Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-09-21 City Council Agenda Packet 1 09/21/09 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 21, 2009 6:30 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. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Subject: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to (b) of Section 54956.9 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(b)(3)(C) concerning Patricia Briggs CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Subject: Written liability claim against the City of Palo Alto by Alison Williams Authority: Government Code sections 54956.9(b)(1) & 54956.9(b)(3)(C) 7:00 PM or as soon as possible thereafter SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 2. Proclamation for 10th Anniversary of PANDA ATTACHMENT 3. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Karen Frankel for Her Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Public Art Commission ATTACHMENT 4. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to David Negrin for His Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Public Art Commission ATTACHMENT 09/21/09 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. 5. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Ron Cooper for His Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Public Art Commission ATTACHMENT 6. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Laura Deem for Her Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Public Art Commission ATTACHMENT 7. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Donald Piana on His Retirement ATTACHMENT 8. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Public Art Commission for One, Three-Year Term Ending April 30, 2012 ATTACHMENT 9. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Architectural Review Board for Three, Three-Year Terms Ending September 30, 2012 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. CONSENT CALENDAR Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members. 10. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Linda Lenoir for Her Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Human Relations Commission ATTACHMENT 09/21/09 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. 11. Adoption of a Resolution Amending the 2008-2009 Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel Adopted by Resolution No. 8844 to Revise the Provisions Related to Variable Management Compensation CMR 382:09 & ATTACHMENT 12. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Amending City Council Procedures to Add an Ad Hoc Committee Policy ATTACHMENT 13. Adoption of an Ordinance Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Henry W. Seale Park CMR 377:09 & ATTACHMENT 14. Adoption of an Ordinance Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvement to John Lucas Greer Park CMR 376:09 & ATTACHMENT 15. Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2010 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $1,191,238 Within the Electric Fund for Incentives to Palo Alto Utilities' Customers to Install Photovoltaic Systems CMR 356:09 & ATTACHMENT PUBLIC COMMENT 16. Approval of a Negative Declaration and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 21 (Subdivisions) and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Define the Minimum Width for Private Streets and Excluding Private Streets from the Calculation of Floor Area CMR 364:09 & ATTACHMENT 09/21/09 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. 17. Approval of a Negative Declaration and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $202,639, and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 10 by Repealing Chapter 10.46 (Residential Permit Parking) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in its Entirety and Enacting a New Chapter 10.46 (College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program) (RPPP) CMR 372:09 & ATTACHMENT PUBLIC COMMENT 18. Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor’s Office Audit of Police Investigative Fund ATTACHMENT 19. Approval of a Purchase Order with LDV, Incorporated in an Amount Not to Exceed $700,000 for the Purchase of a Regional Response Mobile Command Vehicle Under the Mobile Command Vehicle Capital Improvement Program Project Number PD-07000 CMR 378:09 & ATTACHMENT 20. Approval of Appointment of Dennis Burns as Police Chief and At-Will Employment Contract CMR 330:09 & ATTACHMENT PUBLIC COMMENT 21. Approval of Contract No. C10133497 with Advanced Processing West, Incorporated (ADPI) for Up to Three Years in an Amount Not to Exceed $166,667 Per Year for Ambulance Billing Services CMR 381:09 & ATTACHMENT 22. Approval of a Contract with Golden Bay Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $488,424 for FY 2009-10 Sidewalk Replacement Project Capital Improvement Program Project PO-89003 CMR 374:09 & ATTACHMENT 09/21/09 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. 23. Approval of a Water Enterprise Fund Contract with Anderson-Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. in a Not to Exceed Amount of $3,870,000 for the Design-Build of the Eleanor Pardee Park and Main Library/Community Gardens Wells/Emergency Water Supply Wells Project WS-08002 CMR 371:09 & 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 24. PUBLIC HEARINGS Adoption of an Uncodified 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 (Continued from September 14, 2009) ATTACHMENT PUBLIC HEARINGS 25. Zoning Ordinance Update: Approval of a Negative Declaration and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 18.28 Related to Development Standards in the Open Space (OS) Zone District CMR 379:09 & ATTACHMENT REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 26. Policy & Services Committee Recommendation to Continue the Open City Hall Online Forum CMR 385:09 & ATTACHMENT 09/21/09 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. COUNCIL MATTERS 27. Colleague’s Memo from Council Members Kishimoto, Klein, and Yeh Regarding Directing the City Manager to Explore Ways to Reduce Potable Water Use in Palo Alto by 20 Percent by 2020 ATTACHMENT 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. 28. 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) PUBLIC COMMENT 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 10th ANNIVERSARY OF PALO ALTO NEIGHBORHOOD DISASTER ACTIVITIES (PANDA) WHEREAS, PANDA was developed and implemented in a joint effort between community members and the Palo Alto Fire Department in 1999; and WHEREAS, PANDA members serve the City of Palo Alto as disaster service workers, in the event of natural and technological disasters; and WHEREAS, PANDA District Coordinators generously contributed their time and talent to functions supporting disaster response training at a high standard; and WHEREAS, over 800 community members have been trained in emergency preparedness, disaster medical response, search and rescue, light fire suppression, and disaster mental health; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto wishes to acknowledge and thank PANDA members and District Coordinators for their personal commitment and pride in the community, for their significant personal efforts, and their willingness to respond during a disaster. NOW, THEREFORE, I, PETER DREKMEIER, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council hereby gratefully records and extends its sincere appreciation to the PANDA members for their excellent service rendered to the City for the past 10 years. Presented: September 2009 ______________________________ Peter Drekmeier Mayor RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING ITS APPRECIATION TO KAREN FRANKEL FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION WHEREAS, Karen Frankel served the City of Palo Alto as a member of the Public Art Commission from June 2002 to April 2008; and WHEREAS, Karen Frankel has given unselfishly of her time and talents in support of the City of Palo Alto Art In Public Places Program; and WHEREAS, Karen Frankel has made a significant contribution to the community through her diligent and conscientious efforts developing a collaboration with “Friday Art Walks” to further the public educational efforts of the Commission; and WHEREAS, Karen Frankel remains an advocate of public art and continues as a dedicated artist in her own right; and WHEREAS, during Karen Frankel’s service, she took the lead and worked closely with many artists to realize major achievements of public art including Sam Yates, The Color of Palo Alto; Joe Sam, Opportunity Center Artwork project; and David Huffman and Joey Piziali, the Bishop Mural Triptych. 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 Karen Frankel. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: SEPTEMBER 21, 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 DAVID NEGRIN FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION WHEREAS, David Negrin served the City of Palo Alto as a member of the Public Art Commission from June 2005 to April 2008; and WHEREAS, David Negrin has given unselfishly of his time and talents in support of the City of Palo Alto Art In Public Places Program; and WHEREAS, during Mr. Negrin’s service, he diligently made significant contributions serving on subcommittees for the Youth Art Purchase Award 2007, taking a lead role in creating Bylaws, and placing artwork by Joe Sam at the Opportunity Center. 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 David Negrin. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: SEPTEMBER 21, 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 RON COOPER FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION WHEREAS, Ron Cooper served the City of Palo Alto as a member of the Public Art Commission from June 2002 to June 2008; and WHEREAS, Ron Cooper has given unselfishly of his time and talents in support of the City of Palo Alto Art In Public Places Program; and WHEREAS, Ron Cooper 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 October 2005 to June 2008; and WHEREAS, during Ron Cooper’s service, he spearheaded the Youth Art Purchase Award Program, the development of Bylaws, and acquisition of artworks by artists Fletcher Benton, Tilted Donut #5; Michael Szabo, Arch-Cradle, and Adriana Varella and Nilton Maltz, Digital DNA, and maintenance of the City 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 Ron Cooper. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: SEPTEMBER 21, 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 LAURA DEEM FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION WHEREAS, Laura Deem served the City of Palo Alto as a member of the Public Art Commission from June 2002 to April 2008; and WHEREAS, Laura Deem has given unselfishly of her time and talents in support of the City of Palo Alto Art In Public Places Program; and WHEREAS, Laura Deem 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, Laura Deem donated her design skills to create numerous postcards, invitations and posters in support of outreach for the Art in Public Places Program; and WHEREAS, during Ms. Deem’s service, she participated on various subcommittees including the Youth Art Purchase Award Program, Opportunity Center, and Downtown Art Walk; and WHEREAS, Laura Deem remains an advocate of public art 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 Laura Deem. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: SEPTEMBER 21, 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 APPRECIATION TO DONALD PIANA ON HIS RETIREMENT FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE WHEREAS, Donald Piana has served the City of Palo Alto for the past twenty-five years and has made significant contributions to the City of Palo Alto in his capacities as Park Supervisor; Park Superintendent, and Interim Open Space and Parks Division Manager; and WHEREAS, Donald Piana, is a 35-year member of the California Parks and Recreation Society and an active participant in the Peninsula Parks Superintendent Association; and WHEREAS, Donald Piana, has created and implemented maintenance programs and services that have kept our City Parks, playground facilities; athletic fields, tennis courts, landscaped areas, and business districts clean, safe, fun, and esthetically pleasing for visitors and participants; and WHEREAS, Donald Piana has been a leader in environmental practices, including the implementation of the City’s Integrated Pest Management Program which has resulted in the significant reduction of pesticides in parks and City facilities, implemented water conservancy programs, and attained a Bay Area Green Business Association Certification in 2002; and WHEREAS, through Donald Piana’s devotion to making our parks and open spaces attractive and appealing to the public, the City was the recipient of the ICMA “Voice of the People Award for Excellence in Providing Park Services” in 2006; and WHEREAS, Donald Piana has been an exemplary manager and mentor, providing his Staff with opportunities to create, grow and succeed by providing a workplace that was educational, motivational and open to new ideas; and WHEREAS, Donald Piana is recognized by his peers and has earned the high esteem of City staff, residents, the business community, and the environmental community for his professionalism, knowledge and for providing the community with outstanding programs and services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City 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 Donald Piana, along with our best wishes for a rewarding and fulfilling life during retirement. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: SEPTEMBER 21, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: _______________________ _____________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ _____________________ City Attorney City Manager September 21, 2009 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL City of Palo Alto SUBJECT: Selection of Candidates to be interviewed for the Public Art Commission for one, three-year term ending April 30, 2012. Dear Council Members: Enclosed are two applications submitted for one unexpired term ending April 30, 2012 on the Public Art Commission. At the Council Meeting on Monday, September 21, 2009, the City Council will select the candidates to be interviewed for the Public Art Commission. The interview date is to be determined. Each Council Member will receive a selection sheet to use for determining who will be chosen for an interview. The requested action is for each Council Member to fill out the selection sheet. The City Clerk will announce the results. Candidates who receive four or more votes will be scheduled for an interview. The applicants are as follows: Name Address Phone 1. Susan Kraft Yorke 4030 Transport Street Palo Alto 650-494-3962 2. Michael Smit 721 College Avenue Palo Alto 650-565-8503 Respectfully submitted, Ronna Jojola Gonsalves Deputy City Clerk Enclosures cc: All applicants (without enclosure) Donna Grider, City Clerk Kelly Morariu, Staff Liaison September 21, 2009 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL City of Palo Alto SUBJECT: Selection of Candidates to be interviewed for the Architectural Review Board for three, three-year terms ending September 30, 2012. Dear Council Members: Enclosed are ten applications submitted for three terms ending September 30, 2012 on the Architectural Review Board. At the Council Meeting on Monday, September 21, 2009, the City Council will select the candidates to be interviewed for the Architectural Review Board. The interview date is to be determined. Each Council Member will receive a selection sheet to use for determining who will be chosen for an interview. The requested action is for each Council Member to fill out the selection sheet. The City Clerk will announce the results. Candidates who receive four or more votes will be scheduled for an interview. The applicants are as follows: Name Address Phone 1. Kaori Abiko 330 W. Portal Ave, #201 San Francisco, CA 94127 415-203-9990 H 2. David Ball 393 Stanford Ave Palo Alto, CA 94306 917-250-0404 H 4. Alexander Lew 372A Bush Street Mountain View, CA 94041 650-694-4662 H 5. Gordana Pavlovic 602 Hawthorne Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-330-0484 H 6. Stephen Sowa 3440 Cowper Court Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-857-1665 H 7. Judith Wasserman 751 S. Hampton Dr. Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-321-1987 H 8. Betsy Webster 151 Camellia Ave. Redwood City, CA 94061 650-261-1465 H 9. Kirk Welton 660 Kendall Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-493-3035 H 10. Heather Young 503 O'Keefe Street Menlo Park, CA 94025 650-473-1820 H Respectfully submitted, Ronna Jojola Gonsalves Deputy City Clerk Enclosures cc: All applicants (without enclosure) Donna Grider, City Clerk Russ Reich, Staff Liaison RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO LINDA LENOIR FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION WHEREAS, Linda Lenoir served the City of Palo Alto as a member of the Human Relations Commission from April 2002 through September 2007; and WHEREAS, Linda Lenoir provided excellent leadership in her role as Vice Chairperson from September 2004 through September 2007; and WHEREAS, Linda Lenoir played a vital role in the guiding development of funding recommendations of the Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) from Fiscal Year 2007 through 2009; and WHEREAS, Linda Lenoir contributed years of knowledge and ideas to the Human Relations Commission and by giving tirelessly of her time to improve the quality of life for our community by serving as liaison to the Youth Council, and by raising community awareness through “Not in Our Town” program activities, and from Stanford’s “Ethics in Society” public forums; and WHEREAS, Linda Lenoir acted with conscience to exercise her position as a member of the Human Relations Commission, to influence and improve the larger world we live in, by supporting many Resolutions and Ordinances such as: a Resolution to Support a Death Penalty Moratorium, Family Night Out Resolution, Resolution Opposing the United States Patriot Act, the Anti-Discrimination Ordinance, a Resolution in support of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and a Resolution Opposing Federal Marriage Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto wishes to acknowledge and thank Linda Lenoir for her personal commitment and pride in the community, for her significant personal efforts and vision, and for her substantial dedication as a member of the Human Relations Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby gratefully records and extends its sincere appreciation and the appreciation of the community to Linda Lenoir for her faithful and excellent service rendered to the City. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: September 21, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________ ________________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ City Attorney _____________________________ City Manager TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: HUMAN RESOURCES DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2009 CMR: 382:09 SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution Amending the 2008-2009 Conlpensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel Adopted by Resolution No. 8844 to Revise the Provisions Related to Variable Management Compensation RECOMMENDATION Staff reconlll1ends Council approval of the attached resolution mnending the conlpensation plan for Managelnent and Professional personnel effective for the pay periods beginning July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009 revising the provisions for the Variable Managelnent Compensation CVMC) program. BACKGROUND The Management and Professional group includes 242 active elnployees. The Managelnent and Professional employees are unrepresented and do not have a Inemorandum of agreement or other contract. The benefits for the group are covered in a Conlpensation Plan which is adopted by resolution of the Council. In early 2009, it becalne clear that the City was facing a General Fund deficit for fiscal year 2009-2010. The existing provisions of the plan give the City 1\1anager the discretion to award VMC. In light of the budget situation, the City Manager initially considered recommending eliminating VMC awards for 2008-2009 in order to produce savings of $650,000 for fiscal year 2009-2010 CVMC dollars are budgeted in the fiscal year following the perfonnance period). After collaborating with the Management and Professional COlllnittee, C a committee comprised of one elnployee from each departlnent who provide the City Manager with feedback and concerns on behalf of the Management and Professional elnployees), the concerns raised about this recommendation centered on the potential effects to employees within the group. The COlnnlittee reconlll1ended that the City Manager offer a choice to the Managelnent and Professional elnployees for an alternate option in-lieu of a VMC award. DISCUSSION After considering input from the Managelnent and Professional COlllnittee, the City Manager recolmnends: CMR: 382:09 Page 10f3 • Amending the FY 2008-2009 Compensation Plan to allow employees to choose to receive an amount equivalent to VMC for FY 2009 or forego it. Those who choose to receive a VMC equivalent Inust trade an equivalent value of Management leave andlor vacation leave. Subject to department head approval, an elnployee could also request to trade for furlough. The VMC equivalent alnount will be determined based upon perfonnance, will be variable, but will be capped at a nlaximum of four (4%) percent. This decision to change the VMC program is a cost saving measure in the short term and is recognized to be a fmancial impact to the Management and Professional employees who have chosen to forego this award as a contribution to the City's budget deficit. Although the City Manager has discretion not to award VMC, the proposed revision to the program offers an acceptable alternative that Ineets the City's financial needs and helps lnitigate potential hardships to employees. For those few elnployees electing to have the VMC equivalent paid, they will offset the VMC award by contributing the equivalent amount in leave back to the City. This exchange will have a zero net effect resulting in savings that will help to address the City's budget challenge. PayInent ofVMC to Inembers of the Fire Chiefs Association (FCA) is a similar program, but a contractual obligation for this unit does not give the City Manager authority to change the VMC benefit for the FCA employees. The City requested that th~ ~<;=Agroup agree to suspend the VMC benefit for this year, but the group declined. RESOURCE IMPACT The change to the VMC progrmn will result in a savings of approximately $650,000 in the General Fund and approxhnately $579,000 in all other funds. Total City-wide savings would be approximately $1.2 million. The General Fund savings will be used to partially offset the $3 million compensation reduction placeholder that is in the 2010 Adopted Operating budget. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The action recoillinended by this report is consistent with City Council direction. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This is not a project llilder the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: CMR: 382:09 Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the 2008- 2009 COlnpensation Plan for Managelnent and Professional Personnel Adopted by Resolution No. 8844 to Revise the Provisions Related to Variable Managelnent Compensation Page 20f3 PREPARED BY: Sandra T.R. Blanch, Assistant Hunlan Resources Director DEPARTMENT Director of Hunlan Resources I CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 382:09 30f3 * * * APPROVED * * * Resolution No. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the 2008-2009 Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel Adopted by Resolution No. 8844 to Revise the Provisions Related to Variable Management Compensation WHEREAS, the Council Adopted Resolution No. 8844 on July 7,2008 Approving the 2008-2009 Compensation Plan for Managelnent and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees (the "COlnpensation Plan"); and WHEREAS, Section I of the COlnpensation Plan provides that employees lnay earn Variable Management Compensation ("VMC"), an annual cash award based on merit, by meeting or exceeding objectives established under the annual perfonnance planning and appraisal system( the "VMC PrograIn"); and WHEREAS, consistent with the City's budgeting practices, the total amount available for VMC awards for the 2009 fiscal year was to be budgeted in the 2010 fiscal year budget; and \;VHEREAS, the City faces a budget deficitbfmore than$lOmil1ion for fiscal year 2010; and WHEREAS, to help address the City's budget challenges, the City must revise the VMC program so that it has no iInpact on the fiscal year 2010 budget. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees adopted by Resolution No. 8844, is hereby amended to revise Section I(B)(4) as follows: 4. Perfonnance Planning and Appraisal. Perfonnance appraisals will be conducted at the end of each fiscal year during the months of July through September prior to detennining individual elnployee fixed and variable compensation. This process includes both review of previous perfonnance plan and preparation of the perfonnance plan for the next planning period (usually the fiscal year). Perfonnance plans are jointly prepared by the employee and supervisor with the concurrence of the departn1ent head or Council-appointed officer. The perfonnance plans shall contain measurable objectives which place special emphasis on position description duties or specific assignments. Progress toward meeting objectives shall be monitored periodically. The perfonnance 090915 mb 8261115 *** * * * appraisals should be implemented in a l11anner that will achieve the following objectives: .. Define the el11ployee' s job duties and expected level of performance for the next review period to ensure that both the employee and supervisor have a clear understanding of the employee's role and responsibilities; '" Evaluate and do CU111ent past perfonllance to serve as a basis for establishing and obtaining future perfonllance standards/objectives; .. Facilitate t\vo-\vay con11nunication and understanding bei'Neen the elllployee and his or her supervisor; OJ Counsel and encourage employees to work toward a learning developnlent plan and realize their full potential; OJ Establish future work plan objectives to be considered for a '/I\4C. Work plans should include job related projects or special goals related to regular job duties when applicable. At the conclusion of the fiscal year (or review period), supervisors shall make a final determination of the overall performance rating. RecOlllmendations shall be forwarded to departIllent heads or council-appointed officers who will then determine individual fixed and variable compensation adjustIllents according to the provisions of the compensation plan. This process should be completed by September 30t\ 2009. DUe to the City~ s budget situation, the City IvIanager has determined that VIvIC will not be awarded for the 2008-2009 fiscal year. If, after completing the performance appraisal process, a department head or council-appointed officer determines that an employee would have been eligible to receive a VMC award, the eligible employee may opt to receive an aIll0unt equivalent to that award by agreeing to offset that amount. The offset shall be accomplished by returning to the City one or more of the following leaves totaling an amount equivalent to the VMC: (1) Vacation hours; (2) Managelnent Annual Leave; (3) Unpaid furlough (subject to Department Head approval). The Director of Administrative Services is authorized to implement the amended compensation plan as set forth in Section 1 of this Resolution. / / // / / // // 090915 mb 8261115 2 *** APPROVED * * * SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environlnental inlpact asseSSlnent is necessary. Il'JTRODUCED A1'JD PASSED: Septenlber 2009 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Sr. Deputy City Attorney 090915 m b 8261 I 1 5 3 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California 12 FROM CITY ATIORNEY Council Date: September 21, 2009 September 8, 2009 RE: Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Adopt Resolution Amending City Council Procedures to Add an Ad Hoc Committee Policy Dear Members of the Council: The Policy and Services Committee reviewed a proposed policy on Ad Hoc Committees on July 15,2009. An excerpt from the minutes from the Policy and Services Committee meeting covering this issue is attached as "Attachment A." The Policy and Services Committee unanimously recommended the adoption of an amended version of the proposed policy and voted affirmative with one Committee member absent. The Ad Hoc Committee policy sets forth the definition, requirements, duration, appointment, and termination of Ad Hoc Committees, and clarifies the differences between Standing and Ad Hoc Committees. For a detailed discussion of how Ad Hoc Committees are created and distinctions between Ad Hoc and Standing Committees, refer to the City Attorney Report previously sent to the Policy and Services Committee ("Attachment B"). Finally, a resolution approving the revised City Council Procedures is attached as "Attachment C" for Council adoption. The changes made at the request of Policy and Services Committee are listed below: Section 3 "Appointment" was amended to reflect the concern raised by the Policy and Services Committee about the staff time commitment required to assist Ad Hoc Committees. Section 6 "Reporting" was added to set forth the reporting procedures of Ad Hoc Committees to the City Council and the timelines for such reporting. Section 7 "Termination by Council Majority" was added to create the option of te~ination of Ad Hoc Committees by a majority vote of the Council members. Section 8 "Conclusion" was added to specify a requirement for announcement of termination of Ad Hoc Committees. The City Council Procedures do not have the force of law. They reflect mutually agreed upon rules of procedure for the City Council to follow. 090908 sh 0111240 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL September 8, 2009 Page 2, RE: Adoption of a Resolution Amending City Council Procedures to Add an Ad Hoc Committee Policy These documents were prepared with the assistance of our law clerk Bahareh Samsami. GMB:sh Attachments cc: James Keene, City Manager Donna Grider, City Clerk Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager Kelly Morariu, Assistant to the City Manager r ; 090828 sh 0111240 Respectfully submitted, /fA,~ GAifM.BAUM City Attorney r "ATTACHMENT A" , P&S COMMITTEE Regular Meeting July 15, 2009 Chairperson Espinosa called the meeting to order at 7: 18 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, California. Present: Absent: Espinosa (Chair), Kishimoto, Yeh Barton 1. Oral Communications None. 2. Report from City Attorney: Recommendation Regarding Addition of Ad Hoc Committee Policy to City Council Procedures. Law Clerk Bahareh Samsami said that the Council directed the City Attorney to consider a policy on Ad Hoc Committees. Any Ad Hoc Committee should consist of Council Members only; members of the public may not serve on an Ad Hoc Committee. No more than four Council Members may be on an Ad Hoc Committee. There can not be a Motion setting the meeting schedule by the Council. An Ad Hoc Committee can not have continuing subject matter; its purpose must be specific and finite, and it should dissolve after its purpose is met. No Ad Hoc Committee should be in existence for more than six months, after that it should dissolve or it should, at the direction of the CounCil, become a Standing Committee subject to the Brown Act. Either the Mayor or the Council can create an Ad Hoc Committee. The Mayor should make a public announcement stating the purpose of any newly formed Ad Hoc Committee. Standing Committees are subject to the Brown Act and can have a fixed meeting schedule, they can be in existence for longer than six months, and they can have on-going subject matters. The policy that Staff has drafted reflects all of these reqlJirements. The P&S Committee can decide whether to recommend the'policy to the CounCil, amend it or, decline to recommend it. Herb Borock, PO Box 632 spoke regarding the status of the Stanford Liaison Committee as it was subject to the Brown Act, and should have P&S: 090715PS 1 been a Standing Committee. He said according to the Municipal Code appointments of the Mayor are required to have approval of the Council. This is the first time he has seen an explanation saying these procedural rules don't have the force of law. Chair Espinosa pointed out the list of items regarding the Stanford issue was prepared by Staff not by the Committee and that the Ad Hoc Committee had been announced publicly. Council Member Yeh asked about reportable actions. He questioned whether there should be formal documentation going· to Council when there is a formal decision coming from the Ad Hoc Committees. City Attorney Gary Baum stated that