
24 business operators not necessarily owners. It looks like you have some feedback.
25
26 Mr. Williams: I do. I understand what you are saying but my take would be the opposite of that.
27 I don't think that your concern about redevelopment is I think outside the discussion here. I
28 think these properties are going to redevelop it is just a matter of whether when that occurs.
29 Then as far as the rents go, I am thinking of the situation with the tenants in the retail, I think
30 having some extension and some known extension there provides an opportunity for the property
31 owner to assure the retail tenant that they have more time there and to work something out with
32 them. I think if you look at the 278 University, the Roxy Rapp building as an example, at first
33 they were going to go ahead and Noah's and Starbuck's had moved out. He as been able to find
34 a couple of tenants as interim tenants in those spaces. I know that Kan Zeman is the other piece
35 of that and it has been looking and looking because they thought that they were going to be gone.
36 When it looked like he wasn't going to be able to develop right away they managed to strike a
37 deal. If they knew they had these extensions I think they could talk about a longer term, more
38 solid deal to keep people in spaces. If they don't then they are almost forced to say well the
39 lease is going to be up then and I don't know if I am going to be able to keep you there or not. I
40 might be forced to move ahead with a building I don't really want to go ahead with and there is a
41 lot of risk to do that. So I would see from the retail side at least that this would provide a little
42 more certainty in that situation, more opportunity to retain those retail tenants. On the home side
43 I think it is just a matter of timing and it might mean that somebody has to come back in and
44 resubmit but they are probably still going to ultimately do the home at some point. Just my
45 opInIon.
46
Page 10
1 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. Thanks I appreciate that. I guess what I am seeing is that if a
2 developer knows before they start a project that they need to have tenants lined up, they need to
3 have financing lined up, they need to be able to do this in a finite period of time they might be
4 less likely to give their anchor tenants notice of five years. They might be more inclined to
5 retain tenants they have and unless they know they have a viable project they are not going to
6 take the gamble that hey I can start this project and I have five years to figure it out, and it
7 increases the amount of uncertainty, and it increases the risk they will take because they know
8 they have more time to sort of sort things out. I can see how that could go in several directions.
9
10 I would like to echo Commissioner Holman's comments of if we were to pursue this to somehow
11 differentiate how the ordinance might apply to single family homes, versus PC, versus
12 commercial properties, and I will leave it to Staff to figure out how to slice and dice that. But I
13 would be more inclined to favor the ordinance for certain types of developments and not for
14 others.
15
16 I also would want to see more thought and maybe Staff comnient on what the impact of this
17 ordinance would be given that we are on the cusp of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
18 Assuming we keep our 2012 date for having the Amendment in place sonle of the extensions that
19 we might be granting within let's say a year would carry these proj ects pas the 2012 date versus
20 if the current entitlements expire when they would come back would be governed under new
21 Comprehensive Plan guidelines. So at a time when our Comprehensive Plan is sun setting is it
22 wise to continue entitlements into a new Comprehensive Plan era. I don't what the full impacts
23 of that are so I would want to see more discussion of that. Thank you.
24
25 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Lippert.
26
27 Comnlissioner Lippert: I think this is a really fine idea considering the economic times. One
28 thing that this does I think is particularly important. The discretionary review process is just that.
29 It is an entitlement on a project, on a piece of property that is not a right that is just given away it
30 is something that needs to be reviewed and done following a set of rules, and there is a body that
31 reviews this. What I want to do with this is keep the discretionary review process from
32 becoming a subjective review process. What I nlean by that is that because a project might be
33 stalled by a year or so bodies turnover. On the Planning Commission we have already seen we
34 have lost two, perhaps three people here. The City Council again is going to be turning over and
35 we might lose three people there, four perhaps. So what happens is that when you get into these
36 entitlements that have been granted a body like the Planning Commission or the City Council if
37 they have to make reapplication for this it is a whole other set of eyes that are seeing this. In
38 addition to that the rules are changing. So you conlpound all of that and it is like a vehicle stuck
39 in mud. It can't get any traction. It can't get going. The gasoline is the financing. If they are
40 out of gas, they are stuck in the mud, they finally get the gas to get going again, but the process
41 bogs it down. When that begins to happen we begin to lose opportunities in this town. What I
42 mean by that is we see things like Tom Wing leave Stanford Shopping Center and goes to Menlo
43 Park. So I don't want what is our discretionary review process to suddenly become a subjective
44 review process.
45
Page 11
1 The other point that I want to make here that I think is particularly important is that when it
2 comes to Planning entitlements the date you make application is the date the rules that you have
J 3 to follow are set. The rules you follow are as of the date of application. So if the one-year
4 period were to expire a whole other set of rules might come into play and then they would have
5 to redesign the building or the project based on the new rules. With Building it is a little bit
6 different. Again it is the day that you submit but you could be in Plan Check for up to a year and
7 resubmit your revisions and you are still in there. What I am afraid will happen with this is that
8 the rules would change whereas in the Building process when it comes to -it is much more
9 ministerial, this is discretionary. All that the Building Code is is it is ministerial. You just have
10 to meet each of the objectives in the Building Code, whereas this is discretionary. So it is a far
11 more difficult threshold to meet. What I am afraid of is that we are just going to have developers
12 that are going to throw up their hands and say hey, I am not going to build this project now.
13 Once that happens we are stuck in a time warp where we are not moving forward.
14
15 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. I have just a couple of quick comments and questions and then we are
16 going to go to Commissioner Keller because I believe he is prepared to make a motion.
17
18 A question of Staff. What is the standard of approval on discretionary extensions?
19
20 Mr. Williams: Generally I don't think there is a specific criteria for it. It just allows the Director
21 to make that extension upon written request. So unless there is some very obvious changed
22 circumstance that would cause us to highlight it that we wouldn't make an extension, we
23 generally would extend the approval.
24
25 Ms. French: They just have to get it in before their entitlement expires. That is the big rule.
26
27 Vice-Chair Tunla: So is this another one of those situations like the last one which is basically in
28 order to get the extension, they get it in it is almost mandatory that we give it to them?
29
30 Mr. Larkin: The one area I think Curtis alluded to is if in the interim the development standards
31 have changed and if Council has rezoned the property or the development standards have
32 changed then that would be a trigger for the Director to say no your approval is not valid
33 anymore because the circumstances have changed.
34
35 Vice-Chair Tuma: How would that work with a PC?
36
37 Mr. Larkin: Well, with a PC it wouldn't be confusing the PC would have to have been rezoned
38 by Council and the applicant would have to have been involved in the process. So there
39 wouldn't be a need for a trigger.
40
41 Vice-Chair Tuma: So a PC would essentially automatically get the extension by applying for it.
42 Is that right?
43
44 Ms. French: Well it is under the ordinance for PCs. Yes, it is a year. We haven't been saying
45 such as you need to conlply with the Green Building requirements. That is one of the reasons we
Page 12
1 put that in the proposed ordinance because we have not been extending things and saying and
2 now you have to meet the Green Building, which is a good idea.
3
4 Mr. Larkin: Just to clarify and it is getting a little bit late so we are getting a little groggy. I
5 think if Council made some development change that applied across the board even to PCs and
6 that came up for review and extension the Director could flag that and say no you have to go,
7 such as Green Building Ordinance. One of the things that we need to be careful of is that, and
8 we are still looking at this AB 333, which was adopted by the legislature last week, but there is
9 some language in there that talks about what new conditions can be imposed on projects that
10 have Tentative Maps.
11
12 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. So conceptually all this makes sense to me. I think from a practical
13 perspective dealing with the delays that the significant downturn in the economy are costing and
14 not putting a lot of extra burden back on Staff and to some extent the developers to have to go
15 back through this process. So conceptually I am okay with it. Also, it basically has a one-year
16 sunset in it. Well obviously it is going to be less than a year. So the time horizon is not huge. I
17 would not be surprised if we are back here a year from now talking about doing this again, just
18 for the record.
19
20 What I do have a little bit of trouble with are a couple of things. One is the durations. The five
21 years in total is a bit troublesome to me. I would rather see it broken up into smaller chunks and
22 maybe perhaps something along the lines of what Commissioner Keller was talking about.
23
24 The other areas are along the lines of what Commissioner Keller was talking about both with
25 respect to PCs and Site and Design. I would be in favor of carving those out in a nlanner that
26 Commissioner Keller had talked about. I am not sure that we want to get much more fine than
27 that in terms of carving things out. I am open to hearing a little bit more about that but at this
28 point those would be the two things I would be supportive of. So Commissioner Keller.
29
30 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Let me make a comment or two first. First I have a quick
31 question of Staff as a follow up to the Chair's question. That is with respect to does it make
32 sense to think in terms of findings or sort of discretionary guidelines that nlight exist for why you
33 would extend it or would not extend it, and when you would include Green Building
34 requirements, or when you include code or Comprehensive Plan changes to incorporate those
35 into the requirements? Does it make sense to consider things like that?
36
37 Mr. Williams: So what did we say on the Green Building? Just that we may?
38
39 Ms. French: I think we were going to require it for automatic extensions.
40
41 Mr. Williams: Yes, all additional extensions shall be subject to compliance with Green Building
42 requirements. So that is a sort of mandatory thing. There aren't findings on that. As far as just
43 more criteria for when to do it, it could be that we could say something to the effect that we may
44 extend it unless it is determined that there are materially different circumstances that now apply
45 in terms of code provisions or something like that if we wanted to do that. I would just as soon
Page 13
1 just leave it open-ended and just deal with the time periods is more of the way to sort of
2 effectuate how it is done.
3
4 I was thinking for the PC and Site and Design thing another thing you might consider so we
5 don't get into this avenue of Development Agreements is you could say in here that for those for
6 the second extension or something like that so that they don't have to go to a Development
7 Agreement that an extension could be granted by the Council after review and recommendation
8 by the Commission or something like that. That way we don't have to go through a whole
9 Development Agreement process but the Commission and Council still get to review whether it
10 is appropriate to have that extension for that type ofproject. I think that would maybe be a
11 middle ground that would expedite the process but still allow the discretion that you were
12 looking for.
13
14 Ms. French: I was going to add to that maybe in the additional extension by the Director you
15 could just consider adding a phrase saying additional conditions may be added to address
16 changed circumstances.
17
18 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate that. I think that somebody else may want to make a
19 comment but let me just quickly indicate that sometin1es these ten1porary extensions can actually
20 cause problems. This happened in particular to the former Round Table Pizza that lost its Round
21 Table franchise and became Fandango Pizza in Alma Plaza because in order to keep their
22 franchise they have to have a ten-year lease. The owner of that property refused to give them a
23 ten-year lease and as a result of that they lost their Round Table franchise. In particular that
24 particular development which shall otherwise remain nameless actually caused a great deal of
25 vacancy in order to cause redevelopment and that can be problematic that I am concerned about.
26
27 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, I think we have a couple more quick comments before we get to the
28 motion. Commissioner Holman and then Commissioner Lippert.
29
30 Commissioner Holman: Yes, the way this has been described this evening it sounds like it is just
31 a letter that gets sent to an applicant but it is actually a public notification for an extension is it
32 not? It used to be.
33
34 This is one of the difficulties I have with a non-codified ordinance because it makes tracking and
35 public awareness a little bit more troubling. If my memory serves and I am pretty sure that
36 extensions did used to be a public process not that many years ago.
37
38 Do we have any way of knowing how many of these projects have, it is akin to Comn1issioner
39 Fineberg's question earlier, are already demolished and how many IR projects or how many
40 single family home proj ects it applies to?
41
42 Ms. French: I didn't do a big research project on the small projects, the non-major projects.
43
44 Commissioner Holman: This goes to changing conditions and changing rules, do we have any
45 idea how n1any of the projects, commercial or single family, how many involve exceptions?