issue was not covered in the policy, but it could be. He offered to make suggestions, but suggested that it would be more appropriate for the Committee to do so. There is nothing in the law on reporting structure. The pOint of an Ad Hoc Committee being created is to advise the Council so looking for direction from them would be appropriate. Council Member Yeh asked about potential issues with staffing for Ad Hoc Committees. Planned staffing for Ad Hoc Committees would create resource and time issues, but he could see value in having that documentation from the Ad Hoc Committee for the Council to review. Mr. Baum said that he didn't know if, other than in our culture, formal reports are needed, as long as there is an oral report. Mr. Keene said that the purpose of an Ad Hoc Committee was to study city business in greater depth. It's reasonable to add language that requires a report from the City Manager on the scope of impact on the budget. If there were suddenly 10 Ad Hoc Committees it would become a staffing issue to keep Council notified. He asked if Staff wasn't available, could three members of the Council meet to talk about anything at any time. Mr. Baum said that three members of the Council would be able to gather. Mr. Keene stated that if there was a formal reason for Council to want to !;lave a study done it would be to benefit the whole Council. This would almost always involve Staff work. It would be good to give the Committee an estimate of the scope of work. Staffing helps with transparency also, Brown Act or not. It could be a situation that affects adopted Council priorities and the Council should be aware of P&S: 090715PS 2 that. It may have an impact on something if there is no feedback. The Stanford project and Fiber to Premises has taken some work, but not a lot. For Stanford we would have been doing that work anyway. Fiber was responding to a Council initiative. Staff was putting new work in that project anyway. He stated that either he or the City Attorney could come with a sentence or two to report to the Mayor or Council reporting what the estimated impact would be so that everyone is clear. Council Member Kishimoto asked if every Ad Hoc Committee would have to have minutes. Mr. Baum said no, they would not be expected to have minutes. Chair Espinosa reminded the Committee that this was brought about by a Council Member that had concerns about these issues. He stated that the first question would be how to put this policy together, and secondly what would be the parameters of an Ad Hoc Committee. As the Committee works through that process, they will address whether or not there is a different type of meeting that sometimes needs to happen, such as for shori: term issues, and what the reasons for that would be. They will need to address the differences, between a Standing Committee and an Ad Hoc Committee. Then the concern would be that when groups of Council Members are meeting there should be a level of transparency in terms of the expectations, the amount of time it's taking, the issues to be covered, and that instead of decisions being made, only recommendations to Council will be made, and during this process the Committee will need to determine how to build in guarantees of transparency via reports to Council. He stated that this staff report takes great steps in getting there. There may be steps to build in for transparency to make sure there is no perception of acting behind a curtain. Building a policy ttiat includes that transparency may be the discussion to have with the Council. Mr. Keene said that the value of Ad Hoc Committees he/s worked on in the past has been studying an issue in greater depth. One of the great benefits for Staff is that they get a sense of the reaction from elected officials. Even though ies not a majority of the Council ies still different than Staff proceeding on their own creating efficiency from StaWs point of view. As City Manager, he said, if he/s casually talking to t,hree members of the Council the others might not appreCiate that. But if there is a process, as with an Ad Hoc Committee, there is validity there and community feedback from the perspective of the elected officials. He then asked if the Committee should address the balance of Ad Hoc Committee aSSignments. P&S: 090715PS 3 Mr. Baum said that the policy could be made to address the issue of spreading the Ad Hoc Committee assignments through out the Council, but with every layer we add we are narrowing Mayor's powers and more importantly reducing efficiency. If we seat three Council members on an Ad Hoc Committee only because they 'aren't on another one, they may not have the expertise that it needs. Council Member Kishimoto asked if only Council Members can be a part of an Ad Hoc Committee or can the Council invite other community members join? Mr. Baum stated that other community members may join, but then it becomes Standing Committee subject to the Brown Act. Ms. Samsami agreed that the Brown Act is very clear in stating that if there are any non-Council Members on an Ad Hoc Committee, it then becomes a Standing Committee and must abide by the Brown Act rules. Mr. Baum stated that we could contrast that with advisors to the Ad Hoc Committee. Chair Espinosa wondered if Staff wanted to work through some of those issues, and come back with a revised policy. He would also want to see reporting either oral or formal included in a revised policy. Mr. Baum has drafted some language that addresses the concerns for reporting, stating that the Ad Hoc Committees must report their results no less than once per quarter and the City Manager shall prepare a report to the Council addressing the time commitment for Staff in supporting the Ad Hoc Committee. Chair Espinosa asked for the City Attorney's thoughts regarding Council voting on the Mayor's selections for Ad Hoc Committees. Mr. Baum said that this is designed so that an Ad Hoc Committee may be created by either the Mayor or the Cou ncil. Chair Espinosa asked if there would be an issue with the Mayor assi.gning Ad Hoc's without Council voting. I Mr. Baum ~aid that is typically how Ad Hoc Committees are formed, differentiating them from Standing Committees. The Council may adjust that component in the policy if they choose. P&S: 090715PS 4 .' Mr. Keene said that the Mayor would be announcing to Council what has been appointed, and the City Manager would submit a report on the scope and impact of work. The Council would then be able to agendize an item for further discussion. He then reiterated that there is that protection with the check and balance system. He also stated that it's good for the Mayor to have some discretion. Chair Espinosa said that he agrees with that approach. He recognized that Palo Alto doesn't have the rough politics other towns have, but the question needed to be explored. Adding extra voting layers adds a level of bureaucracy that hasn't been necessary, but may need to be thought about as we create a policy. Mr. Baum asked if Staff should add verbiage indicating that any Council Member may agendize the membership of an Ad Hoc Committee. Council Member Kishimoto reminded the Committee that this question was raised with the Composting Committee. At that time it was decided ultimately to interview and vote. Mr. Baum noted that the Composting Committee was different, as it was a Standing Committee. Council Member Kishimoto asked if it was a Standing Committee because it was more than six months. Mr. Baum stated that it was a Standing Committee because it had non-Council Members. Council Member Kishimoto asked if these decisions are up to the Chair unless a majority of Council challenges it. Mr. Baum said that Staff can add language stating that "subject to the majority of ' Council they can terminate a committee". Council Member Kishimoto questioned if the majority rule applies to everything, she said she thought the Council procedures stated that the Chair has powers over the majority. / , Mr. Baum stated that both Roberts Rules of Order and Palo Alto's procedures say that everything is subject to the majority of the Council. P&S: 090715PS 5 Council Member Kishimoto asked if that applies to an Ad Hoc Committee. Mr. Baum said that the majority rule does apply to Ad Hoc Committees. Council Member Kishimoto stated 'that it would not be a matter of order. Mr. Baum said that it would have to be placed on the agenda should Council wish to vote on the Mayor's Ad Hoc Committee appointments. Chair Espinosa thought that adding some wording to this affect would be helpful. Mr. Keene said that with some of the other committees there is language saying that the Committee will dissolve in six months. He asked if the Committee would like to make that more formal. Chair Espinosa said he didn't know if it would hurt to have that language in the policy. Council Member Kishimoto said the Mayor's announcement of a newly formed Ad Hoc Committee should be included in the minutes. l"1r. Baum said a public announcement should be made at the conclusion of each Ad Hoc meeting. He then asked if Staff should add these revisions or if the Committee would rather go to Council as is. Chair Espinosa said that he thought they had covered everything, by establishing quarterly reports, as well as discussing the differences between Standing Committees and Ad Hoc Committees. MOTION: Council Member Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Kishimoto, that 1) the P&S Committee recommends that the City Council adopt the Ad Hoc Committee policy allowing Ad Hoc Committees to be used on a limited basis to study City business in greater depth than possible in the time allotted for Council and Standing Committee meetings, and 2) Ad Hoc Committees will report to Council quarterly. r MOtION PASSED: 3-0 Barton absent 3. Recommendation for Council Approval of the City's Legislative Program and Structure. P&S: 090715PS 6 '." , , '. ,I .' "ATTACHMENT B" f ; \ : FROM CITY ATTORNEY Policy and Services Committee: July 15, 2009 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California Attention: Policy and Services Committee July 8, 2009 RE: Ad Hoc Committee Policv for City Council Procedures Dear Members of the Council: The City Council directed the Policy and Services Committee to consider a policy on guidelines for Ad Hoc Committees. In response, the City Attorney drafted the attached policy (Exhibit" 1 "). The Policy and Services Committee can ultimately decide to recommend adoption of the policy, make changes to the policy or decline to recommend adoption of the policy. This report explains how Ad Hoc Committees are created, and the distinctions between Ad Hoc and . . Standing Committees. 1. Background: Legislative Bodies Are Subject to the Brown Act Ad Hoc Committees do not constitute legislative bodies, and are thus exempt from requirements of the Brown Act. The Brown Act applies to legislative bodies of local agencies. Any commission, board, or other body of a local agency, created by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body, is a legislative body. This is the case regardless of whether the body is permanent or temporary, decision~making or advisory. There is an exemption to this general rule for advisory committees (also called Ad Hoc Committees) that are comprised solely of less than a quorum of the members of the legislative body that created the advisory col111i.1ittee. Cal. Gov. Code § 54952 (b). 2. Definition of Ad Hoc Committee Ad Hoc Committees have three distinct characteristics: (1) they are composed solely of the memb~.rs of the legislative body that are less than a quorum of the legislative body, (2) are not subje~l to the Brown Act, and (3) do not have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body. § 54952 (b). 090707 mb 0111200 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL July 8, 2009 Page 2 RE: Ad Hoc Committee Policv for City Council Procedures First, since the City of Palo Alto has nine council members, an Ad floc Committee must have four or less Council members. Furthennore, any Ad Hoc Committee must consist only of the Council members and not any members of other bodies such as Planning &Transportation Commission, etc. If the Council designates less than a quorum of its members to meet with representatives of another legislative body to perform a task, such as the making of a recommendation, that joint group would be considered a Standing Committee subject to open meeting and notice provisions of the Brown Act. Joinder v. City of Sebastopol, 125 Cal. App. 3d 799,805 (1981) . . Second, an Ad Hoc Committee shall not have a schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution or any other formal action of the City Council. For example, if the Council specifies that a committee of less than a quorum is to meet every Tuesday, that committee will be subject to the requirements of the Brown Act. Third, an Ad Hoc Committee shOl1ld not have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction. For example, if the Council appoints four or less members to make recommendations about a certain project in the City, and the committee dissolves when the project is over within a short period of time, it will constitute an Ad Hoc Committee. When establishing Ad Hoc Committees, function over form governs. For example, ifthe City Council issues a statement instructing that an Ad Hoc Committee shall not exercise continuing subject matter jurisdiction or does not have a fixed schedule, the committee may be deemed Standing rather than Ad Hoc if the purpose for which it is established does not end. 3. Duration of Ad Hoc Committees Although the Brown Act does not specify a time limit for Ad Hoc Committees, a long existence may indicate continuing subject matter jurisdiction appropriate to a Standing Committee rather than an Ad Hoc Committee. The office of Attorney General has found that a public water district subcommittee in existence for several years was not an Ad Hoc Committee and was subject to the Brown Act. 79 Ops. CaL Att'y Gen. 69 (1996). However, the opinion did not base its conclusion on the time of existence of the Committee but on the rationale that the Committee had "continuing subject matter jurisdiction." For Council Ad Hoc Committees, we are recommending a time limit of six months. The Planning Commission has a policy on Ad Hoc Committees, and provides that the Ad Hoc Committees shall be formed for a specified. period of time not to exceed six months. The Attorney General specifically stated an example of six months as an acceptable time period for an Ad Hoc Committee in their booklet "The Brown Act." . / /' 4. Conclusion Under the Brown Act, a committee of less than a quorum of the Council members, which does not have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution or any other formal action of the Council, is an Ad Hoc Committee that 090707 mb 0111200 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL July 8,2009 Page 3 RE: Ad Hoc Committee Policy for City Council Procedures does not need to comply with requirements of the Brown Act. Even though the Brown Act does not specifY a certain time limit for Ad Hoc Committees, th.e Attorney General has opined that a Council committee that lasts longer than six months is no longer an Ad Hoc Committee, but has been transfonned into a Standing Committee. Thus the draft Ad Hoc Committee policy requires that any Ad Hoc Committee be disbanded after six months in order to prevent the detennination that they have acquired a continuing subject matter jurisdiction. In the alternative the City Council can designate them as a Standing Committee. The City Council Procedures do not have the force of law. They reflect mutually agreed upon rules of procedure for the City Council to follow. Following review by the Policy & Services Committee, the City Attorney will prepare a resolution reflecting their recommendation for City Council changes (if any) to the City Council Procedures. This report was prepared with the assistance of our law clerk Bahareh Samsami. GMB:mb Attachment: Draft Policy Ad Hoc Committees -Exhibit "1" cc: James Keene, City Manager Donna Grider, City Clerk Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager Kelly Morariu, Assistant to the City Manager 090707 mb 0111200 Respectfully submitted, $~~~~ ~;;?M.BAUM city Attorney Exhibit 1 Draft Ad Hoc Committee Policy Statement I. Ad Hoc Committees A. Policy. The Council may use Ad Hoc Committees on a limited basis where necessary to study City business in greater depth than what is possible in the time allotted for Council and Standing Committee meetings. 