46
Page 14
1 Ms. French: On the major list that was provided here?
2
3 Commissioner Holman: Anything, any of the projects.
4
5 Ms. French: These are the only ones that I have data on are the ones in front of you. I can go
6 through them.
7
8 Mr. Williams: Let's not. We would have to go through the whole list and look at that. I am sure
9 a few of them do but it would take awhile for us to look at each one and tell you that.
10
11 Commissioner Holman: The reason I asked the question is because again it has to do with
12 changing conditions.
13
14 Mr. Williams: I understand that. I think the intent here and if the Commission doesn't want to
15 do this let us know that and we will move it to the CounciL But the idea is like Mr. Lippert said,
16 there is an entitlement that has been granted and it is for economic reasons that we would move it
17 forward for maybe it is only a year not two years but without respect to trying to get back into
18 arguing the whole merits of the project again, and recognizing that yes there are some
19 exceptions, yes there are some projects that people would not like to see move forward, but if
20 you are looking at getting into that kind of discretionary review process again then there
21 shouldn't be an extension process at all.
22
23 Commissioner Holman: So my last question is we have a meeting next week and we have only
24 item on the agenda. I think this is a very important consideration. My sense is it is not going to
25 be a wholesale change if it is initiated. How would Staff feel if we continued this item until next
26 week so that we could further contemplate and ask other questions, especially given the hour?
27
28 Mr. Williams: That is the Commission's discretion. We don't have a problem with that if you
29 want to come back next week. We just have the Green Building Study Session on your agenda.
30
31 Commissioner Holman: So there is plenty of room. Thank you.
32
33 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Lippert.
34
35 Commissioner Lippert: With the late hour I would be inclined to continue it as well. But what I
36 would ask is that you keep the public comment period open.
37
38 Commissioner Holman: I would have made that motion but I think Commissioner Keller was
39 already set to make a motion.
40
41 Vice-Chair Tuma: So it won't come as a surprise to anybody that I am conceptually fine with
42 putting this over to next week to finish it but I don't want to do a rehash of all the things that we
43 have talked about tonight. It seems like we are very close to a motion. Let me explore an idea
44 here. Would it make sense to get a motion on the table at this point?
45
Page 15
1 Commissioner Lippert: No, it is a quarter after eleven now. We talked about having a time limit
2 on this. We have exceeded our time limit. I really think that at this point it is only fair to table it
3 and to continue the item until a date certain.
4
5 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, Commissioner Keller.
6
7 Commissioner Keller: I think that we have a member of the public who spoke to us tonight and
8 patiently waited through three other long items and we didn't get to this until after ten o'clock. I
9 believe that we are not that far away from actually concluding the item. If people want to
10 comment on the motion that I would make and decide that they don't want to do it or whatever, I
11 would like to make it, and then we can withdraw it if we wish to. I believe that considering that
12 the member of the public has been here listening through our other comments for roughly four,
13 other hours that ifhe can wait through comments of the Commission for four hours waiting for
14 us to make a decision that effects his livelihood then we can spend another five or ten minutes
15 dealing with the item ourselves.
16
17 Commissioner Lippert: Then if I might, that member of the public did sit patiently but he was
18 speaking on behalf of himself and another individual who was not able to be here this evening.
19
20 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg.
21
22 Commissioner Fineberg: I would be in favor of continuing this item until our next meeting not
23 because I am unwilling or not desiring to stay longer. We have suggested some revisions that
24 will dramatically change which projects this proposed ordinance would apply to and I would
25 love to see it as an opportunity for Staff to incorporate those changes so that they are part of the
26 proposed ordinance rather than hastily written amendments in a motion. That would give us a
27 chance and give the public a chance to review it, especially ifit meant that we keep the public
28 hearing open so there would be additional comment. I think the impact of this is potentially
29 significant and the fact that we have one member of the public here it is very important to him
30 but I think it is also very important to other members of the public about what this would mean
31 two, three and four years from now. I am not sure that the public fully understands that. So I
32 think continuing it for one week, maybe doing some outreach notification to PAN, developers,
33 other key members of the public that this would impact, whether they would consider it positive
34 or negative. I think that outweighs the expediency of taking care of it tonight.
35
36 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller.
37
38 Commissioner Keller: Hearing the sentiment of my fellow Commissioners I am going to suggest
39 the following two-step process. one is I am going to outline what my motion would have been,
40 which I suggest be a straw poll that the Staff if people sort of agree that is sort of a way to go
41 might be drafted by the Staff so that when they come back to us they could have this
42 incorporated into the motion as per Commissioner Fineberg's comments. Then after that straw
43 poll I would make a motion to continue it to a date certain being a week from tonight. Does that
44' sound reasonable to the Chair?
45
Page 16
1 Vice-Chair Tuma: I think that given that this is an ordinance. We are only going to see it once,
2 well sort of. It is not going to come back to us another time after it is drafted. I do think there is
3 some wisdonl in seeing -my sense is that this Commission wants to see a significantly different
4 ordinance than what it is there. So I think it may make sense to just spend a couple more
5 minutes, hear what is said, do a straw poll because that could give significant guidance so that
6 when we come next week we have an ordinance that is much closer to something that we would
7 potentially be comfortable with. Believe me, Commissioner Lippert I was bound and determined
8 to get out of here by eleven o'clock. It didn't happen but I do think this will make next week's
9 meeting on this topic much more productive. We will have something much closer to what we
10 might actually be willing to recommend approval on. So I think it is worth an extra two minutes
11 here. Go ahead.
12
13 Commissioner Keller: Here is what I would suggest that we can consider for straw poll. Firstly
14 that there be no automatic extension. That there be up to two discretionary one year extensions
15 which can be granted unless there are major changes, which is the comment or whatever wording
16 Staffhad before, or other general conditions that the Director may determine. So that these be
17 explicit conditions that people are aware of and they can get a list of the conditions. That in
18 order to get a discretionary one-year extension that the building has to satisfy the latest version of
19 the Green Building Ordinance. That code and Comprehensive Plan changes be incorporated at
20 the discretion of the Director. That it not apply to PCs or Site and Design Review items except
21 by either Development Agreement or upon recommendation of the Planning Commission and
22 Council approval. Finally, that there be no demolition before the Building Permit is issued. In
23 order to grant an extension they can't do a demolition unless the Chief Building Officer and
24 Planning Director approve and that is usually for things like unsafe conditions such as a fire in a
25 building that would be a hazard. Thank you.
26
27 Vice-Chair Tuma: A point of clarification, currently there is for certain of these there is an initial
28 -is there any automatic extension of these?
29
30 Ms. French: There is a one-year extension by Director for everything except Site and Design.
31
32 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Are you proposing to eliminate that?
33
34 Conunissioner Keller: No, I am suggesting that this be beyond that automatic.
35
36 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, great.
37
38 Ms. French: So this is up to two one year extensions beyond the one year extension we have
39 now or?
40
41 Commissioner Keller: This is up to two additional one-year extensions beyond what is going on
42 now. One of the interesting things is I want to make sure that we don't have a rush to finish
43 before June 30, 2010 when suddenly if you get your approval on June 29, 2010 you get a whole
44 bunch of time to finish your stuff, and if you get your approval on July 2,2010 you are suddenly
45 foreshortened. So there are anomalies going on there. That is part of the reason for having it be
46 discretionary. Thank you.
Page 17
1 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Holman.
2
3 Comnlissioner Holnlan: A quick clarification for Staff to bring back is for Site and Design just
4 what is meant by a two-year extension unless associated with a Vesting Tentative Map. So if
5 you could come back with clarification of that. I think that would do it.
6
7 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, with that maybe by a show of hands, all those who would be
8 potentially supportive of an ordinance that has the contents that Commissioner Keller has
9 suggested indicate by raising their hand.
10
11 Commissioner Lippert: I am just going to go along with it. I will listen to it when it comes back.
12
13 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, very good. Commissioner Keller, do you have a motion to continue
14 this to a date certain?
15
16 MOTION
17
18 Commissioner Keller: Yes. I move to continue this to a date certain of one week from tonight.
19
20 SECOND
21
22 Vice-Chair Tuma: I will second that. Would you like to speak to your motion?
23
24 Commissioner Keller: I think there is enough said.
25
26 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. The only thing that I would say, ifpossible is let's do this item first
27 unless that presents a problem.
28
29 Commissioner Lippert: We can do that when we get the agenda.
30
31 Vice-Chair Tuma: Right, I am making that request.
32
33 Ms. French: The packet goes out tomorrow we can make it be what you want it to be.
34
35 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, let's make that one first. Commissioner Lippert do you have a
36 comment before we vote?
37
38 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, I had one other question for Staff. How does HRB review fit into
39 this approval?
40
41 Ms. French: Well, HRB is typically part of an ARB process that would recommend an addition
42 to the ARB to the Director for residential projects. There is input on modification to historic
43 residences, and these kinds of things.
44
45 Commissioner Lippert: So it would follow a parallel.
46
Page 18
1 Ms. French: There is no standalone HRB approval in other words. It is nlarried to one of these
2 other process.
3
4 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, that is what I wanted to make sure.
5
6 MOTION PASSED (5-0-2-0, Commissioners Garber and Rosati absent)
7
8 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, with that Commissioners, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
9 (ayes) Opposed? That passes unanimously.
Page 19
ATTACHMENT G: MAJOR PROJECTS THAT MAY NEED EXTENSIONS
Approved Major Projects Needing Building Permits (Bp)
Addresses
488 West Charleston
420 Cambridge
Expiration* Notes
4249 El Canlino Real (Elks Lodge)
3445 Alma (Alma Plaza PC/S&D)
1129 San Antonio (Google childcare)
2455 ECR (Coronet Motel)
3/30/10
5/5/10
2/12/10
1126/11
10/6/10
9/9/09
7/17/10
9/15/10
9/15/09
10/8/11
12/27/09
4/26/10
6/10/10
2/4/10
4/28/10
7/21/10
BP submittal expected·
1 yr extension available
BP close to issuance
no extension (Site & Design)
no extension (Site & Design)
BP close to issuance
777 Welch Road no extension available
3000 Alexis
278 University
850 Webster Planned Community
317 -323 University
no extension (Site & Design)
1 yr extension available
construction extension
no extension available
998 San Antonio
639 Homer
Lytton Plaza
2501 Embarcadero Way
3251 Hanover
1 yr extension available
1 yr extension available
1 yr extension available
no extension (Site & Design)
1 yr extension available
* Unless BP issued and construction commences
Pending Major Discretionary Review Projects
Addresses
1700 Embarcadero
385 Sherman
687 Cowper
265 Lytton
2995 Middlefield
801 Alma
4301 ECR (PA Bowl)
3800 Middlefield
2650 Birch PTOD
195 Page Mill Road
805 Los Trancos
350 Forest
2180 ECR
Notes Hearing Dates
Site and Design app submitted 7/29/09 not scheduled (PTC)
Formal ARB submitted 6/23/2009 10/15/09 tent. (ARB)
Prelim ARB held 6/18/09 formal app not in not scheduled (ARB)
First formal ARB 7/2/09; 2nd tentatively on 9/24/09 (ARB)
Prelim ARB held 7/16/09; formal app not in not scheduled (ARB)
Prelim ARB held 8/6/09; Formal scheduled 9/24/09 (ARB)
Site and Design, 2nd Formal ARB on 10/1/09 tent (ARB)
Mitchell Park; ARB Formal review on 9/3/09 (ARB)
Zoning hearing by Council postponed not scheduled (CC)
Formal app in, MND comments in not scheduled (ARB)
Site and Design Review not scheduled (PTC)
Filed July 2008, incomplete not scheduled (ARB)
Council initiated 7/13/09; PTC next not scheduled (PTC)
Page 1 of 1
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 CMR:368:09
REPORT TYPE: REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
SUBJECT: Update on Measure N Library Bond Measure Projects; Adoption of a
Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $109,041 for
Temporary Library Facilities; Approval of a Contract with Turner
Construction Company, Inc. in the Amount of $138,198 for
Construction Management Services for the Mitchell Park Library and
Community Center and the Downtown Library and Approval of
Amendment No.1 to Contract C09130744 with Group 4 Architecture
to add $92,034 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $3,919,324 for
Measure N Library Projects-Capital Improvement Program Projects
PE-009006 and PE-09005, PE-09010
EXCUTIVE SUMMARY
Design for the Downtown Library and the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center is
underway and being reviewed by City committees and user i groups as they proceed through the
design process. The Downtown Library is potentially scheduled to be advertised for construction
bids as early as the spring of2010 followed by the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center
in the summer of 2010. To provide library services during construction of these facilities, space
for the temporary library has been identified at Cubberley Community Center, and is under
design as well.
Staff also recommends approval of a contract with Turner Construction Company. This contract
will provide construction management services needed to supplement existing staff levels during
completion of the design and construction bidding process for the Mitchell Park and Downtown
facilities.
Approval of a contract amendment with Group 4 Architecture is needed to complete the design
of the temporary library facility. A Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $109,041
will fund portions of the contracts with Turner Construction Company, Group 4 Architecture and
other miscellaneous small contracts (hazardous material testing and removal, modular
workstation design, moving, etc.) related to the temporary library facility at the Cubberley
Community Center.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
CMR:368:09 Page 1 of9
1. Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment A) in the amount of $109,041 to
increase appropriation for CIP Project Community Center and Library -Temporary Facilities
(PE-090 1 0).
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached (Attachment B) contract
with Turner Construction Company, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $138,198, for initial
construction management services for the Downtown Library and for the Mitchell Park
Library and Community Center, including a total of $13,361 for additional services.
3. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached Contract Amendment
No. 1 (Attachment C) to add $92,034 for additional services with Group 4 Architecture for
design of the Temporary Library (PE-090 1 0) for a total not to exceed contract amount of
$3,919,314.
BACKGROUND
On July 7, 2008, Council directed staff to proceed with placing on the November 2008 ballot a
library/community center bond measure. Measure N, which passed on November 4, 2008,
includes funding for construction of a new and expanded Mitchell Park Library and Community
Center (MPLCC), renovation and expansion of the Main Library and renovation of the
Downtown Library. The joint MPLCC will be designed to the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design level of Gold (CMR:309:08). Detailed history of the design development
can be found in past City Manager's Reports to Council (CMR:286:02, CMR:119:06,
CMR343:06, CMR:434:06, CMR:225:07, CMR:321:08, CMR:473:08 and CMR:149:09,
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/reports/cmrs.asp).
The various site improvements are summarized as follows and site plans are shown in
Attachment D:
• Mitchell Park Library and Community Center
The existing Mitchell Park Library is approximately 10,000 square feet and will be
replaced with a new facility of 36,000 square feet. The new library will be two stories to
accommodate an enlarged collection, a children's area, an acoustically separated teen
area, group study rooms, staff areas and a program room. Increases in collection, seating,
computers, children's area and programming space are planned to serve the needs of the
projected population in 2030. Technical Services staff, currently located at the
Downtown Library, would be relocated to the Mitchell Park Library in order to facilitate
the increased intake of new materials for the entire library system.
The existing Community Center is approximately 10,000 square feet and will be replaced
with a new facility of 15,000 square feet. Similar to the existing community center, the
new building will be a one-story building attached to the new library. The new
community center will allow for additional programming space and rental availability.
By sharing activity space, the joint facility will be smaller in size than two independent
buildings and will create a more efficient use of the library/community center site.
CMR:368:09 Page 2 of9
-Downtown Library
The programmatic evaluation by Group 4 Architecture found that the existing services at
this library adequately serve its service population and significant capital improvements
are not recommended. By relocating technical services to the new Mitchell Park library,
much of the current technical staff area will become public space as a result of interior
reconfiguration. A small program room is planned. Systems upgrades, such as improved
lighting and mechanical systems will also be provided.
Prior to the passage of Measure N, some members of the public expressed concerns about
the approved schematic design for the Downtown Library. After the bond measure
passed and Group 4 Architecture began the detailed design development for Downtown
Library and the new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, staff arranged to hold
a focus group meeting in April 2009 between the architects and those who had concerns
about the plans for Downtown Library. In response to the feedback at this focus group
and at a general community meeting in May, the plans for Downtown Library were
adjusted to add more collection shelving and to redesign a staff conference room so it
could be shared for public use. The revised plans were further reviewed by a
subcommittee of the Library Advisory Commission (LAC), and staff supported the
subcommittee's request to have Group 4 prepare additional information for the LAC's
consideration. The LAC recently voted to reaffirm the current design plans for this
project. The LAC Chair has prepared a companion report on this matter for inclusion in
the packet for the September 14 Council meeting.
-Main Library
The Main Library improvements include small group study rooms that are acoustically
separated from the rest of the existing building and a new program space that seats 100
people. To accommodate the new program space, the Main Library will expand by
approximately 4,000 square feet from the current 21,000 square feet on the ground floor
of the building (CMR:434:06). The interior of the existing library will also be
reconfigured to make better use of areas that are vacated by relocating certain materials
into the new building. Lighting and other building systems will also be upgraded. All of
the improvements will be made with consideration for the historic nature of the existing
building. Improvements to the Main Library will be the final phase of the Measure N
Library Bond, with design expected to begin in early 2011, so that its construction will
occur after the improvements to Mitchell Park and Downtown.
DISCUSSION
Project Update
Construction documents for the Downtown Library are approximately 60 percent complete and
the design development for the MPLCC is approximately 50 percent complete. The plans have
been reviewed by the Library Advisory Commission (LAC), the Parks & Recreation
Commission (P ARC), the Architectural Review Board (ARB), the Art Commission and also
presented to citizen focus groups, teen groups and to the community. Review by these
committees and groups will continue through January 2010. Similar review will occur during
the design development process for Main Library.
CMR:368:09 Page 3 of9
Design for the MPLCC is to the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold
level, however, the building has four design elements that may put the project into the LEED
Platinum level. These design elements are expected to fall within the existing construction
budget, however additional design may be required. Group 4 Architecture is in the process of
researching design and construction costs related to reaching LEED Platinum standards.
Staff is planning to analyze whether there would be a cost advantage in combining the
construction contract for Downtown Library with the MPLCC by awarding one large
construction contract and to sell one set of bonds with an accurate price (i.e., by bidding together,
the cost of both libraries would be known). If staff finds no advantage to one large bid package,
the Downtown Library would be the first library advertised for construction bids, in the spring of
2010, followed shortly thereafter by the MPLCC. Design of the Main Library improvements
will be addressed beginning in fall of 2010 as that library is not scheduled to begin design until
early 2011.
Temporary Facilities
Temporary facilities for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center have been identified at
the Cubberley Community Center (Cubberley). The auditorium is currently leased by
community groups whose leases will expire on December 31, 2009. Utilizing Cubberley versus
leasing other adequate space for the temporary library resulted in a net cost benefit to the City.
A temporary library with books, computer terminals and seating will be located in the main
auditorium area. The square footage of the temporary library is approximately 5,090 square feet
and will reuse furniture from the Mitchell Park and Downtown libraries. The Mitchell Park
Library currently has 83,000 volumes in the collection. The temporary library will accommodate
approximately 45,000 volumes, 28 reader table seats, 10 study carrel seats, 18 computers and
associated seats and 10 lounge seats. Library Administration staff currently located at the
Downtown Library will be moved to the Main Library for the duration of the Downtown Library
renovation and moved back to the Downtown Library when that work is completed. Technical
Services staff now located at the Downtown Library will be moved into what is currently the
kitchen area at the back of the auditorium.
Mitchell Park Community Center (MPCC) is currently home to a variety of recreation classes,
such as low impact aerobics, fencing, table tennis, and tap dance. MPCC is also home to the
Palo Alto Teen Center "The Drop" and is the meeting place for the Palo Alto Youth Council,
Teen Advisory Board and Junior Advisory Board. Recreation staff is working closely with
instructors and renters of MPCC to find suitable space alternatives while the new center is being
built. With the JCC vacating Cubberley Community Center in the fall of 2009, the City will be
able to move some classes and services from the MPCC to the Cubberley Community Center.
For a temporary Teen Center, Recreation staff is hoping to coordinate space at one or more of the
Middle School sites, although a suitable space has not yet been identified. Two studio spaces at
Cubberley Community Center will also be available if a middle school site cannot be located.
Once a suitable location is identified, it is anticipated that modifications will be designed by staff
utilizing small contracts with modular furniture designers and related contractors. Of the BAO
amount requested, $10,000 is reserved for the Teen Center relocation.
CMR:368:09 Page 4 of9
Design plans for the temporary library are 90 percent complete and will be advertised for
construction bids in October 2009 and awarded in December 2009. Construction will start in
early 2010. Once the temporary facility nears completion, the Downtown Library could be
advertised for construction bids with a construction start in the spring of 2010. Once the new
MPLCC is completed, Technical Services staff will be moved from the temporary spaces in the
next auditorium to the new temporary library.
Outreach
Staff was asked to develop an implementation strategy and structure for the projects that will
facilitate the flow of information between staff, the community and key stakeholders
(CMR:473:08). Three committees have been established for this effort: the Technical Team
(staff from multiple departments and Group 4 architecture), the Stakeholder's Committee (staff,
community stakeholders and representatives from the Architectural Review Board, Library
Advisory Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Art Commission) and an
independent Citizen Bond Oversight Committee established in July 2009 to provide financial
oversight of the project.
The Technical Team has recently completed their review of the 50 percent complete 'design
development' plans for the MPLCC, the 60 percent complete 'construction documents' for the
Downtown Library and the 90 percent complete construction documents for the temporary
library facilities. Plans that are in the design development stage are less detailed and less
complete than those in the construction document phase.
The Stakeholder's Committee has been meeting monthly since March 2009. The Stakeholder's
Committee oversaw the design of a new website for the library projects, which includes
information on the completed Children's Library and College Terrace Library which is currently
undergoing renovation. The website was designed by staff and is currently on-line at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/city projects/city facilities/library projects/ ..
The site includes the most recent renderings of the libraries as well as a 'fly-through' three-
dimensional model of the MPLCC. It will be updated regularly and includes a feature that
allows viewers to sign up for monthly e-mail updates as well as ways to contact staff. The
Stakeholder's Committee has also developed a communications plan indentifying various
outreach measures (for example, signage at the construction site, cameras at the site that will
connect to the web, monthly e-newsletters, and other items).
In addition to the website, a model of the MPLCC was built and initially displayed in the Civic
Center lobby. It is currently on display at the MPCC and will be moved to various locations
throughout the City for the duration of the project.
The initial community meeting on the library projects in May of 2009 was well attended and
included involving teens in the design of the future Teen Center (photos of which are included on
the new library website). More board and commission meetings are scheduled through the end
of January 2010 and the schedule for these meetings has been posted on the library facilities
website. In addition to the board and commission meetings, a second public meeting has been
scheduled for October 29, 2009 at the MPCC (the Teen Center discussion will begin at 4 p.m.
and the general discussion at 7 p.m.).
CMR:368:09 Page 5 of9
Under Council direction the Bond Oversight Committee (BOC) was formed and held its initial
meeting on July 22, 2009. At this first meeting, the members were briefed on the current status
of the library design and on the purpose of the committee, which is to ensure that bond proceeds
are spent in a fashion that is consistent with the Measure N bond language. The BOC also
elected officers and requested speakers and information for the next meeting on October 27,
2009. Once approved by the BOC, meeting minutes will be forwarded to Council.
Construction Management Services
The contract for construction management services needed for the Downtown Library and
Mitchell Park Library & Community Center is attached to this report. The construction
management services described in the scope are needed as current staffing is not sufficient for a
project of this magnitude. The construction management firm will support and supplement the
work of Public Works staff. Public Works staff will oversee the design and construction of the
temporary facilities at the Cubberley Community Center.