1. Purpose. These rules are intended to clarify the distinctions between Standing and Ad Hoc Committees, and to set up guidelines for creation of Ad Hoc Committees. B. General Requirements. Council Ad Hoc Committees shall be subject to the following procedural rules. 1. Definition of Ad Hoc Committee. An Ad Hoc Committee is an advisory committee composed solely of less than a quorum of members of the Council. The work of an Ad Hoc Committee is limited to a single finite purpose. By contrast, a Standing Committee has continuing subject matter jurisdiction extending beyond a six month period and/or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action ofthe Council. 2. Brown Act. Ad Hoc Committees do not constitute legislative bodies and are not subject to the requirements of the Brown Act. 3. Appointment. The Mayor or the City Council may appoint four or less members ofthe Council to serve on an Ad Hoc Committee. In contrast, only the Council and not the Mayor alone can create a Standing Committee. The Mayor will publicly announce any Ad Hoc Committee created by him or her, its membership and stated purpose. 4. Duration. Ad Hoc Committees are created for a finite period of time not to exceed six months .. If an Ad Hoc Committee does not complete its task within six months, it shall dissolve if the Council does not make it a Standing Committee subj ect to the requirements of the Brown Act. 5. Members. Ad Hoc Committees shall consist of less than a quorum of Council members only, and shall not include any other persons such as members of other legislative bodies. ** OLD COpy -SEE EXHIBIT "A' TO RESOLUTION ** 090706 mb 0111198 , ' r "ATTACHMENT C" I NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending City Council Procedures to Add an Ad Hoc Committee Policy WHEREAS, Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.04.100 requires the Council to establish a handbook of procedural rules governing any aspect of the conduct of meetings and hearings for the Council and its standing committees, including but not limited to agenda requirements, the order of business, rules of order. rules of evidence, closed session procedures and rules for public participation in meetings; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to set up guidelines for creation of Ad Hoc Committees and to clarify the distinctions between Standing and Ad Hoc Committees; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. An amendment to the City Council Procedures to add a policy on Ad Hoc Committees, attached as Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, is hereby adopted. SECTION 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make copies of the Council Procedures available to the public and to post the rules at an accessible location in the Council Chambers, on the City's website and to make copies available to all City libraries other than the Children's Library. The form of the publication may be modified if necessary or desirable. II II II II II II II /' II II 090828 sh 0111242 1 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. The Council finds that there is no possibility that the provIsIOns of the City Council Procedures will have a significant effect on the environment and upon that basis finds the project exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager City Attorney ,r 090828 sh 0111242 2 "Exhibit A" Draft Ad Hoc Committee Policy I. Ad Hoc Committees A. Policy. The Council may use Ad Hoc Committees on a limited basis where necessary to study City business in greater depth than what is possible in the time allotted for Council and Standing Committee meetings. 1. Purpose. These rules are intended to clarify the distinctions between Standing and Ad Hoc Committees, and to set up guidelines for creation of Ad Hoc Committees. B. General Requirements. Council Ad Hoc Committees shall be subject to the following procedural rules. 090829 sh 0111241 1. Definition of Ad Hoc Committee. An Ad Hoc Committee is an advisory committee composed solely of less than a quorum of members of the Council. The work of an Ad Hoc Committee is limited to a single finite purpose. By contrast,.a Standing Committee has continuing subject matter jurisdiction extending beyond a six month period and/or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of the Council. 2. Brown Act. Ad Hoc Committees do not constitute legislative bodies and are not subject to the requirements of the Brown Act. 3. Appointment. The Mayor or the City Council may appoint four or less members of the Council to serve on an Ad Hoc Committee. In contrast, only the Council and not the Mayor alone can create a Standing Committee. The Mayor will publicly announce any Ad Hoc Committee created by him or her, its membership and stated purpose. The City Manager shall prepare a report to Council about the anticipated time commitment required for staff to assist the Ad Hoc Committee. 4. Duration. Ad Hoc Committees are created for a finite period of time not to exceed six months. If an Ad Hoc Committee does not complete its task within six months, it shall dissolve if the Council does not make it a Standing Committee subject to the requirements of the Brown Act. 5. Members. Ad Hoc Committees shall consist of less than a quorum of Council members only, and shall not include any other persons such as members of other legislative bodies. 6. Reporting. Ad Hoc Committees shall report the results of their Committee no less than once per quarter in writing or orally. " 090829 sh 0111241 "Exhibit A" Draft Ad Hoc Committee Policy 7. Termination of Ad Hoc Committee by Majority of Council. A majority of the Council may vote to terminate any Ad Hoc Committee following placement of the issue on an agenda. 8. Conclusion. A public announcement shall be made any time the Ad Hoc Committee has concluded its work and/or upon dissolution. , , TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2009 CMR:377:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Adoption of an Ordinance Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvement to Henry W. Seale Park RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached Park Improvement Ordinance (Attachment A) authorizing the addition of a park restroom at Henry W. Seale Park (Seale Park). BACKGROUND Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance approving the proposed improvement plan for Seale Park to include a new accessible restroom and associated amenities (Attachment 1). A Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) is required whenever any project may affect the use, protection or enjoyment of parks or open space lands. The Seale Park restroom project was first reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission (PARC) on December 20, 2005, when the Midtown Residents Association collected neighborhood information and formally petitioned the P ARC for a restroom at Seale Park. Their request included facts showing the community benefit of the restroom at Hoover Park, and the I opinion that restrooms should be a priority in neighborhood parks, especially in Seale Park. The P ARC unanimously approved the Midtown Residents Association's request. On September 11, 2006, Staff requested policy direction from City Council on park restroom installations as determined by CIP screening criteria requirements. Council directed Staff to proceed with the Park Restroom CIP PE-06007 2005-2010 to be funded through Development Impact Fees and to make budget adjustments reflecting ongoing maintenance costs, including the Seale Park restroom. In addition to requiring a PIO from the City Council, this project requires a staff level Architectural Review Board (ARB) review. As part of the preparation of the staff level ARB application process, staff held two public meetings on January 27,2009, and March 11,2009, to gather public input on the conceptual plans. The input included comments on location, style, issues related to current park maintenance, safety and policing issues, and impacts to parking, park use, green building, and lighting. The project's design incorporates the comments and suggestions offered by the public at those meetings. The design and site plan were presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission on March 31, 2009. The Commission approved the plans CMR:377:09 Page 1 of3 and recommended that the City Council adopt the Park Improvement Ordinance pertaining to the project plans. A stafflevel ARB approval was received on May 6, 2009. DISCUSSION The installation of a restroom would include: • Accessible sidewalk surfaces; • Installation of exterior lights; • Us~ of energy efficient and resource conserving features; • Additional trash and recycling amenities; and • Temporary closure only of impacted areas during the two month construction period. The intent of the new restroom is to make the park more enjoyable for all users, to address public health and accessibility concerns, to allow for c0lTl!llunity events to be scheduled at the park, to make an aesthetically pleasing addition to the park, and to reduce driving to and from the park in order to use a restroom. The Seale Park Improvement Plan (Attachment A, Exhibit A-l) summarizes the Park Improvement Ordinance. The Ordinance will become effective 30 days after the second reading at CounciL The project is anticipated to be out to bid during November. Construction is planned for December through February, pending any delays. RESOURCE IMPACT In fiscal year 2008-09, the City Council appropriated $250,000 for CIP Project PE-06007, Parks Restroom Improvements (project) to cover the costs of the design and construction. This CIP is funded from Development Impact Fees and does not affect the Infrastructure Reserve Fund. Currently the project is out to bid. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed Seale Park Restroom Improvements project IS consistent with existing City policies. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the provisions of Sections 15201 and 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Park Improvement Ordinance (includes Site Plan Exhibit A-I) PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CMR:377:09 KATE ROONEY Project Manager f ~f~h ~,. G NN S. ROBERTS Dl ector ofPubhc Works Page 2 of3 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR:377:09 Page 3 of3 ATTACHMENT A Ordinance No. ---Ordinance of the Council of th~ City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Henry W. Seale Park The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that: (a) Article VIn of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Section 22.08.005 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building, construction, reconstruction or development is commenced or approved, upon or with respect to any land held by the City for park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be prepared and by ordinance approve and adopt a plan therefor. (b) Henry W. Seale Park and the Henry W. Seale Park Addition (collectively, "Seal Park") are dedicated to park, playground, recreation or conservation purposes. (c) The City intends to authorize the construction of certain park improvements within Seale-Park, as shown on the Seale Park Restroom Park Improvement Plan (the "Plan"): (1) Installation of accessible prefabricated restroom, which will house one men's room and one women's room, a utility shed and a drinking water fountain. (2) Related landscaping, as may be required by the City in accordance with applicable laws, rules and regulations. (d) The improvements at Seale Park will be limited to the approximately 4.3 acres of land, located at 3100 Stockton Place, Palo Alto. (e) The project improvements will avoid protected trees and other sensitive resources, if any. In addition, existing park uses will be restored following the completion of project construction. (f) The project described above and as more specifically described in the Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit "A," is consistent with park and conservation purposes. I (g) The Council desires to approve the project described above and as more specifically described in the Plan. SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the Plan for the construction of the improvements at Seale Park, and it hereby adopts the Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit "A," as part of the official plan for the construction of the park improvements at Henry W. Seale Park and/or the Henry W. Seale Park Addition. - 1 090317 jb 0073129 SECTION 3. The Council fmds that the project to construct the facilities at Seale Park is subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 4. date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney 090317 jb0073129 This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the Mayor APPROVED: City Manager Director of Community Services Director of Administrative Services 2 The City of Palo Alto This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS --0' sO' dot,;Umlnt laa gnlphI~ruJft .. nil:lhm oNt ofb&!JI ilVillileN& ~fC:Q!i,_ The CityofPnIo Aito auumesno retrpOltllbollty fm' any errol'S. e1889ttJ 2000 City.ofPa!o ~fJ) ;l> I - TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2009 CMR:376:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Adoption of an Ordinance Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvement to John Lucas Greer Park RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached Park Improvement Ordinance (Attachment A) authorizing the renovation of John Lucas Greer Park (Greer Park). BACKGROUND Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance approving the proposed improvement plan for Greer Park which includes replacement of the park irrigation system and pump station, development for passive use of the vacant 1.75 acre portion of the park at the comer of Colorado Avenue and West Bayshore Road (Phase IV), renovation of the children's play area and associated landscape improvements (Attachment A). A Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) is required whenever any project may affect the use, protection or enjoyment of parks or open space lands. John Lucas Greer Park is a 22-acre neighborhood park located at 1098 Amarillo Avenue in Palo Alto. Originally the site of the Palo Alto Drive-In Theatre, the first phase of the park was completed in 1975. Two subsequent phases of improvements were implemented in the 1980's resulting in the configuration that currently exists. The park site also includes an undeveloped 1.75 acre parcel (Phase IV) in the southeast portion of the park at the comer of Colorado Avenue and West Bayshore Road. In August 2008, the firm of Callander Associates Landscape Architecture was hired to serve as the primary designer for the proposed improvements to Greer Park. In the intervening months they have worked with city staff to generate conceptual designs, conduct public outreach, incorporate suggestions from the public and park users, implement design development, and produce final construction documents. After conducting preliminary site investigations gathering input from city staff, two conceptual design alternatives for improvements to the children's play area and for the development of Phase IV were presented to interested members of the public and park users at a neighborhood meeting on December 2, 2008. Working on input from that meeting and upon further consultation with city staff, the Calendar Associates began the design development process with the intent of fleshing out the preferred details from the alternative conceptual designs and CMR:376:09 Page 1 of4 melding them into a single concept for each area. These intermediate designs were again presented to interested members ·of the public at a second neighborhood meeting on March 11, 2009. Input garnered from that meeting has been processed and incorporated into the final design for the park renovation. Members of the Midtown Resident Association and the Public Art Commission also provided input on the location of the artwork to be included in this project. In addition to a PIO from the City Council, this project required a staff level Architectural Review Board (ARB) review. Input from Planning & Community Services staff included comments on location and style of some site furnishings, including bike racks, and on aesthetic screening of the new pump station. These and other issues have since been addressed in the proposed improvement plan. The improvement plan was also presented to the Parks & Recreation Commission at its meeting on July 28, 2009. The Commission approved the plans and recommended that the City Council adopt the Park Improvement Ordinance pertaining to the proposed project (Attachment B). Scope of Improvements Per Council direction (CMR 311 :06), Phase IV will be developed for passive use and will include a lighted and landscaped perimeter pathway accessing several individual benches, a picnic area and a small open plaza that will serve as a focal point and gathering area. The interior of the space will be an undulating turf meadow interspersed with several trees. The new design for the children's play area will carry a nautical island theme and will retain its existing footprint. Most, but not all, of the existing sand will be replaced by resilient rubber surfacing, and the existing interactive sculpture of a dolphin will remain and be integrated into the new design. The new pump station and the park irrigation system are expected to command roughly half of the project budget. Depending on the bids received, other miscellaneous improvements to other areas of the park may be implemented. These include the expansion of the dog run, a central enclosure for trash and recycling bins, and new fencing, pathway and landscape upgrades. The projected duration of construction activity is estimate to last ten months, from November 23, 2009 through the fall of201O, during which time the entire park will remain closed to the public. Options for phasing the construction were evaluated and discussed in terms of added costs and practical benefit to athletic field scheduling. The options were presented at the second public meeting and the consensus was that phasing construction would result in greater costs and no substantial benefit with regard to athletic field accessibility. The timing of the project has been established to allow fall 2009 soccer tournaments to finish before construction begins on November 30th• Staff is working with the consultant to explore the feasibility in terms of safety and cost effectiveness of keeping the skate bowl and perhaps the dog run open during some or all of the construction phase. Moreover, staff met with numerous Palo Alto based youth sports groups that use Greer Park to hear their concerns on the project schedule. As a result we are intentionally beginning the project immediately after the close of the fall 2009 soccer season. The tentative project timeline, subject to change, is as follows: • Advertise project for bids, October. 20, 2009; • Open bids, October 27,2009; • Award construction contract, November 16, 2009; and CMR:376:09 Page 2 of4 • Begin construction, November 23,2009. DISCUSSION Implementation of the proposed improvements would include: • New irrigation. system and pump station components better suited to the use of recycled water; • Development ofthe Phase IV area for passive recreational uses; • Replacement of the children's play area structures and surfacing in compliance with current safety and accessibility codes; • Additional picnic, trash and recycling amenities; • Temporary closure during the ten month construction period; and • Relocation of the existing sandbag distribution station currently located at the site of Phase IV to a place yet to be determined. The intent of the renovation project is to make the park more enjoyable for all users, to address public health and accessibility concerns, to upgrade the irrigation system and pump station to make them more compatible with the use of reclaimed water, and to make an aesthetically pleasing landscaped addition to the park for passive recreational use. The Greer Park Improvement Plan (Attachment A, Exhibit A-I) summarizes the Park Improvement Ordinance. RESOURCE IMPACT In fiscal year 2007-08 the City Council appropriated $400,000 for CIP Project PE-09002, Greer Park Phase IV Improvements, and in fiscal year 2008-09 appropriated an additional $1,450,000 for the replacement of the pump station and irrigation system, and renovation of other existing park facilities. This $400,000 appropriated for Phase IV is funded from Development Impact Fees, and the remaining balance of$I,450,000 will come from the Infrastructure Reserve. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed Greer Park Improvements project IS consistent with existing City policies, including the master plan for the park. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the provisions of Sections 15201 and 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Park Improvement Ordinance (includes site plan) Attachment B: Minutes of the July 28,2009 Park and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting PREPARED BY: C ~~, DEPARTMENT HEAD: CMR:376:09 CHRIS RAFFERTY ~r~_j &11----- GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works Page 3 of4 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR:376:09 Page 4 of4 ", ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED Ordinance No. ---Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvement to John Lucas Greer Park The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that: (a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Section 22.08.005 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building, construction, reconstruction or development is commenced or approved, upon or with respect to any land held by the City for park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be prepared and by ordinance approve and adopt a plan therefor. (b) Greer Park is dedicated to park purposes. ( c) The City intends to authorize the completion of the passive use phase IV portion of Greer Park, the replacement of the existing pump station for reclaimed water distribution, the replacement of the irrigation distribution system, and the replacement of playground equipment in order to meet ADA compliance as shown on the Greer Park Plan (the "Plan"): (1) Excavation and grading of soil necessary to install irrigation systems, remove irrigation pipes and prepare the site for the construction and installation of curbs, pathways and structure equipment. (2) Clearing of vegetation and trimming of existing shrubs and trees in accordance with City policies and as necessary to provide equipment access for construction and to complete the landscape installation in phase IV as designed. (3) Adjustment and restoration of existing planting and irrigation to accommodate the proposed improvement. (4) Construction of curbs, pathways, structure equipment, irrigation system, and the pump station in accordance with the Plan. (5) Installation of site amenities, including the pathways, fencing, benches, shade arbors, public art, playground equipment and tables in accordance with the Plan. (d) The improvements at Greer Park will encompass the southeastern comer of the park, referred to as the passive use phase IV portion of the park, with lawn, landscape and 090727 jb 0073198 NOT YET APPROVED park benches, the playground equipment facilities located within the westerly center quadrant of the park, and the irrigation system throughout the turf areas of the park. (e) The project improvements will avoid protected trees and other sensitive resources. In addition, existing park uses will be restored following the completion of project construction. (t) The project described above and as more specifically described in the Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is consistent with park and conservation purposes. (g) The Council desires to approve the project described above and as more specifically described in the Plan. SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the Plan for the construction of the Greer Park phase IV pump station and irrigation system, the playground equipment, and installation of site amenities. It hereby adopts the attached Plan, which is a part of the official plan for the installation of phase IV, the pump station and irrigation system, playground equipment, and park amenities. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the project to construct phase IV, the pump station and irrigation system, playground equipment, and park amenities at Greer Park is subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). II II II II II II II II II II II II 090727 jb 0073198 2 SECTION 4. date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney 090727 jb 0073198 NOT YET APPROVED This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the Mayor APPROVED: City Manager Director of Conununity Services Director of Administrative Services 3 ....... I --< c .t:: ,J:l ~ u:l !i I II i I " Ii :1 !j " j\; 11 I U: • C NTRALIZE;V<TRA'sA-4"'" RI\,:C-YC-LlNG C-OLLEC-TION ' AREA . ;':;{IO ALTERNATE #2 . e i PROYlpEFEl'IC-E 5EGi-'II~Nf5 i AND ~ATE5 FOR FUTlJR!:; , C-OMP~ETfONiOFL:.AR.6ER' " , . DOG RUN. AREA ., • AGE 5EPARATED PLAY AREA5 • 15LAND-THEMED PLAY C-ONC-EPT • RUBBER AND 5AND 5URFAC-IN6 • PROVIDE 5AFE AND Ac.c.E55IBLE PLAY PUMP STATION REPLAC.EMENT • UP6RADE IRRIGATION lNFRA5TRUC-TURE PHASE 4 -----" • PIC-NIC-AREA5 • PERIMETER PATHY'lAY • PA551VE TURF AREA o PATHY'lAY LIGHTING PARK' HIDE IRRleATION RENOVA'TI!S>b! j ""'~ ., . .. '.< • • IMPROVE 5Y5TEM EFFIC-IENq:,y '. • REDUC-E MAINTENANC-E BURPEN I I ! 311~.rw. san Mateo, CA 94401 T650.375.UI3 f 650.344..)2S1O RavlsEons © CopyrIght 2009 Callander ABsoclat .. lUldecap. AlclVte,ahltl, he. t-Z W ~ W 0 C(' ...J n. W a:: z 0 i= c( t-en n. ~ ~ n. o!f z 0 i= c( > Z 0 z :3 w a:: ~ <C 0 D.. a:: 6 c( W n. t-....I a:: <C .... W 0 W Ci5 a:: ....I <C (!) Il. Dale 71f7/0S Scale AD Shown Drawn By CS Checked DfI Pro/acl No. 08056 Cadd Fla 08056Ip Shaat No. 1 MINUTES PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING July 28, 2009 City Hall 250 Hamilton Ave ATTACHMENT B DRAFT Commissioners Present: Pat Markevitch, Carl King, Deirdre Crommie, Joel Davidson, Paul Losch, Daria Walsh Commissioners Absent: Sunny Dykwel Others Present: Council Liaison Espinosa Staff Present: Greg Betts, Catherine Bourquin, Rob de Geus, Donald Piana I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Catherine Bourquin II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: None II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None IV. BUSINESS: 1. Approval of Draft Minutes of June 30, 2009 regular meeting -The Draft Minutes of the June 30, 2009 regular meeting were approved as amended. Approved 6:0 2. 2009 Senior Games Update -Staff de Geus updated the Commissioners with information pertaining to the upcoming 2009 National Senior Games. There will be 25 sport competitions bringing 30,000 visitors into Palo Alto. Staff de Geus added that this is the largest multi-support event in the nation for athletes over 50. He went on to add that August 1 st will be the caldron lighting ceremony; the train carrying the torch will leave San Francisco and end up in Palo Alto traveling to Stanford and then to City Hall. With the assistance of Cynthia Segovia, an intern for Recreation, the Recreation Division put together a brochure to announce activities in Palo Alto for the convenience of visitors and athletes. Cynthia guided the Commissioners through the flyer that was handed out at the meeting and went through some of the special activities that Recreation is sponsoring. During the Senior Games a free wheeling program/bike share program is being introduced. There was some discussion on how the program will be July 28, 2009 Draft Minutes GRB2l"1 BU'.loIlllit Pll(lOa, "'" ATTACHlVIENT B implemented in the City after the Senior Games are over. Staff de Geus said he would report back to the Commission on details as they evolve for a bike share program. 3. Recommendation to Council from the Commission for a Greer Park Improvement Ordinance -Staff Piana provided some history on the Greer Park Renovation and Phase 4 project, and why an Ordinance was required for the project. Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer in charge of the project, was introduced and went over the design of the park which included the passive park (Phase 4), irrigation, a new pump station, and updated playground equipment. Oral Communications Sheri Furman -3094 Greer Road, Palo Alto -Ms. Furman expressed her concern that the Midtown Residents Association wasn't given advance notice that this business item was coming before the Commission tonight. She also wanted to encourage the Commission to approve the park improvement ordinance so this long awaited project could commence on the proposed November timeline. Herb Borock-PO Box 632, Palo Alto -Mr. Borock wanted to remind the Commission and staff that they should follow the California Environmental Act upon going forward with this project. He believes that this is not being followed tonight and that the CEQA documentation in the proposed ordinance is inadequate. After Oral Communications, the Commissioners were given an opportunity to ask questions before making a motion to approve the recommendation. A motion was made by Commissioner King and seconded by Commissioner Losch. Motion: The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends to Council to approve the Greer Park Improvement Ordinance. Approved 5:1 (Davidson) 4. Jr. Museum & Zoo -Bobcat Ridl!e Exhibit Capital Improvement Project - Staff de Geus presented to the Commission an informational presentation on the upcoming renovation of the Bobcat Ridge Exhibit that is proposed for the Junior Museum & Zoo. There will be a four month construction period and the project will cost $450,000, which is being funded by the Friends of the Junior Museum & Zoo. The project will be coming back to the Commission in September for review and approval of a Park Improvement Ordinance. Time was given for questions and answers. 5. LOl!istic planninl! for public feedback meetinl! on improvinl! recreational opportunities in Palo Alto for dOl! owners -Staff de Geus met with Commissioner Losch and drafted an agenda for the prospective public meeting. The draft agenda was passed out for discussion with the Commissioners. Items that were discussed included July 28,2009 Draft Min.... 2 .. ATTACHMENTB how the meeting will be advertised via the local newspapers, PTA's, web, etc.; how will it be facilitated; and what are the expectations for the outcome of the meeting. These issues were discussed and will be addressed when putting together the final agenda to be brought back at the next Parks and Recreation regular meeting in September. V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Reminder, the August 25th Commission meeting is cancelled. 2. Don Piana was recognized for his upcoming retirement. 3. Commissioner Davidson acknowledged staff Piana and Bourquin for their work with the Ventura Neighborhood Association in the expansion of their community garden. 4. September 21 st the Fire Management Plan will be going to Council -Commissioner Markevitch will be attending 5. September 14th -The Council will be awarding a construction administration contract for Group 4 Architects for the final design phase of the Mitchell Park Community Center and Library project. 6. The Gym use policy was approved by City Council on July 2ih. 7. Blue ribbon task force meeting (Study Session) for the composting center at the Baylands was held on July 20th. 8. Council Liaison Espinosa remarked on the bond for El Camino which was passed by City Council. 9. Council Liaison Espinosa recommended that staff reports related to the composting issue and any other relevant important topics should be included in the packets that go to the Parks and Recreation Commission. VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR September 22, 2009 REGULAR MEETING: 1. Gymnasium space issue and prospective partnerships with PAUSD. 2. World Music Day 3. Junior Museum & Zoo Bobcat Ridge exhibit park ordinance 2. Recap on Recreational Opportunities for dog owners in Palo Alto meeting details. 