Request for Proposals were sent to 15 firms on May 22,2009. The proposal period was 39 days.
A total of 18 firms submitted proposals ranging from $590,634 to $2,744,794.
Summary of Solicitation Process
Proposal DescriptionlNumber Downtown Library and Mitchell Park Library and
Community Center, Construction Management
Services
Proposed Length of Project 3 years
Number of Proposals Mailed 15
Total Days to Respond to Proposal 39
Pre-proposal Meeting Date June 23, 2009
Number of Company Attendees at Pre-16
proposal Meeting
Number of Proposals Received: 18
Company Name Location (City, State) Selected for
oral interview?
1. Swinerton Management & San Francisco, CA Yes
Consulting
2. Consolidated CM, Inc. Oakland, CA Yes
3. Critical Solutions, Inc. Walnut Creek, CA Yes
4. Turner Construction Company San Jose, CA Yes
5. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc. San Francisco, CA No
6. Kitchell CEM San Jose, CA No
7. Heel)' International, Inc. Folsom, CA No
8. Shore Associates San Jose, CA No
9. Gilbane Building Company San Jose, CA No
10. O'Connor Construction Pleasanton, CA No
Management, Inc.
11. BTl Build Trust, Inc. George Town, Grand Cayman No
12. Douglas Ross Construction, Inc. Palo Alto, CA No
13. JLK Construction Services, Inc. Oakland, CA No
CMR:368:09 Page 60f9
14. Nova Partners, Inc. Palo Alto, CA No
15. Cambridge CM, Inc. Palo Alto, CA No
16. Conversion Management San Francisco, CA No
Associates, Inc.
17. Van Pelt Construction Services Fairfield, CA No
18. Harris & Associates Gilroy, CA No
Range of Proposal Amounts Submitted $590,634 to $2,744,794
The proposals were judged by the following criteria:
• qualifications and experience of the staff assigned to the project,
• staff experience on similar type of projects,
• response time and ability to perform the work,
• field experience with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) buildings,
fee.
An evaluation committee consisting of Public Works staff and an architect from the library
design firm, Group 4 Architecture, carefully reviewed each firm's qualifications and submittals
in response to the criteria identified in the request for proposals (RFP). Four firms were invited
to participate in oral interviews. Turner Construction Company, Inc., was selected because their
staff demonstrated superior knowledge of construction management, have extensive experience
with library construction and have worked on other Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) projects.
The contract with Turner Construction Company, Inc., includes 15% for additional services that
may be needed for the Downtown Library since remodeling an existing building may have many
unforeseen conditions. The contract includes funding through the end of the design phase for
both libraries. At the time of the award of the first library construction contract in 2010, staff
will return with a contract amendment that will include construction management fees for the
construction phase and a more detailed scope for the duration of construction for the Downtown
Library and the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center.
Temporary Library Design
Group 4 Architecture was initially contracted to study alternative locations and design options
for a temporary MPLCC. Working with staff from the Public Works, Library and Community
Services Departments, the Cubberley Community Center Auditorium was identified as the best
location for a temporary library while a new Mitchell Park Library was being constructed.
Approval of Contract Amendment No. 1 with Group 4 Architecture (Attachment C) will provide
for the completion of the initial temporary library design and for construction administration
services during the construction of the temporary library, which is expected to begin in early
2010.
TIMELINE
Improvements to the auditorium at the Cubberley Community Center will begin in early 2010 so
that Technical Services staff can be relocated shortly before work begins on the Downtown
Library. Before the demolition of the existing Mitchell Park Library, books, computers and
furnishings will be moved into the auditorium to serve as a temporary library for the duration of
construction. If Cubberley is selected as the Teen Center site, reconfiguration of the existing
CMR:368:09 Page 7 of9
classrooms at the Cubberley Community Center will be completed shortly before the demolition
of the Community Center so that Teen Center services can be relocated.
Improvements to the Downtown Library could begin in the spring of 2010. However., staff will
analyze whether there would be a cost or coordination advantage in combining construction on
the Downtown Library with the MPLCC to begin in the summer of 2010. In addition to lower
costs, a larger project may attract a more skilled, financially stable construction company and
result in better coordination from communicating with one contractor instead of two. Combining
construction contracting for the two libraries may also create efficiencies in the bond issuance
process, which staff will review during the construction contracting analysis. Under either
construction scenario, the Downtown Library will be closed for the duration of construction,
approximately one year. Library Administration staff in the Downtown Library will be relocated
to the Main Library and Technical Services staff will be relocated to the temporary library space
at the auditorium of the Cubberley Community Center.
Construction on the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center is expected to begin in the
summer of2010. The temporary library and Teen Center will operate at the temporary facilities
at the Cubberley Community Center for the duration of construction, approximately two years.
A contract amendment with Group 4 Architecture for design of the Main Library will not be
developed until the fall of2010 as that library is not scheduled to begin design until early 2011.
RESOURCE IMPACT
To continue work on the library project, a BAO in the amount of $109,041 is needed for CIP
Project PE-0901O., Community Center and Library -Temporary Facilities. The distribution of
these funds is shown in the table below:
Bond
Funding General Fund
Bondable
Downtown Temporary General &
Library MPLCC Bondable Facility Fund General Fund
PE-09005 PE-09006 Subtotal PE-0901O Subtotal Total
Turner Construction $20,177 $118,021 $138,198 $171,245 $309,443
Group 4 Architecture $92,034
West Coast Code
Consultants $7,700
Protech -Hazardous
Material Report $1,931
Hazardous Material
Abatement &
Inspection $42,000
Pivot Interiors $6,980
Plan-check fees $3,600
Building Permit fees $7,000
Mise costs & contracts $10,000
Available Budget $138,198 $62,204
Additional Appropriation Needed (BAO) 0 $109,041 $109,041
CMR:368:09 Page 8 of9
Funding for Turner Construction's construction management services is included in Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) project PE-09006, Mitchell Park Library and Community Center
and PE-09005, Downtown Library and will be reimbursed after the sale of bonds. The sale of
bonds to cover expenses related to both the Downtown Library and the MPLCC will occur in the
spring or summer of 20 1 0, near the time of construction award. In addition to current and future
costs, the bond sale will also reimburse the General Fund for project costs incurred since the
Measure N bond was approved in November of2008.
Expenses related to temporary facilities (CIP PE-090 1 0) are non-bondable and will come from
the Infrastructure Reserve. In addition to Contract Amendment No.1 with Group 4 Architecture,
the BAO amount includes $10,000 to be administered by the Public Works Department for
miscellaneous small contracts and costs such as security alarms, plan set printing, minor
electrical work, small Teen Center remodeling contracts, etc.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation is consistent with Council's previous direction on the library projects and
will further the projects identified in Measure N. It does not represent a change in City policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On July 21, 2008, the Council confirmed the Director of Planning and Community
Environment's approvals of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mitchell Park Library and
Community Center project and a 2007 Addendum to the 2002 final Environmental Impact
Report for the Main Library. The Downtown Library was determined to be exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act review pursuant to Section 15301, "existing facilities."
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Budget Amendment Ordinance
Attachment B: Contract with Turner Construction Company, Inc., (includes Scope of Service
and Certificate of Nondiscrimination)
Attachment C: Contract Amendment No.1 with Group 4 Architecture
Attachment D: Floor and site plans
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR:368:09 Page 9 of9
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2010
AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $109,041
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) PROJECT PE-09010,
COMMUNITY CENTER -TEMPORARY FACILITIES
PALO ALTO
TO PROVIDE
TO CAPITAL
LIBRARY AND
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds
and determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of
the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, th€ Council on June 15, 2009
did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2010; and
B. In Fiscal Year 2009 f the Council did adopt a budget for
CIP Project PE-09010, Library and Community Center -Temporary
Facilities (Project) with an initial appropriation of $79,525; and
C. In Fiscal Year 2010, Council increased the appropriation by
$79,000, bringing total appropriation to $154,525 for Project; and
D. From Fiscal Year 2009 to date, expenses related to design
elements of the Project were incurred leaving available balance of
$62,204; and
E. As work progresses, additional necessary costs were
identified to complete Project. The total cost of additional work
elements is $171,245 while the remaining available budget is
$62,204; requiring additional appropriation of $109,041. The
details are summarized below; and
Descri.pti.on
Group 4 Architecture (Contract Amendment #1)
West Coast Code Consultants
Protech -Hazardous Materials
Pivot Interiors
Plan-check fees
Building Permit fees
Hazardous Material Abatement Work and Abatement
Inspection
Misc costs & contracts
Tota.1 Addi tiona1 Cos ts
Available Appropriation
Additional Appropriation Needed
l-\JO.ount
$92,034
$7,700
$1,931
$6,980
$3,600
$7,000
$42,000
$10,000
$171,245
$62,204
$109,041
Fo The Infrastructure Reserve of the Capital Project Fund will
provide the necessary funds since the costs of this project can
not be reimbursed by Measure N Library Bonds; and
Go City Council authorization is needed to amend the Fiscal
Year 2010 budget to make available the funds required for Projecto
SECTION 20 The sum of One Hundred Nine Thousand Forty One
Dollars ($109,041) is hereby appropriated to CIP Project PE-
09010, Library and Community Center -Temporary Facilitieso
SECTION 3. The Infrastructure Reserve is hereby decreased by
One Hundred Nine Thousand Forty One Dollars ($109,041) with a
remaining balance of Five Million Fifty Thousand Nine Hundred
Fifty Nine Dollars ($5,050,959)
SECTION 40 As specified in Section 20280080 (a) of the Palo
Al to Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is
required to adopt this ordinance 0
SECTION 50 As provided in Section 20040330 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Coder this ordinance shall become effective upon
adoption o
SECTION 60 On July 21, 2008, the Council confirmed the
Director of Planning and Community Environment's approvals of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mitchell Park Library and
Community Center project and a 2007 Addendum to the 2002 final
Environmental Impact Report for the Main Libraryo The Downtown
Library was determined to be exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act review pursuant to Section 15301,
"existing facilities"o
INTRODOCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Assto City Attorney
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Public Works
Director of Administrative
Services
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF JP ALO ALTO AN1I)
TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERV1ICES
(DOWNTOWN lLIBRARY9 M1!TCHELL PARK LJIBRARY AND COMMUNITY
CENTER CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES)
This AGREEMENT is entered into on this __ day of .20-, by
and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO. a California chartered municipal corporation ("CITY"),
and TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a corporation in the State of New York, located at
60 South Market Street, Suite 1100, San Jose, CA 95113 ("CONSULTANT").
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement.
A. CITY intends to construct a new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and renovate
the existing Downtown Library ("Project") and desires to engage a consultant to construction
management services in connection with the Project ("Services").
B. CONSULT ANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise,
qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses andlor certifications to provide the Services.
C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the
Services as more fully described in Exhibit "A", attached to and made a part ofthis Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE. inconsideration ofthe recitals. covenants, terms, and conditions, this
Agreement, the parties agree:
AGREEMENT
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in
Exhibit "A" in accordance with the tenus and conditions contained in this Agreement. The
perfonnance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.
SECTION 2. TERM.
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 1, 2013 unless
terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is ofthe essence in the performance of
the services specified in exhibit A. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of
this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "B", attached to and made a
part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this
I
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA \jalTeol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP13163 I DT Lib and MP Ub and Community Center C M Services\Contract
CI0131631·1lJRNER.doo
Agreement shall be commepced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and
timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULT ANT.
CITY's agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of
damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT.
SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to
CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment
for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed one hundred twenty-four
thousand eight hundred thirty-seven Dollars ($124,837.00). In the event Additional Services are
authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed one
hundred thirty-eight thousand one hundred ninety-eight Dollars ($138,198.00). The applicable rates
'and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit "C", entitled "COMPENSATION," which is attached
to and made a part of this Agreement.
Additional Services, if any, shan be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of
Exhibit "C". CONSlJLT ANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed
without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is
determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not
included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit "A".
SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly
invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an
identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates. and reimbursable
expenses), based upon the CONSULT ANT's billing rates (set forth in Exhibit "C"). If applicable, the
invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in
CONSULTANT's payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall
send all invoices to the City's project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City
will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt.
SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be
performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT's supervision. CONSULTANT represents
that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required
by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services
assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, ifpennitted,
. have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications,
insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services.
All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the
professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of
similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar
circumstances.
SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itselfinformed of and
in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may
2
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\sAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI31631 DT Lib and MP Lib and Community Center C M Services\Contrac\
C10131631 WRNER.doc
affect in any manner the Project or the perfonnance of the Services or those engaged to perfonn
Services under this Agreement. CONSULT ANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all
charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services.
SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULT ANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and
all errors. omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives
notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSUL T ANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design
documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors,
omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project.
This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement.
SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. Not applicable to this phase ofthe contract.
SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR It is understood and agreed that in performing
the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with
CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an
independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY.
SECTION H. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of
CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or
transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT's obligations
hereunder without the prior written consent ofthe city manager. Consent to one assignment will not
be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval
of the city manager will be void.
SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING.
CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement
without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee.
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any
compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning
compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a
subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of
the city manager or his designee.
SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Tom Tripp as the
project director to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the
Services and Greg Smith as the project coordinator to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-
day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project
coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project
director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior
written approval ofthe CITY's proj ect manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY's request, shall promptly
remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are
uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to
3
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PU RCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI 31631 DT Lib and MP Lib and Community Center C M Services\Contract
C10131631 TURNER.doc
the safety of persons or property_
The City's project manager isKaren Bengard, Public Department,Engineering Division, at 250
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Telephone: 650-329-2636. The project manager will be
CONSULTANT's point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the
Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time.
SECTION 141. OWNERSHIP OF MA l'EIDALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including
without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents,
other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the
exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULT ANT agrees
iliat all copyrights which arise from creation ofthe work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested
in CITY, and CONSULT ANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual
property rights in favor of the CITY. N either CONSULT ANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make
any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of
the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the
work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work.
SECTION 15. AUJl)lI:TS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during
the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT's records pertaining to
matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such
records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 116. INDEMNiTY.
O[Option A applies to the following design pll"ofessionais pursuant to CliviD Code SectiOllll
2782.8: architects; Dandscape architects; registered professional engineers and licensed
professional land sUJl"Veyors.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall
protect, indemnify, defend and hold hannless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and
agents (each an "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all
costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and
disbursements ("Claims") that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or
willful misconduct ofthe CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this
Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party.
[gI[Option B applies to any consultant who does not qualify as a design professional as defined
in Civil Code Section 2782.8.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall
protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and
agents (each an "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all
costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and
disburs~ments ("Claims") resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or
nonperfonnance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this
Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party.
4
Professional Services
Rev, January 2009
\\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP131631 DT Lib and MP Jjb and Community Center C M Services\Contract
C10131631 lURNERdoc
16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to
require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active
negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party.
16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's services and duties by CITY shall not
operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive
the expiration or early termination ofthis Agreement.
SECTION 117. W MYERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant,
tenn, condition or provision oftms Agreement, or ofthe provisions of any ordinance or law, will not
be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of
any subsequent breach or violation ofthe same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision,
ordinance or law.
SECTlION 18. lINSlURANCE.
18.1. CONSULTANT) at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full
force and effect during the term ofthis Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit tiD".
CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an
additional insured under any generalliabilityor automobile policy or policies.
18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers
with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:vrr or higher which are licensed or authorized to
transact insurance business in the State ofCalifomia. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT
retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect
during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional
insured under such policies as required above.
18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently
with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY's Risk
Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not
be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the
Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification,
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance
are provided to CITY's Purchasing Manager during the entire tenn of this Agreement.
18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be
construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions
of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be
obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as
a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss
arising after the Agreement is terminated or the tenn has expired.
SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES.
5
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCJ-{DOC\sAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP 13 1631 DT Lib and MP lib and Community Center C M Services\Contracl
CI0131631 TURNERdoc
19.1. The city manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in
part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause. by giving ten (10) days prior written notice
thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately
discontinue its performance of the Services.
19.2. CONSULTANT may tenninate this Agreement or suspend its performance of
the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereofto CITY. but only in the event of a
substantial failure of performance by CITY.
19.3. Upon such suspension or termination. CONSULTANT shall deliver to the
City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies. sketches, drawings, computations, and other
data, whether or not completed. prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to
CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any. in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will
become the property of CITY.
19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY , CONSULTANT will be paid
for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on
or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided,
however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULT ANT,
CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT's
services which·are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by
the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise ofhislher discretion
19.5. No payment, partial payment. acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will
operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement.
SECTION 20. NOTICES.
All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid. by
certified mail, addressed as follows:
To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
With a copy to the Purchasing Manager
To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director
at the address of CONSULT ANT recited above
6
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP 131631 DT Lib and MP Lib and Community Center C M Services\Contract
CI01316311URNER.doc
SECTION :H. CONFlLICT OF lINTEIREST.
21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSllL T ANT covenants that it presently has
no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otheIWise, which would
conflict in any manner or degree with the perfOJ:"mance of the Services.
21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement,
it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT
certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer
or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State ofCalifomia.
21.3. If the Project Manager detennines that CONSULTANT is a "Consultant" as
that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULT ANT
shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the
Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Refonn Act.
SECTION 22. NONDiSCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section
2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the perfonnance of this Agreement, it shall not
discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion,
disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status,
weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the
provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination
Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section
2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING. The City of Palo Alto
is a green business and works to purchase and provide products in an environmentally sustainable
manner. CONSULT ANT will use production methods that reduce waste and environmentally toxic
products, as well as have less packaging. CONSULTANT will adhere to the standard that printed
materials will be, at a minimum, printed on 30% post consumer recycled paper with vegetable based
ink. The designer will check with the project manager to discuss the maximum recycled content
paper available for each project. FS~ (Forest Stewardship Council) certified paper that is "process
free" is preferred. CONSULTANT will use methods that reduce energy use and thus the carbon
footprint for the development, production and delivery of products. CONSULT ANT shall adhere to
the City's Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies as may be amended from time to time.
SECTION 24. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
24.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California.
24.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action
will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of
California.
7
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC·TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\sAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI31631 DT Lib and M P IJb and Community Center C M Services\Contr"act
CI0131631 nJRNER.doc
24.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this
Agreement may recover its reasonable ,costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that
action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of
legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys' fees paid to third
parties.
24.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
24.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply
to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants ofthe
parties.
24.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
24.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices,
attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any
duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be
deemed to be a part of this Agreement.
24.8. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of
Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without anypenalty{ a)
at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year,
or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the
fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This Section 24.8 shall take
precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, tenn, condition, or provision of this
Agreement.
24.9. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have
the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
24.10 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement.
8
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP 13 I 63 I DT Lib and M P Lib and Community Center C M Services\Contract
C I 0131631 -ruRNEKdoc
CllTl{ OF PAlLO AlLTO OOJN'fJRAC1f NO.; (:1013>1631
IN \VITNESS \V1HEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized
representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO: CONSULTANT:
TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
_City Manager (Required for contracts over By: t'. (i'.\.! 1 rf: /,( II, 'Ii:;'. r c, f
$85,000) --''-''It----',(''-'--''--''--'----'--/:------A).----'-'-. j'-"'--'--; /J:'-'---'-~~-"--
_Purchasing Manager Name:~(~-I:.::t.::..V..4'-)'---"U'-j,~-Vb--.J...:f._l~..:::1_"1j)L..::>,_""-~ ___ _
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Attaclmlents:
EXHIBIT "A":
EXHIBIT "B":
EXHIBIT "e":
EXHIBIT "C-l"
EXHIBIT "D":
SCOPE OF SERVICES
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
COMPENSATION
HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
9
Professional Services
Rev, January 2009 -
\\CC-TERR"\jarr~ol\PURCHOOC\SAP Aids anu Projlosals\RFP\RFPI3163 I DT Lib and MI' lib Dnd CommunilY Cenler C M Scrvices\Conlract
CI013163I'I1IRNER,doc
SCOPE «))JF SERVJICJES
. 1. INTRODUCTION
In November 2008, voters approved Measure N, which provided for the upgrade, replacement
and/or expansion of three libraries in Palo Alto. These libraries are the Downtown Library, the
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center (MPLCC) and the Main Library. Environmental
clearance has been completed and approved for the three sites. The design plans, which are
currently approximately 50 percent complete, have been re",iewed by City boards and
commissions and have been presented to the community, although additional public meetings are
scheduled.
Downtown Librarv
Improvements to the Downtown Library, located at 270 Forest Ave, consist primarily of
accessibility improvements, code required upgrades, electrIcal and mechanical systems upgrades,
and interior space remodeling. The estimated 2008 construction cost was $2.4 million which was
based upon 35% completed plans. The construction cost estimate excludes design costs,
contingency, inflation escalation, permits, testing, fixtures and furnishing. Environmental
clearance has been completed and approved for the project.
The Downtown Library will not be a certified LEED building but will follow the City'S Green
Building Policy and submittal requirements.
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center
The existing Mitchell Park Library building is located at 3700 Middlefield Road and the adjacent
Community Center building is located at 3800 Middlefield Road. The existing library building is
less than 10,000 square feet. The existing community center building is approximately 10,000
square feet.
Construction will entail demolition and removal of the existing buildings and parking lots,
construction of a combined library and community center building and associated site amenities
including parking. The new building's total area will be approximately 51,000 square feet, of
which 36,000 square feet will be a two-story library and 15,000 square feet will be a single-story
community center around a heritage oak tree. The 2008 estimated construction cost was $28.1
million which was based upon the 35% plan design. The construction cost estimate excludes
design costs, contingency, inflation escalation, permits, testing, fixtures and furnishing. The
MPLCC will be designed to U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy Efficiency and
Design (LEED ®) Gold standard.
During construction, the library services and the community center will be relocated to a
temporary facility or facilities. Design of the temporary facility is underway and construction
management services for that facility will be performed by Public Works staff.
Main Librarv (Potential Future Phase)
10
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCIIDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP 131631 DT Lib and MP Lb and Community Center C M Services\Contract
C10131631 TIJRNER.doc
Construction management services for the Main Library are not included at this time, as design of
improvements to the Main Library will not begin until approximately early 2011. The City reserves
the right to negotiate a fee for and enter into a contract (amendment) with Turner Construction
Company (hereinafter "Consultant") for these services, or to issue a new Request for Proposa]s for
the services.
The Main Library, located on Newell Road, will have both an interior renovation and an
expansion. The renovation to the existing historic structure will consist of seismic, accessibility,
and systems upgrades as well as minor expansions and reconfigurations. In addition, a detached
bui]ding of approximately 4,500 square feet will be constructed. The 2008 estimated
construction cost was $9 million which was based upon the 35% plan design. The construction
cost estimate excludes design costs, contingency, inflation escalation, pennits, testing, fixtures
and furnishing.
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES
AU work described below will be done in conjunction with the City's ongoing review and
approval process for the projects described above. The Consultant's services shall include full
Construction Management Services as required to assist staff in the management of the design
and construction of the above projects.