3. Change of terms of office for the Parks and Recreation Commission VII. ADJOURNMENT Motion made in honor of Don Piana's upcoming retirement. Adjourned at 9:44pm July 28, 2009 Draft Minutes 3 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES DATE: SEPTEMBER 21 ,2009 CMR: 356:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2010 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $1,191,238 within the Electric Fund for Incentives to Palo Alto Utilities' Customers to Install Photovoltaic Systems RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $1,191,238 to provide additional funding for the existing City of Palo Alto Utilities' (CPAU) "PV Partners" (photovoltaic) program for FY 2009-10. This program provides incentives to CP AU customers who install a solar electric or photo voltaic (PV) system. The funds for this BAO are available in the Utilities Department's Electric Public Benefit Reserves. BACKGROUND California Senate Bill 1 (signed August 24, 2006) requires all publicly-owned utilities to offer specified minimum incentives for PV systems, on or before January 1, 2008, for a ten year period. This mandate also prevents publicly-owned utilities from taking funds previously used for energy efficiency and low income programs to meet the customer demand for solar incentives. The budget to meet CPAU's share of the total California PV installation goal is projected to be $13 million, averaging $1.3 million per year for ten years. The PV Partners Incentive program is designed to continuously provide incentives based on the rate of PV system installation up to the ten-year maximum of$13 million. If the demand for customer incentives is accelerated in the early program years, the program will reach the SB 1 goals in less than ten years. The ten-year (2017) SB 1 goal for Palo Alto is 6.5 megawatts, of which 1.662 (or 26%) has been installed. DISCUSSION The award-winning "PV Partners" program has experienced significant demand for incentives in the past few years with more homeowners and businesses installing systems on existing building stock and greater numbers of developers using solar for their new construction projects. The "PV Partners" program received awards from the Solar Electric Power Association, the Northern California Solar Association & Environment of California for its level of involvement. To date, 187 systems with a capacity of 1.662 megawatts, or 26% of the goal have been installed. CMR: Page lof2 Customers can reserve rebate funds for up to eighteen months prior to the installation of the PV system. During Fiscal Year 2008-09, in order to meet the demand for the rebates in the reservation status, $2,240,000 was transferred from the Public Benefit Reserve Fund and from the Alternative Resources Operating Budget to meet the expected demand. Due to the down-tum in the economy, many of those projects were delayed. At the end of the fiscal year, the unspent funds of$I,191,238 allocated for rebates went back to the Public Benefit Reserve Fund. In order to have those funds available for rebates at the time of project installation, the funds must be returned from the Reserve Fund to the Public Benefit Renewable Operating Budget. Funds in the Public Benefit Renewable Operating Budget at the beginning of Fiscal Year 2009- 2010 were $4,540,776 (unaudited balance). For the SBI program, starting January 1, 2007, through August 10,2009, CPAU has paid $2,659,068 and has pending an additional $3,288,705 in reservations ($1,300,000 is expected to be paid in FY2010 and the remainder 15 to be paid in FY2011 through FY2015). Therefore, a BAO, transferring the $1,191,238 rolled over from the operating budget into the Public Benefit Reserve should be transferred back to pay program incentives. RESOURCE IMPACT These additional funding requirements require a $1,191,238 Budget Amendment Ordinance and will reduce the Public Benefit Reserve from $4,540,776 to $3,349,538. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This request does not represent a change in policy. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. ATTACHMENT A: Budget Amendment Ordinance PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: Assistant Director Customer Support Services DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: Director of Utilities CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 356:09 Page 2 of2 ATTACHMENT A Ordinance No.XXXX Ordinance Of The Council Of The City Of Palo to Amending The Budget For Fiscal Year 2010 To Provide An Additional Appropriation Of $1,191,238 Within The Electric Fund For Incentives To Palo Alto Utili ties' Customers To Install Photovoltaic Systems. 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 Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 15, 2009 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2010; and B. In August 2006, California Senate Bill 1 (SB1) was signed and required all publicly-owned utilities to of specified minimum incentives for photovoltaic (PV) systems on or before January 1, 2008, for a ten-year period; and C. SB1 prevents publicly-owned utilities from taking funds previously used for energy efficiency and low income programs to meet the customer demands for solar incentives; and D. The existing City of Palo Alto Utilities' (CPAU) "PV Partners II program provides incentives to CPAU customers who install a solar electric or PV system; and E. Funding for the "PV Partners" program resides within the Public Benefit Renewable Functional Area of the Electric Fund; and F. In scal Year 2009, $2,240,000 was transferred to the Public Benefit Renewable Functional Area from the Public Benefit Program Reserve and the Alternative Resources Functional Area of the Electric Fund to meet the expected demand for solar incentives; and G. Due to the downturn in economy, many of the expected installations of PV systems were delayed; and H. At the end of Fiscal Year 2009, $1,191,238 of the funds that had been transferred to the Public Benefit Renewable Functional Area remained unspent and were subsequently returned to the Public Benefit Program Reserve; and I. To meet the expected demand for solar rebates scal Year 2010, it is necessary to transfer $1,191,238 from the Public Benefit Program Reserve to the Public Benefit Renewable Functional Area; and J. City Council authorization is needed to amend the scal Year 2010 budget to make an addi appropriation of $1,191,238 for demand-side management incentives expense to provide incentives to CPAU customers who install a solar electric or PV system. The sum of One Million One Hundred Ninety-One Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Eight Dollars ($1,191,238) is hereby appropriated to demand-side management incentives expense the Public it Renewable Functional Area in the Electric Fund. The Public Benefit Program Reserve is hereby reduced by One Million One Hundred Ninety-One Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Eight Dollars ($1,191,238) to Three Million Three Hundred Forty-Nine Thousand Five Hundred Thirty-Eight Dol ($3,349,538) . As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Al to Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. ~~~~~. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance I become effective upon adoption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Manager or Asst. ty Attorney Director of Utilities Department Director of Administrative Services City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2009 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT DEPARTMENTS: CITY CLERK AND PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONNIENT CMR: 364:09 SUBJECT: Approval of a Negative Declaration and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 21 (Subdivisions) and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Define the Minimum Width for Private Streets and Excluding Private Streets from the Calculation of Floor Area RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Approve the proposed Negative Declaration (Attachment B); and 2. Adopt the proposed ordinance amendments (Attachment A) defining the minimum width of private streets and excluding the area of private streets from the calculation of lot size. BACKGROUND A proposed initiative to provide minimum widths for private streets (Initiative) qualified for the November ballot, according to the certification of the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters on July 15, 2009. On July 27-, 2009, the City Council voted to direct staff to prepare the ordinance for adoption and to prepare the associated environmental review, both to return to the Council on September 21,2009. This action negated the need to place the measure on the November ballot. DISCUSSION The draft ordinance amendments are included as Attachment A, and reflect verbatim the language of the Initiative. The intent of the proposed ordinance, as stated in the Initiative language, is to address concerns about vehicle circulation on private streets (particularly for fire and garbage trucks), inclusion of streets in determining lot size and floor area, and overflow traffic and;parking onto nearby residential streets. The specific provisions of the Initiative would amend the Subdivision Ordinance of the City to: • Generally limit private street width to a minimum of 32 feet (as compared to a public street width of 40 feet); CMR: 364:09 Page 1 of3 • Allow lesser width at a minimum of 26 feet where either a) at least a 6-foot parking strip is provided adjacent to the street or b) homes are set back at least 20 feet from the street; • Allow lesser width at a minimum of 22 feet where the street serves 4 or fewer lots; • Provide that all of those widths are "minimums" and the streets must be shown to be adequate to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and, for widths less than 32 feet, by the City Council; and • Exclude the area of private streets from the calculation of Floor Area Ratio for determining allowable development. Additionally, the definition of "Lot area" would be amended in the Zoning Ordinance to exclude "public or private" street right-of-way (current code interpretations only exclude public right-of- way). This would again further limit the floor area allowed on a site. If the attached ordinance is adopted, no second reading is required according to the City Charter and State law regarding adopting ordinances generated by initiative. The ordinance would then become effective on October 22,2009 (31st day after the adoption). The Initiative indicates an effective date of July 31, 2009, but notes that, if the retroactive date is voided or otherwise deemed unenforceable by judicial action, then November 4, 2009 would be the effective date. The City Attorney has noted that the retroactive provision of the Initiative is not likely to be defensible, so that November 4 would be the operative effective date. Applicability and Enforceability of Ordinance In order to avoid the costs of an election, the Council directed that the Initiative ordinance be adopted exactly as written. The City Attorney has indicated that the retroactive provision is unenforceable, but it would not nullify the ordinance if adopted as written because the ordinance contains a severability clause that would leave all legally enforceable portions of the ordinance intact. Using the City's current definition of private streets, however, the initiative would apply only to non-dedicated streets which are on a "separate parcel of land used for ingress to or egress from two or more lots which do not have the minimum street frontage" or non-dedicated streets that provide access to one lot that does not meet minimum street frontage "if the parcel of land used for ingress or egress is more than two hundred feet in length." Because this definition predates enactment of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, it is unlikely that any future development will propose vehicular access in a way that would meet the City's definition of private streets. As such, absent further clean-up, the initiative would not have any direct impact on any project currently in the planning or development process. The ordinance will have no impact upon the Alma Plaza development as the tentative map was already passed by the Council long before the initiative. Due to the improper definition, it is the City Attorney' sopinion that the ordinance will have no impact upon any current application including t,he proposed Palo Alto Bowl project. Potential Revisions to the Ordinance Staff has met with the Initiative sponsor and believes that a few revisions to the City's subdivision ordinance, in particular the definition of "private streets," would allow for effective implementation of the intent of the Initiative. Subsequent to adoption of the Initiative ordinance, CMR: 364:09 Page 2 of3 staff will prepare further subdivision code amendments to make those clarifications to better realize the intent of the Initiative. Staff believes the amendments could be made in a way that does not affect the Initiative ordinance and would not therefore require a public vote. Staff expects to provide those amendments to the Planning and Transportation Commission in October and the City Council in November. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Initiative specifically calls out Comprehensive Plan Policies C30, L17, T23, and T25, as well as Programs T33 and T53, which would be enhanced by the ordinance. Staff concurs that those policies and programs are further supported by the proposed standards. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Negative Declaration has been prepared and is included as Attachment B to be adopted by Council. RESOURCE IMPACT The costs of the ordinance are anticipated to be negligible, since· the costs of construction and maintenance of private streets will be borne by project developers and subsequent owners and homeowners' associations. DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTACHNIENTS A. Proposed Ordinance B. Draft Negative Declaration COURTESY COPIES Robert Moss r I CMR: 364:09 CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 3 of3 ( ; I I I I I I I I I I I I ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED Ordinance No. ---Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 21 (Subdivisions) and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Define Minimum Widths for Private Streets and Excluding Private Streets from the Calculation of Floor Area The Council ofthe City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds as follows: A. On July 15, 2009, an initiative petition defining the minimum width of private streets and excluding private streets from the calculation of floor area was certified by the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters as qualified to be submitted to voters on the November 2009 ballot. B. On July 27, 2009, the City Council directed that the City should adopt the ordinance amendments proposed in the initiative petition rather than placing the initiative on the November 2009 election ballot. C. The Council finds that the ordinance amendments further the public interest, health and welfare of the community and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby amends Section 18.04.030(a)(85) to read as follows: (85) "Lot area" means the area of a lot measured horizontally between bounding lot lines, but excluding any portion of a flag lot providing access to a street and lying between a front lot line and the street, and excluding any portion of a lot within the lines of any natural watercourse, river, stream, creek, waterway, channel, or flood control or drainage easement and excluding any portion of a lot within a public or private street right-of-way whether acquired in fee, easement, or otherwise. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby amends Section 21.040.030(a)(30) to read as follows: (30) "Private street" means any parcel of land not dedicated as a public street wliich is used for ingress and egress from two or more lots which do not have the required minimum frontage on a public street, or to or from one lot which does not have the required minimum frontage on a public street if the parcel of land used for ingress or egress is more than two hundred feet in length. Private streets shall be excluded for the purpose of determining Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Minimum width of "private streets" shall be as defined in 21.20.240Cb)(4). 1 090916 syn 0120405 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 5. The City Council hereby amends Section 21.040.240(b)(4) to read as follows: (4) Private streets: Such right-of-way as would be required for a comparable public street, except as specified below. unless sabdivider caa de:moastrate to the satisfaetioa of the city cooocil Of director of planniag aoo eommooity ea'lirol'lfB:eB:t. as apflroflriate, facts relatiag to the aature or locatioa of the flroposed stireet or tae aature of the proposed de·;elopmeat which reader such rigat of vlay l:lfllleeessary fOf or detrimental to the pablie health. safety or vf'elfure. Streets serving five or more lots shall be no less than thirty two feet wide. Streets serving four or fewer lots shall be no less than twenty two feet wide providing that the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the City Council specifically approves the twenty two foot street width. (a) If a building adjacent to a private street has a setback of at least 20 feet between the street and building allowing on-site parking, then the width of the private street may be no less than twenty six feet at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the City Council. (b) If a private street has a public parking strip of at least six feet in width between the street and the building location, then the width of the private street may be no less than twenty six feet at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the City Council. Effective Date: This private street width requirement applies to any project or development that has not obtained a final map, building permit. and performed significant construction as of July 31. 