If at any time, the City is not satisfied with the performance of Consultant's staff, the City
reserves the right to request the services of a different individual. If for any reason the
Consultant proposes a change of staffing during the course of the project, the City reserves the
right to approve any new staff. Additional Services must be approved in advance of services, in
writing, by the City Project Manager.
Office space, computers, cell phones, furnishings and other equipment needed for Consultant's
staff shall be provided by the Consultant. These costs shall be included in the Consultant fee
proposal.
Downtown Library
Phase I -Design Phase
Staff support for this library will be primarily by City staff. During the design phase, Consultant
services are primarily required for specialty (mechanical, electrical) and for pre-qualifiction of
contractors and key subcontractors.
A. Preconstruction
Document and Constructability review
Consultant shall:
• become familiar with the project history, plans, and specifications.
" review plans, specifications and cost estimates submitted for City review. Review by Consultant
11
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA \jarrcol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP 13163 I DT Lib and MP Ub and Community Center C M Services\Conlract
CI0131631lURNERdoc
shall be performed by engineers or contractors who have experience in relevant fields. Review of
documents shall be done at the current and 100% completion stage of Design Development and at
60%, 95% and 100% of Construction Development.
.. provide a constructability review for the project documents and make appropriate cost and/or time-
savings recommendations to the City.
<> provide an independent opinion of probable cost.
E> analyze and document the costs and benefits associated with combining construction of the
Downtown Library with the MPLCC.
<> coordinate as-needed and directed with the ArchitectlEngineers (AE) firm, City staff, City boards
and connnission members, and connnunity members.
'" assist the City's Contracts Manager with the preparation of the "Instructions to Bidders" which will
define the scope of work that must be included in the bid packages and other related bid documents
needed to ensure a complete bid package. The AE will prepare technical specifications.
o become familiar with the various City department functions and requirements for project
coordination.
Contractor and Key Subcontractor Prequalification
Prior to the construction bid phase, the Consultant shall prepare, and obtain approval from the City of
Palo Alto, to advertise forms required for Contractor and key subcontractor Prequalification.
Consultant shall administer the feedback from same, including but not limited to: answering
questions from contractors and subcontractors, coordinating responses with the City'S Purchasing
Division, preparing spreadsheets or other documentation necessary to compile and compare
contractor responses, preparing a recommended bidder's list with a brief report summarizing
findings, assisting in representing the City in any subsequent hearings challenging the validity of the
results and any follow-up documentation reSUlting from said hearings. The City Purchasing Division
will verify Consultant's recommendation in order to finalize the decision.
Additional Services
Additional Services include. but are not limited to, attendence at meetings, value engineering.
calculations and reimbursable expenses not included in the base fee.
Mitchell Park Library and. Community Center
Phase I -Design Phase
A. Preconstruction
Document and Constructability review
Consultant shall:
CD become familiar with the project history, plans and specifications
.. review plans, specifications and prepare cost estimates submitted for City review. Review by
Consultant shall be performed by engineers or contractors who have experience in relevant fields.
Review of documents shall be done at the current and 100% completion stage of Design
Development and at 60%, 95% and 100% of Construction Development.
e provide a constructability review for the proj ect documents and make appropriate cost and/or time-
savings recommendations to the City.
12
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI31631 DTLib and MP Jjb and Community Center C M Services\Contract
CI 0 131631 TURNER.doc
o provide an independent opinion of probable construction cost.
o coordinate as-needed and directed with the ArchitectiEngineers (AE) finn, City staff, City boards
and commission members and community members.
" assist the City's Contracts Manager with the preparation of the "Instructions to Bidders" which will
define the scope of work that must be included in the bid packages and other related bid documents
needed to ensure a complete bid package. The AE will prepare technical specifications.
" become familiar with the various City department functions and requirements for project
coordination.
Communi tv Outreach
The Consultant shall collect infonnation and prepare community, City Manager, oversight
committee, boards and commission and any other needed updates, presentations or reports not
provided by the AB.
The Consultant shall attend community meetings to update various civic orginazations (Kiwanas,
school groups, etc.) or community meetings on the project progress. Fee for this service shall be
included in 'Meetings'. Seven public meetings are currently scheduled from Sept 22,2009
through January 26,2010, however, Consultant shall budget for up to five (5) additional public
meetings.
Contractor and Key Subcontractor Prequalification
Prior to the construction bid phase, the City shall prepare, with City of Palo Alto approval, and
advertise fonns required for Contractor and key subcontractor Prequalification. Consultant shall
administer the feedback from same, including but not limited to: answering questions from
contractors and subcontractors, coordinating responses with the City's Purchasing Division,
preparing spreadsheets or other documentation necessary to compile and compare contractor
responses, prepare a recommended bidder's list with a brief report summarizing findings, assist
in representing the City in any subsequent hearings challenging the validity of the results, and
any follow-up documentation resulting from said hearings.
Bidding: Consultant shall organize and manage contractor participation. Consultant shall review the
contractor bids for compliance with the technical portions of the bid requirements as set forth in the
specifications and make a recommendation for award or rejection. Consultant shall assist with the
bid period work items including clarifications, and bid evaluation relative to the contract documents.
Consultant shall review the subcontractor list for completeness and compliance with the bid
documents. The City Purchasing Division will verify Consultant's recommendation in order to
finalize the decision.
Pre-bid Conference and Pre-construction Meeting: Consultant shall coordinate and facilitate the Pre-
bid Conference and Pre-construction Meeting including preparation of the agendas and meeting
minutes
Addenda: If changes to the construction documents are required during the bidding period,
Consultant shall prepare the addenda items with the assistance from the AE. The City will issue the
addenda.
13
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC·TERRA\jarreo]\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposa]s\RFP\RFPI31631 DT Lib and MP Ub and Community Center C M Services\Contract
C] 0] 3163] lURNER.doc
Budget: Consultant shall work with the City to develop a construction budget format and tracking
system.
Hazardous Material Abatement: Hazardous materials may be removed from the existing structures
prior to their demolition (under City contract) or may be included as part of the construction bid
package. Consultant shall assume that the abatement will be done by City contract and Consultant
shall prepare, assist in the bidding of and coordinate the remediation contract. A third party
consultant shall be employed by the City to survey, test, develop and implement removal procedures,
monitor abatement and report.
Relocation of Existing Library Services
The Consultant shall provide CM Services to support the City of Palo Alto in relocating library
services to a temporary facility. It is estimated the move-coordination for the Consultant will last
approximately 3 weeks.
Meetings: Throughout the design process, Consultant shall be prepared to address comments and
concerns of the contractors interested in bidding on the project, AB, City Staff, boards and
commissions and the general public on an as-needed basis.
Consultant shall schedule and conduct weekly progress meetings and any other meetings necessary to
facilitate the project work. City will provide the administrative support to provide a meeting room
and invite attendees. Consultant shall write and distribute the meeting agendas, and meeting
minutes, including: City-Consultant meetings, regular site meetings, and meetings with the City staff,
contractors, various City departments and also the public. The meeting minutes will explicitly track
who has the responsibility for each action item with expected completion dates.
Additional Services
Additional Services include, but are not limited to, attendence at meetings, value engineering,
calculations and reimbursable expenses not included in the base fee.
Future Phase -Construction Management. Downtown Library and MPLCC
Prior to construction the City shall, upon successful completion of Phase 1-Design Services,
negotiate a scope and fee for construction management, testing and inspection services for the
Downtown Library and the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center.
B. Potential Future Phase -Main Library Construction Management Services
Design of the Main Library expansion and rennovation is anticipated to begin in late 2010 or
early 2011, therefore Construction Management services for the rennovation and expansion of
the Main Library are not included in this Scope of Work. The City may, at its sole discretion,
negotiate a fee and execute a contract amendment with Consultant for this work at a future date,
or may elect to instead issue a new RFP for the services. The services would be similar to those
needed for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center.
14
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
"CC· TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOC\sAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI31631 DT Lib and MP Lib and Community Center C M Services\Conlract
CI0131631 lURNERdoc
SCHEDULE OF lPERFOJR.MA,.N<CE
CONSULT ANT shall perfonn the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number
of time specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by
mutual written agreement ofthe project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all
work is completed within the tenn of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed
schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to
proceed.
Milestones
1. Downtown Library Phase I, Pr.e-colllsttuctiolll Phase:
Review Construction Documents
Contractor Prequalification
Construction Contract Award
Completion
fromNTP
Oct 2009
Oct 2009
March 2010
2. Mitchell Park Libraxy &. Community CenteJr~ Phase li: Pre-construction
Phase:
Review Construction Documents
Contracto.r pte qualification
Construction Contract Award
IS
Feb. 2010
Feb. 2010
June 2010
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCI1DOC\sAP Dids and Proposals\RFP\RFP131631 DTLib and MP Lib and Community Center C M Services\Contract
C I 0 [31631 lURNER.doc
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services perfonned in
accordance with the tenns and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget
schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based ort the hourly rate schedule attached
as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit "A" ("Basic Services") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed
$124,837.00. CONSULT ANT agrees to complete an Basic Services, including reimbursable
expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services. the
maximum compensation shall not exceed $138,198.00. Any work performed or expenses
incurred for which paYment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of
compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY.
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted
below. The CITY's project manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts
between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic
Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $124,837.00 and the total
compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $13,361.00.
BUlDlGETSCJH[EDUlLE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1
(Downtown Library Phase I,
Pre-construction Phase)
Task 2
(Mitchell Park Library & Community Center,
Phase I: Pre-construction Phase)
Sub-total Basic Services
Reimbursable Expenses
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses
$17,545
$107,292
$124,837
$0.00
$124,837
Additional Services -DT Library (Not to Exceed) $2,632
Additional Services -MP Library and CC (Not to Exceed) $10,729
Maximum Total Compensation $138,198
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP 131631 DT Lib and M P Ub and Community Center C M Services\Contract
C10131631 lURNER.doc
REJIMlBlURSAlBLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included
within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses.
AJl)J]})ITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULT ANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization
from the CITY. The CONSULT ANT, at the CITY's project manager's request, shall submit a
detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of
effort, and CONs"ULTANT's proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable
expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-l. The additional services
scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by
the CITY's project manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services.
Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this
Agreement.
2
Professional SeIVices
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA\jarreo]\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and ,Proposa]s\RFP\RFP 131631 DT Lib and MP Jjb and Community Center C M SeIViees\Contraet
ClO13163IWRNER.doc
POSITION
Project Executive
Project Manager
EXHIBKT 66(:=1 ~~
HOUn Y RATE SCHEDULE
HOURLY RATE 20091
$232
$164
Project Engineer/Cost Engineer $105
MEP Engineer $155
Scheduler $126
Estimator $168
Administrative $63
Accounting $101
POSIT][ON IHIOURlLYRATE 20B
Project Executive $246
Project Manager $174
Project Engineer/Cost Engineer $111
MEP Engineer $164
Scheduler $134
Estimator $178
Administrative $66
Accounting $107
1
=
~
2010
$239
$169
$108
$159
$130
$173
$65
$104
2012
$253
$180
$115
$169
$138
$173
$68
$110
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOC\sAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP 131631 DT Lib and MP lib and Community Center C M Services\Contract
C 1 0 13 I 631 TURNER.doc
p" J.L 11 p~ ILlrlll\'!1l1M'\i II ill)
MIDDLEFIELD ROAIl
\,
lit lit 111\\ IIII 1118
~
1 I:: 1IlillllBlfjlfilI
ITIl!lgltd~ I" I
lijlWllwJI¥IMI
Ll
G
1~11IiIIfH
A It J1 A 1J,';11:1l1V1111~A\! 11 ill)
'[<;y---""U-----
~~: --!DfI--
.~~~.
~ ~ ;:XF'~E$S (HEC;(
~
o
N~\'V BOOI($ fi /II .. '.,' f[j iT. i, \~ n:
' iJ] L~ W, ';-I
""~ I" I
~ :1 I.", ,lJj
, W.