2009. If the effective date of July 31, 2009 is held by a court of competent jurisdiction in a final judicial action to be void, voidable. or unenforceable. then the effective date of this ordinance as it applies to private street width shall be November 4, 2009. SECTION 6. Severability. If any section of this initiative ordinance, or part hereof, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction in a final judicial action to be void, voidable. or unenforceable, such section or part hereof, shall be deemed severable from the remaining sections of this initiative ordinance and shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining sections hereof SECTION 7. The Council hereby finds that this rezoning is subject to environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental 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. II II 2 090916 syn 0120405 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 8. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first (31 st) day after its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney r I 090916 syn 0120405 3 APPROVED: Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment ATTACHMENT B DRAFT ADOPTED ON: __________ _ City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: August 26, 2009 Project Name: Project Location: Applicant: Owner: Project Description: Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and C.ommunity Environment Clare Campbell, Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 The City of Palo Alto proposes to amend Palo Alto Municipal Code sections 18.04.030(a)(85), 21.04.030(a)(30) and 21.20.240(b)(4) regarding private streets to specify minimum widths and to exclude private streets from the related project's floor area calculation. The proposed Ordinance includes the following amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance: -For streets serving five or more lots the width shall be a minimum of a 32 feet (as compared to a public street width of 40 feet); -For streets serving four Qf fewer lots the width shall be a minimum of a 22 feet; -Allow lesser width at a minimum of 26 feet where either a) at least a 6-foot parking strip is provided adjacent to the street or b) homes are set back at least 20 feet from the street allowing on-site parking; -Provide that all of the proposed widths are "minimums" and the streets must be shown to be adequate to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and, for widths less than 32 feet, by the City Council; and -Exclude the area of private streets from the calculation of Floor Area Ratio for determining allowable development. Additionally, the definition of "Lot area" would be amended in the Zoning Ordinance to exclude "public or private" ~treet right-of-way (current code interpretations only exclude public right-of-way). This would further limit the floor area allowed on a site. II. DETERMINA TION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto's procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: X The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures for traffic impacts have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The attached initial study incorporates all relevant infonnation regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confinns the determination that an EIR is not required for the project, Project Planner Adopted by City Council, Attested by Director of Planning and Community Environment r , the Declaration has been nnn"""",?>'i n<3 -210 --if1 Date Date Page 2 of2 ENVIRONMENTAL CI-IECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. . PROJECT TITLE Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets 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 Clare Campbell City of Palo Alto 650-617 -3191 4. PROJECT SPONSOR City of Palo Alto Department of Planning 'and Community Environment 5. PROJECT LOCATION The proposed Ordinance would apply to designated development projects that create private streets within the City of Palo Alto. Palo Alto is located in the northern part of Santa Clara County in the portion of the Bay Area known as the Mid-Peninsula. The City shares a boundary with San Mateo County and six cities and is approximately 35 miles south of San Francisco and 14 miles north of San Jose. 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION r I The Ordinance would apply city-wide. The Comprehensive Plan policies and programs that support the project include the following: • POLICY C-30: Facilitate access to parks and community facilities by a variety of transportation modes. Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page I Negative Declaration • POLICY L-17: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches, and other amenities that favor pedestrians. • POLICY T -23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. • POLICY T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. • PROGRAM T -33: Develop comprehensive roadway design standards and criteria for all types of roads. Emphasize bicycle and pedestrian safety and usability in these standards. • PROGRAM T-53: Discourage parking facilities that would intrude into adjacent residential neighborhoods. 7. ZONING The Ordinance applies city-wide and does not conflict with purposes of the Zoning code, which include the promotion and protection of public heath, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. 8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Background . The intent of the proposed Ordinance is to address concerns about inadequate vehicle circulation on private streets (particularly for fife and garbage trucks), the inclusion of street area in determining lot size and therefore allowing larger floor areas, and the impacts from overflow traffic and parking onto nearby residential streets. Proposed Project The City of Palo Alto proposes to amend Palo Alto Municipal Code sections l8.04.030(a)(85), 21.04.030(a)(30) and 21.20.240(b)(4) regarding private streets to specify minimum widths and to exclude private streets from the related project's floor area calculation. The proposed Ordinance includes the following amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance: • For streets serving five or more lots the width shall be a minimum of a 32 feet (as compared to a public street width of 40 feet); • For streets serving four or fewer lots the width shall be a minimum of a 22 feet; • Allow lesser width at a minimum of 26 feet where either a) at least a 6-foot parking strip is provided adjacent to the street or b) homes are set back at least 20 feet from the street allowing on-site parking; • Provide that all of the proposed widths are "minimums" and the streets must be shown to be adequate to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and, for widths less than 32 feet, by the City Council; and . • Exclude the area of private streets from the calculation of Floor Area Ratio for determining allowable development. Additiopally, the definition of "Lot area" would be amended in the Zoning Ordinance to exclude "public or private" street right-of-way (current code interpretations only exclude public right-of-way). This would further limit the floor area allowed on a site. The proposed Ordinance would apply to any project or development that has not obtained a final map and building permit, and performed significant construction as of July 31, 2009. Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 2 Negative Declaration 9. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING Ordinance applies city-wide. The City is situated within a developed urban area with mUltiple cities adjacent to the city limits. 10. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED None ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) 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 apply to projects like the one involved' (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will 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 measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less 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 EIR, 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 Used. 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. Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths Private Streets Page 3 Negative Declaration 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to infonnation sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Infonnation 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 evalu~te each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist 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 Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Would the project: Mitigation Incorporated a) Substantially degrade the existing visual 1,2,3,4 X character or quality of the site and its surroundings? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1,2-Map X , public view or view corridor? L4,3,4 c) Substantially damage scenic resources, 1,2-Map X including, but not limited to, trees, rock L4,3,4 outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan 1, 2, 3, 4 X policies regarding visual resources? e) Create a new source of substantial light or 1,4 X glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? t) Substantially shadow public open space 1,4 X (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21? DISCUSSION: All individual projects proposed that would be impacted by the Ordinance would be subject to discretionary design review by the City. The review is intended to promote visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and to assure that use and development will be hannonious with other uses in the general vicinity, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 4 Negative Declaration The proposed Ordinance will not create any new aesthetic impacts. All individual proposed projects are subject to review to address aesthetics and the required CEQA analysis will be completed on a case-by-case basis to determine potential impacts. 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 agriculture 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, 1,2,4 X or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2-X use, or a Williamson Act contract? MapL9,4 c) Involve other changes in the existing 1,2-X environment which, due to their location or MapL9,4 nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? DISCUSSION: The proposed Ordinance does not encourage development nor change the existing uses that have been established throughout the City and therefore is anticipated to have no impacts on agricultural resources. Mitigation Measures: None Required C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation X of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay 1,4 Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)? b) Violate any ai{quality standard or contribute ;'i, <, substantially to an existing or projected air ' , ,,' quality violation indicated by the following: , " i. Direct and/or indirect operational 1,4 X emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 5 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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); ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) 1,4 X concentrations exceeding 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 decline to D, E or F; or c) project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 1,4 X increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) ? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels 1,4 X e) f) of tOXIC air contaminants? i. Probability of contracting cancer for the 1,4 X Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl) exceeds 10 in one million ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-1,4 X carcinogenic T ACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEl Create objectionable odors affecting a 1,4 X substantial number of people? Not implement all applicable construction 1,4 X emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto is located within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the regional agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions from stationary sources in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and through its planning and review process. All development in Palo Alto is subject to the BAAQMD regulations. The proposed revisions to the Palo Alto Municipal Code will not create any new air quality impacts. All individual proposed projects will be reviewed for impacts and are subject to CEQA. Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 6 Negative Declaration Mitigation Measures: None Required D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES . Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Wonld the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 1, 2~ X directly or through habitat modifications, on MapNl, any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, 3,4 or special status species in local or regional 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 1,2-X riparian habitat or other sensitive natural MapNl, community identified in local or regional plans, 3,4 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 interruption, or other means? c) Interfere substantially with the movement of 1,2-X any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife MapNl, species or with established native resident or 3,4 migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,3,4,9 X e) protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.1O)? Conflict with any applicable Habitat 1,2,4 X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto, with its various developed and open space areas, provides habitat for a broad range of wildlife and plants, including some designated as protected or sensitive either by the State of California or through Federal designation. All development projects are subject to design review in addition to the environmental review (CEQA) to ensure an environmentally sensitive project is approved. The proposed Ordinance will ))fot create any new biological impacts. Mitigation Measures: None Required Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 7 Negative Declaration E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated i a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural 1,4, 10 X resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,2-X significance of an archaeological resource MapL8, pursuant to 15064.5? 4 i c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1,2-X paleontological resource or site or unique MapL8, geologic feature? 4 d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2-X e) f) interred outside of formal cemeteries? MapL8, 4 Adversely affect a historic resource listed or 1,2-X eligible for listing on the National andlor MapL7, California Register, or listed on the City's 4,10 Historic Inventory? Eliminate important examples of major periods 1,2,4 X of California history or prehistory? DISCUSSION: The majority of the City of Palo Alto is considered to have areas with low to moderate sensitivity for archaeological resources, with a few pockets of extreme sensitivity. For all projects, if during grading and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The Santa Oara County Medical Examiner's office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. The proposed Ordinance will not create any cultural impacts to the affected area. All individual proposed projects are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. Mitigation Measures: None Required F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Wc{uld the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to potential , " ' " ""'>""" """ ,", " substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: '" i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, 4,6 X Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 8 Negative Declaration I as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2-X MapNlO, 4 iii) Seismic-related ground failure, 2-X including liquefaction? MapN5. 4 iv) Landslides? X 4 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss 1.4 X of topsoil? c) Result in substantial siltation? 