: i tH
.: ~l;
00
, , ,
~, ~ '-I lL, """ "EDIA 'I::;g
o Ci "jl,)
Ii I: ~+ n
1:,
L..
0:-
i~_ ~J
'J .... '
.. :
f -r I
q-.
..l.i.~,
~.""r:',.;;
OJ
.;,.,'"., ~ii~i :~. 1
I '" ~ _c,'.J..., J
:" •. ~ 4,r::.'o:; .. :.:;:-;f!5~.n
-,--,
. -... o;--~ (c:;'", .. .' 0
r-~(l\.W.~ 1;,OOl<:'.$ :
r
I,' ". \.'.\') ', .... 'OP" "'''L !",t': : I i,' ~~.~~; , I.' -•. 1 ""
. ! ,,(.j)
.' Ii 5(.~~
::1.£", R:; II ~·K~.r.;·
1i::~·H,~('J
~~ ffi \J
~
)::::
)::::
~ F ~ ~ )::::
f::i:
d
~
"·,L:,:.'.:.:._J....L .j
;.:::E=o:'::-~::,·:X: ;
~
ILWi.l i i
· o~ ~ · ~
• !=i ::) o , <
· !.:.. D
I I
t
\,' [ I. < \ \ " \ \ '\ L~~J
,
, .
Library Advisory Commission (LAC)
Report to Palo Alto City Council
Library Facilities Projects
September 14, 2009
Over the course of the last five months there have been many public meetings to refine
the design plans for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and the Downtown
Library. One thing is clear, as you might expect, everyone has a passion for the Palo
Alto Library system, and for their neighborhood library in particular. This is particularly
true of the Downtown Library.
The Library Advisory Commission (LAC) began meeting with stakeholders and
members of the community in April to refine the plans. Members of the LAC attended
Focus Groups, public meetings, Library Bond Stakeholders Group meetings, Library
Advisory Commission meetings, and formed a sub-committee to further work with library
staff, Group 4 Architects and meet with board members of the Friends of the Palo Alto
Library (FOPAL).
This sub-committee reviewed the concerns expressed by members of the public
regarding the Downtown Library to ensure the schematic design properly addressed
needs for the book collection, seating space, and number of computers at the
Downtown Library. In addition, the sub-committee determined it was also important to
address the concerns raised about the location of the administrative area in the
Downtown Library, specifically in relation to the west patio. The sub-committee
requested, and the City's Public Works Department approved, funding for Group 4 to
prepare additional information for the LAC's review.
This resulted in a design narrative by Group 4 for the current plan explaining the
rationale and thoughts bel"lind the current design, and evaluation criteria and space
layouts for four (4) other options and a report from the LAC sub-committee. At the
Library Advisory Commission meeting on July 2, the LAC sub-committee presented its
report, Group 4 presented options and rationale for the current design, and the LAC
listened to public input and, in the end, unanimously reaffirmed the current design for
the Downtown Library, as well as for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center.
At the Library Advisory Commission meeting on September 3, Group 4 presented the
updated project plans for the Downtown Library, the new Mitchell Park Library and
Community Center, and the temporary Mitchell Park Library. The LAC listened to public
comments from five members of the community and received a letter from another
individual. The LAC voted unanimously to again reaffirm the current design plans for
Mitchell p;ark Library and Community Center and the Downtown Library.
;
During the last four years, the Library Advisory Commission has been guided by the
vision within the Library Service Model Analysis and Recommendations (LSMAR)
Report of December 2006, the City Auditor's July 2007 Report of Library Operations
LAC Report to City Council 1. 9/14/09
Recommendations, the Palo Alto City Technology Plan for the library system, and the
constraints of the City budget.
We have also listenE?d to public comments, and incorporated some of them into the
overall plans for our library system. For example, the Downtown Library collection was
increased from 12,212 volumes to 17,592 volumes and the current seating count was
increased from 37 to more than 60 seats as a result of public input.
It's important to keep in mind as we look at the individual branches that make up the
Palo Alto Library system that we must also look at the overall system. As one member
of the public stated at one of our meetings, "To run the system as economically as
possible, the branches need to make use of the system and the system of the
branches." The LSMAR called for improving the collection across the branch system
and establishing the core collections at Main and Mitchell Park libraries.
The branch libraries (Downtown and College Terrace) are to focus more on high
interest, high demand materials that reflect the community (neighborhood) it serves and
to regularly refresh these collections. Once the Library facilities projects are completed,
the Palo Alto library system expects to <add 71,000 items to the city's collection. In
additionj the Link + was added in March to enhance collection services and to improve
access to the collections of other libraries for Palo Alto City cardholders.
It has been, and continues to be, an overall goal for the Library Advisory Commission to
respect the tradition of libraries and books and, at the same time, to work toward a Palo
Alto library system that meets the needs of the 21 st Century and the "Iibraryof
tomorrow." In addition, we all want to ensure that we provide safe and inviting facilities
with flexible spaces that can accommodate growth and include areas for quiet study and
reflection, small and large group meetings, and delivery of neighborhood programs and
services.
Susie Thom, Chair
Library Advisory Commission
Attachments:
A. Library Advisory Commission (LAC) Update to Palo Alto City Council -Library
Facilities Projects, June 15, 2009
B. Report from LAC Sub-Committee -Downtown Library: A Community Destination,
June, 26, 2009
r
I
C. lVIemorandum from Group 4 -Palo Alto Downtown Library Design Description,
June 26, 2009
D. Downtown Library -Evaluation Criteria Matrix. Current and Options 1 through 4
LAC Report to City Council 2 9/14/09
Attachment A
Library Advisory Commission (LAC) Update to Palo Alto City Council
Library Facilities Projects
June 15, 2009
At the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) Meeting on May 28, the commission voted
unanimously to support the overall footprint for the Downtown Library presented by
Group 4 Architecture and to maintain the basic layout plan, including defined walls and
the location of Administrative/Staff and public spaces.
We also unanimously approved the current design for the Mitchell Park Library and
Community Center, as well as the existing design for the temporary library at the
Cubberley Community Center while the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center is
under construction.
Five public meetings have been held over the last two months where plans for the
Downtown Library and/or the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center were
discussed. Participants in these meetings included staff from Group 4 Architecture, City
Library Staff, members of the Library Advisory Commission, and members of the
Friends of the Palo Alto Library and Palo Alto Library Foundation, as well as other
community members, including our teens and youths. The following meetings were
held:
April?
April 23
May 19
May 28
Focus Group Specific to Downtown Library
Library Advisory Commission (LAC) Meeting. Although this meeting had to
be cancelled due to lack of a quorum, members of the LAC stayed for an
informal discussion with members of the public.
Community Meeting on the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center;
however, the Downtown Library was also part of the discussion.
A Focus Group was also held on this date with our teens and youth for
input to the new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center.
Library Advisory Commission (LAC) Meeting
During the course of these meetings, several members of the Board of Directors of the
Friends of the Palo Alto Library expressed concerns about the plans for the Downtown
Library which include:
1. The size of the books collection
2. The,amount of seating space
3. Number of computers available
4. The need for a Multi-Purpose Room and whether it would, in fact, be used by the
public or staff from City Hall
5. The location of Administrative/Staff space in the facility, the amount of square
footage allocated to this space, and whether or not library staff should even be
located at this facility
-1 -
While the overall footprint for the Downtown Library was unanimously approved by the
commission, a sub-committee of the LAC was formed to further review the concerns
expressed by the Friends.of the Palo Alto Library regarding the books collection, seating
space, and number of computers to ensure these elements are optimized for the
demographics of the Downtown Library.
Our unanimous decision was based on the following. The Library Advisory Commission
has been true to the process and the commitment to the Downtown Library by City
Council. The Library Service Model Analysis and Recommendations (LSMAR) provided
the basis and strategy for the plans for the Downtown Library facility, as well as the
other library facilities.
Books Collection. Part of the strategy defined by the LSMAR was to provide high-
interest, high-demand materials at smaller branch libraries, while improving collections
across the branch system, and to establish comprehensive core collections at Main and
Mitchell Park Libraries. As one member of the public indicated, "To run the system as
economically as possible the branches need to make use of the system and the system
of the branches."
Another way outlined to enhance colle.9tion services was to improve access to the
collections of other libraries for Palo Alto City cardholders through Link + or similar
resource-sharing programs. As you know, Link + is currently undergoing a Pilot
Program. Another point of the LSMAR was that while collections need to be bigger,
better and more current, today's collections go beyond books to other media.
The original plan for the Downtown Library (November 2006) was a collection of
approximately 12,212 volumes. Following the Downtown Library Focus Group Meeting
on April 7, Group 4 Architecture increased that number to approximately 17,545
volumes by redefining the collection and computer space.
Seating Space. The seating count has gone from the current seating of 37 to more than
60 seats, which does not include seating at the computer stations or when the multi-
purpose room is set up for a program. It does include the multi-purpose room seating for
general use.
Computers. While it is important to provide computers in the Downtown Library for
public use, it is becoming more and more common for patrons to bring their own laptop
computers into the library facilities. Additionally, with the wireless network the libraries
now provide, laptop computers (available for public use) add flexibility to where patrons
can sit and use them, maximizing the use of the public spaces.
Multi-Purpase Room. The LSMAR outlined the need to provide safe and inviting
facilities with flexible spaces that accommodate growth and include areas for quiet
study, small and large group meetings. The intent of the Multi-Purpose Room for the
Downtown Library is that this space be open and flexible. Libraries change in their use
over time and this facility has been designed so that a reconfiguration of spaces may be
made to meet the needs of its patrons without a major capital improvement.
-2 -
The architectural plan provides for tables and chairs, and bookcases on wheels (not
included in the above book volume count) to be in this space when it is not being used
for large groups. To accommodate large meetings, the bookcases will be wheeled out of
the room, tables put into storage, and additional chairs brought from storage into the
room.
Administrative/Staff Space. The location of the administrative/staff space is based on
a number of things, including the safety and security of library patrons and staff
efficiency. Utilities come into this corner of the building, which facilitates the staff break
room and restrooms. Moving the staff space and utilities would add significant costs to
the renovation.
The amount of space allocated to administration/staff was also questioned. Group 4
Architecture tightened up this space following the Downtown Library Focus Group
Meeting. Another element, ensuring that the building and space is ADA accessible,
increases the amount of space required by approximately 5% to 10% according to the
architects.
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center
During the course of the public meetings listed above, there was no public opposition to
the new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center design or to the design and plans
for the temporary library facility at Cubberley Community Center during construction of
the new facilities.
College Terrace Library
The College Terrace Library is on schedule to close this summer for renovation and will
be under construction for 12 to 14 months.
Project(s) Plan Status
l\IIonthly meetings are ongoing with the Library Bond Stakeholders Group, which
includes members from the various boards and commissions, as well as representatives
from the Palo Alto Library Foundation, Palo Alto Friends of the Library, and city staff and
liaisons to the boards and commissions. The current focus of this group is to establish
ways to communicate to_the community the status and plans of the renovation and
rebuilding of the city library facilities. As you know, we will rebuild or renovate four (4)
library facilities and one community center over the next five (5) years.
In addition Group 4 Architecture will meet with the following boards and comrnissions
over the next month as the projects move forward: Architectural Review Board, Parks &
Recreation Commission and Library Advisory Commission.
Library Adwisory Commission
Susie Thom, Chair
- 3 -
Attachment B
LAC Subcommittee Report on Downtown Library Design June 26, 2009
Downtown Library: A Community Destination
Three years ago, the city adopted a landmark plan for the Palo Alto Library System. The
Plan (LSMAR) defined the vision for the entire Library System and recommended a
course of action for the "library of tomorrow". This vision called for state of art
collection and services to serve all ages in safe and inviting facilities with flexible spaces
including areas for quiet study and reflection, small and large group meetings and
delivery of neighborhood programs and services. Each of the branches is to be designed
to offer comfort, convenience and community for its distinct neighborhood in an
integrated system that houses its core collection at Main and Mitchell.
As the city embarks on the renovation of four of its five branches (Children's Library was
completed in 2007), it is necessary to create a specific plan for each of the branches
within the framework of the LSMAR Plan and within constraint of the city budget. The
following plan describes the branch vision, current and future neighborhood requirements
and design guidelines for the Downtown renovation.
Downtown Library Vision: A community destination -a third space -for the diverse
population living and utilizing downtown area within a state of art P A Library System.
Neighborhood Requirements: The downtown area is different from the overall city
demography in variety of the ways. The area has a larger senior popUlation, unique
population of daytime workers, homeless individuals and downtown
businesses/entrepreneurs. It also enjoys normal patronage of young professionals and
families. Current baby boomers with greater technological comfort and enhanced
mobility will form the future senior population.
The senior population needs a facility that
• Is within walking distance from senior housing
• Has comfortable space to sit and read newspapers, magazines and books
• Has on-site appropriate collection with easy access to system wide collection
• Has access for learning tools including one-on-one computer tutoring
• Has easily maneuverable floor plan and shelves
The daytime workers will visit the branch for
• Browsing on-site collection
• Picking up on-hold materials
• Lunchtime programs
• Reading magazines
• WiFi and internet access
The hOrheless (unhoused) need
• Internet access
• Quiet space for reading and sitting
• "Community Living Room" space
Page 1 of3
LAC Subcommittee Report on Downtown Library Design June 26, 2009
The downtown business owners, budding entrepreneurs and young professionals will
view the branch as a portal for infonnation access and sharing providing
• Individual work place with WiFi and .Internet access
• Facility for business meeting and small group collaboration
• Neighborhood place to pickup requested materials
In addition, the branch will continue to serve neighborhood families with children
requmng
• Designated children's area and collection
• Story time space
• Adult material
• Community and civic programming
The design also needs to accommodate certain practical requirements -efficient use of
library stafftime and a need to maintain a comfortable and secure environment. With
severe budgetary constraint and community's desire to utilize staff to maximize operating
hours, the design should allow staff to perfonn multiple simultaneous functions such as
help desk, reference and surveillance.
The library is often called a third space because it is an attractive and inviting place for
individuals and groups outside of home and work. The downtown branch will be
designed to create an open, bright and gracious space. The architecture has to be flexible
enough to accommodate anticipated rapid demo graphical and technological change,
Design Guidelines: Considering patron's requirements, need for flexibility and need for
attractive "third space", the downtown branch begins to reflect combined characteristics
of (a) traditional library with large physical collection (b) modem bookstore and (c)
neighborhood coffee shop.
Within the constraint of existing capital and operating budget and un-modifiable outer
structure, the branch needs to provide a balanced facility for
a. On-site collection
b. Comfortable seating
c. Computer workplace
d. Small group meeting area
e. Program space and
f. Children comer
in an open, lighted, secure and pleasant environment. The flexible space model is
essential, allowing quick conversion of space for different uses when needed.
While qesigning space, it is important to compare critical metrics for this branch with P A
Library system as whole. The branch is not meant to be simply a smaller version of the
entire system. Hence the branch must have better metric in areas it is designed to serve.
Based on the requirements outlined here, the proposed comparison metrics are
Page 2 of3
LAC Subcommittee Report on Downtown Library Design June 26, 2009
Criteria PA system-Downtown branchl
planned
Existing Currently proposed
, (2007 pop. 7,980) (2030 pop. 9,677)
Collection size 4.1 to 4.5 vol. pe
capita2
1.5 1.8
Seating space 4.5-5.0 per 1,000 43 6.8
people2
Computers 1.2 -1.5 computers
per 1,000 people2
1.9 1.8
Children & teen are 16% 4% 5%
Small group room 2% 1% 4%
Multi-use (program 5% 0% 13%
space)
OutdoorlPatio Space approx. 11,560 4,528 4,528
(not incl. planted area)
Total Square Feet 84,500 9,046 9,046
I There;is inherent fuzziness in the per capita estimation of each branch. The service area
for each branch is not rigid. Patrons routinely use multiple branches. Hence per capita
numbers can only be used as broad guideline while discussing a branch.
2 Recommendations from 2006 Service Level Needs Assessment by Kathy Page. Based
on ABAG's 2030 projected population for Palo Alto of 82,184.
Page 3 of3
GROUP 4
ARCHITECTURE
RESEARCH +
PlANNING, INC
211 LINDEN AVENUE
SO, SAN FRANCISCO
CA 94080 USA
T,650·871·0709
F:650·S71 ·7911
www.g4arch.com
WAYNE GEHRKE
ARCHITECT
DAWN E, MERKES
ARCHITECT
DAVID SCHNEE
ARCHITECT
DAVID M. STURGES
ARCHITECT
JONATHAN HARTMAN
ARCHITECT
KARl SVANSTROM
PLANNER
PAul JAMTGAARO
ARCHITECT
WILLIAM LIM
ARCHITECT
"
26 June 2009
PROJECT
Palo Alto Downtown Library
SENT VIA
Regular Mail I Ground
TOPIC
Palo Alto Downtown Library Design Description
DESIGN GOALS
Attachment C
MEMORANDUM
The original design of the powntown Library represents an ideal example of late-
twentieth century modernist expressive design. The balanced simplicity of a bold
superstructure roof hovering over the glass-enclosed and open plan interior presents a
contrast against the language of battered wall and traditional materials that make clear
allusions to an historic, early Californian past
The renovation of the library seeks to provide a truer expression of the twentieth century
spirit by restoring the open plan organization, and with it the visibility through the space
to the surrounding outdoor patios. Uses like walk-up computers, check-out laptops, a
large flexible community space, and an enhanced children's area will boost the library's
attractiveness and service to the neighborhood and introduce a wider range of users. In
an effort to maximize the operational efficiency and minimize renovation costs, staff
offices are positioned in a comer of the building that is adjacent to the entry and the book
return and already has plumbing (water and waste) infrastructure.
Another imJ'9rtant goal of the project is to upgrade the building systems to meet current
standards of performance. The mechanical systems will be replaced with high
performance HVAC and electrical, systems, The building's structure must be
strengthened and extraneous non-structural elements will be removed. The interior
lighting and ceiling will also be replaced and will result in a significant improvement to
the functionality, efficiency, and aesthetic of the lighting.
CONCEPTUAL BUILDING DESIGN
While the exterior of the building and its surrounding stucco walls will remain the same, the
interior spaces will be completely re-arranged and upgraded. After the relocation of Technical
Services to the new Mitchell Park Library, the enclosed staff offices will be shifted to the
northwest comer of the building and the service desk will be shifted towards the central public
space thus making the library more accessible and easily navigated. In addition, the increased area
for public use will be arranged so as to significantly improve surveillance by staff of all areas of
the floor. Relocating book sorting operations to a space next to the principal entrance and directly
behind the service desk will greatly improve book returns and processing.
g:\06357 ·03 palo alto libraries dd·ca\r-reports\m21 001 downtowndesigndescription,dac
r ,
26 June 2009 Memorandum Page 2
The central axis will become an infonnal, browsing area for popular books, walk-up computers
and the library's media collection. Another benefit ofrelocating Technical Services is the creation
of a new flexible community program space capable of providing more area for books stacks,
seating area or becoming an enclosed room by means of an easily retractable sliding wall. As a
closed room, the library will be able to offer a broad range of events like lectures and book
readings that have in the recent past had to be held in the periodical area or the patios. This room
will typically be kept open but it is capable of being closed off only for events and is equipped
with a projector and screen for slide presentations and a small sink for lightly catered events. It
will be able to open to the outdoor terraces to further support these special events. In addition,
new enclosed study rooms can be reserved for meetings or used independently.
On the opposite side of the main axis from the community space, the fiction and non-fiction
collections' stacks create the core element in the space. The seating along windows on the
perimeter of the building will be attractive to both table and laptop users alike and will encourage
use of the terraces.
In addition to improving visibility and connections, the renovation will brighten the space with
new brighter interior colors and, finishes. The dark paint on the major structural beams will be
stripped and refinished to reveal the true wood grain below. Also, the short "brackets" atop the
major columns will be removed." The proposed design will emphasize the open, airy connection of
the interior to the exterior, in the spirit of the classic modernist style.
DESIGN APPROACH
Because the scope of this renovation should be kept to a minimum, the emphasis is being placed
on paring, simplifying, and brightening the spaces, structure, finishes, and furnishings of the
interior. This approach will reveal the truly contemporary thinking behind the building's original
design. The improvements will further update the feel of the spaces with new colors and
innovative materials. No work will be done to the building's exterior facades except a coat of new
paint and new signage to draw patrons in. The primary plan changes were described above.
CODE REVIEW
Building History
• Original Construction Date:
• Code Used:
• Construction Type:
• Occupancy Group:
• Fire Zone:
• Interior Remodel:
1969
UBC 1967
III-I hour
B3
I
Yes
Building Structure -WF Columns encased in concrete with roof framing composed of exposed
glu-Iams beams below ceiling and truss joists above, cantilevered column system, with wood
frame walls.
• Occupancy Group:
• Type of Construction:
• Sprinklers:
• Stories:
• Square Footage:
Applicable Code:
• 2007 California Building Code
B, A-3, A-5
V-B
No
One
9,046
26 June 2009 Memorandum Page 3
Building Occupancies, Chapter 3, CBC:
• A3 Occupancy Library and Community Hall
Fire Sprinklers
New fire sprinklers will not need to be added as long as building still meets code requirements of
original construction. (From meeting with Fire Department 9/6/2007)
Additions & Alterations to Existing Structure
When additions, alterations, or repairs within any 12 month period exceed 50% of the value of a
building designed and constructed prior to 1976, the building shall be brought up to current code.
(Palo Alto Municipal Code 3403.6) The method of determining building valuation is still
under discussion by the city
Dawn Merkes
Principal
DM/mm
cc:
· . .-:--'
C -c:
(I) EVALUATION CRITERIA Current Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 . E .s:: poor (,)
'" 0 fair .:~ ~:~ ;~ . i:.!! ~~:~ . i:{ -<l '" -+ good .---~t r
';!
Additional Cost
Design Fees No change $50k $50k $50k $50k
Construction No change $20k $40k $40k $lOk
Schedule Impact No change 3 months 3 months 3 months . 3 months
Functionality &
" OperaHons 1"l"'·:'·~.-"?I~' ',; "'~ .' ":::~iF!~ ~ r';': ",
Material Flow + +
Program (Fit) + 0 0
Future Flexibility + +
Surveillance + + 0
Patio Access 0 + + 0 +
Daylighting
Public + + +
Admin Staff + + +
~ -,~,
o o ~
:J o ~ :J
r
0-
03 ~ ...
o
"'0 ..... o·
:J
0 0 :E
::J .-+ 0 :E ::J
r
0-....,
Q) ....,
'<
0
-0 !::!:
0
::J
I'\.)
('
I
i @ G
G
8
e
@
--8
G
®
r
I
0
0
:E :::::I ...... 0 :E
:::::I
r r-
I 0'" i 03 I :-' ~ i
0 i i i_ "'0
11
~ 0 .~ :::::I I ~
.,
-
'JJ!~ , '.' " . ~II -<i-I-H-H-+t-n--r--r-: ~-;]1 ~. ~~ ~ . ~-11~ ~.~ o;:¢::±':F9,'-'-_I_C_' __ :::::-::::
LD 'Ii
I i LL+l-~*:k-t7f;:;""..r.. 'I7lr :"("
, \. ,-' .::~.<:
:'!IR~I~ , , c: ~~~
~~ '~!~Ii
.~