1,4 X d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 2-X unstable, or that would become unstable as MapN5, a result of the project, and potentially 4' result in on-or off-site landslide. lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 2-X Table 18-1-B ofthe Uniform Building MapN5, Code (1994), creating substantial risks to 4 life or property? f) Have soils incapable of adequately 1,4 X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? g) Expose people or property to major 1.4,5 X geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto would experience a range from weak to very violent shaking in the event of a major earthquake along the San Andreas or Hayward fault. Although hazards exist, development would not expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be addressed through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques, as required by building codes. With proper engineering new development is not expected to Jesuit in any significant adverse short or long-term impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity. I The proposed Ordinance will not create any new geology, soils and seismicity impacts. All individual proposed projects are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. Mitigation Measures: None Required Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 9 Negative Declaration G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,4 X environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,4 X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous 1,4 X or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Construct a school on a property that is subject 1,4 X to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions or accidental release? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list 1,2-X of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant MapN9, to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a 4 result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use 1,4 X plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1,4 X airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? h) Impair implementation of or physically 1,2-X interfere with an adopted emergency response MapN7, plan or emergency evacuation plan? 4 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 1,2-X ofloss, injury, or death involving wildland MapN7, fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to 4 urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,4 X environment fr,em 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 site? • Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 10 Negative Declaration DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto has an area within its city limits west of Highway 280 (Palo Alto Foothills) that has been identified to have medium to high wildland fire danger. The Fire department has specific requirements of property owners in this area that are directed at fire suppression and control. The proposed Ordinance will not create any new hazards and hazardous materials impacts. All individual proposed projects are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. . Mitigation Measures: None Required H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 1,4 X discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 1,2-X interfere substantially with groundwater MapN2, recharge such that there would be a net deficit 4 in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., 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 permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,4 X 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 erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,4 X of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or a,mount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would 1,4 X exceed the capacity of existing or planned. stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,4 X • g) Place housing within a IOO-year flood hazard 1,4 X area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard I Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood haz'rd delineation map? h) Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area 1,2-X structures which would impede or redirect MapN6, flood flows? 4 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 1,2-X of loss, injury or death involve flooding, MapN6 Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page II Negative Declaration ! including flooding as a result of the failure of a N8,4 levee or dam or being located within a lOO-year flood hazard area? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow? 1,2-X MapN6, 4 k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,4 X DISCUSSION: All development is required to comply with building codes that address the flood safety issues. All development projects are required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction activities as specified by the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook (CASQA, 2(03) and/or the Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (ABAG, 1995). The BMPs include measures guiding the management and operation of construction sites to control and minimize the potential contribution of pollutants to storm runoff from these areas. These measures address procedures for controlling erosion and sedimentation and managing all aspects of the construction process to ensure control of potential water pollution sources. All development projects must comply with all City, State and Federal standards pertaining to storm water run-off and water quality. The proposed Ordinance will not create any new hydrology and water quality impacts. All individual proposed projects are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. Mitigation Measures: None Required I. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Physically divide an established community? 1,4 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 1,2,3,4 X policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (incIl.!ding, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 1,2,4 X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? d) Substantially adversely change the type or 1,2,4 X intensity of existing or planned land use in the area? e) Be incompatibly with adjacent land uses or with 1,2,3,4 X the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? f) Conflict with established residential, 1, 2,3,4 X recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or 1,2-X Ordinance to MinlmumWidths Private Streets Page 12 Negative Declaration a) Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to MapL9, non-agricultural use? 4 DISCUSSION: The proposed Ordinance is not anticipated to create any new land use impacts. The Ordinance eliminates using the area dedicated to private streets from a project's floor area calculation, which in tum would reduce the area/mass of the related project, and potentially provide additional street parking. This is not considered a significant impact because it does not prevent development; developers would need to adjust their projects accordingly to accomplish the overall project goals. Compliance with the designated land uses and zoning is a requirement for all development. All individual proposed projects are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. Mitigation Measures: None Required J. MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the 1,2 region and the residents of the state? X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- a) important mineral resource recovery site 1,2 delineated on a local general plan, specific plan 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 1 (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 Required. K. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Exposure of persons to or generation of noise 1,2,4 X Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 13 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 1,2,4 X excessive ground borne vibrations or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient 1,2,4 X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 1,2,4 X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use 1,2,'4 -X plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1;4 X airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 1,4 X increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? h) Cause-the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1,4 X i) j) k) 1) 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 1,4 X existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB? Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1,4 X development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1,4 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 1,4 X daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more? DISCUSSION: All development, including construction activities, must comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which r¢"stricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are expected to be less than significant. The proposed Ordinance will not create any new noise impacts. All individual proposed projects are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 14 Negative Declaration Mitigation Measures: None Required L. POPULA TION AND HOUSING 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 1,4 X area, either directly (for example. by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing 1,4 X housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people. 1,4 X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? d) Create a substantial imbalance between 1,.4 X employed residents and jobs? e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local 1,4 X population projections? j DISCUSSION: The proposed Ordinance does not encourage growth and development and therefore will not create any new population and housing impacts. All individual proposed projects are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. Mitigation Measures: None Required 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 t Incorporated 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 performan" objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 1,2.4 X b) Police protection? HH X c) Schools? X d) Parks? 1.2,4 X Ordinance to Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 15 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Other public facilities? 1,2,4 X DISCUSSION: The proposed Ordinance does not encourage growth and development and is not anticipated to generate a significant number of new users as to create impacts to the existing public services for the City. All individual proposed projects are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. Mitigation Measures: None Required N. RECREA TION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) W ouId the project increase the use of 1,2,4 X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational 1,2,4 X faCilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? DISCUSSION: The proposed Ordinance does not encourage growth and development in the City and is not anticipated to generate a significant number of new users as to create impacts to the existing City recreational facilities. All individual proposed projects are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. Mitigation Measures: None Required o. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than NO Significant Significant Significant IMPACT Would the project: Issues Unless Impact ,.. Mitigation I Incorporated a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 1,4 X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 16 Negative Declaration capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections) ? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 1,4 X a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, 1,4 X including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial. safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 1,4 X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,4 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,4 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 1,2,3,4 X programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & bicycle facilities)? h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection 1,4 X to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more and the critical volume/capacity ratio (VIC) value to increase by 0.01 or more? i) Cause a local intersection already operating at 1,4 X LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more? j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate 1,4 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 1,4 X or contribute traffic in excess of 1 % of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? I) Cause any change in traffic that would 1,4 X increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? m) Cause queuing impacts based on a 1,4 X comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Quetllng impacts 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 spill back queues on ramps. Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 17 Negative Declaration n) Impede the development or function of 1,4 X planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? 0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1,4 X result of congestion? p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,4 X DISCUSSION: All development projects must be submitted for design review and in that review the traffic/circulation/parking impacts will be considered. The minimum private street width should improve safety because it provides consistent standards that meet emergency vehicle and garbage. truck access requirements. The. Ordinance is anticipated to increase street parking as applicable and thereby reducing spillover parking into adjacent neighborhoods. The proposed Ordinance does not encourage growth and development and is not anticipated to generate transportation impacts. All individual proposed projects are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. Mitigation: None Required P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of 1,2,4 X the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new 1,2,4 X water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new 1,2,4 X storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to 1,2,4 X serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 1,2,4 X treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? .' f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 1,2,4 X permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 1,2,4 X and regulations related to solid waste? h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1,2,4 X Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 18 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project? DISCUSSION: The proposed Ordinance does not encourage growth and development and therefore no significant increase in the demand on existing utilities and service systems or impacts to these services are expected. All individual proposed projects are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. Mitigation Measures: None Required Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential to 1,2,3,4 X 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 levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are 1,2,3,4 X c) individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? C"Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects 1,2,3,4 X which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto, with its various developed and open space areas, provides habitat for a broad range of wildlife and pllnts, including some designated as protected or sensitive either by the State of California or through Federal designation. All development projects are subject to design review in addition to the environmental review (CEQA) to ensure an environmentally sensitive project is approved. The proposed Ordinance will not create any additional biological impacts. Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 19 Negative Declaration The proposed amendments to the Palo Alto Municipal Code are not anticipated to degrade the quality of the environment or create environmental effects that would adversely impact human beings. The proposed Ordinance is not anticipated to have cumulatively considerable 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 outer space, which is known as the "greenhouse" effect. The world's leading climate scientists have reached consensus that global climate change is underway and is very likely caused by humans. 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, pursuant to Senate Bill 97 the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (aPR) is in the .process of developing CEQA guidelines "for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions." aPR is-required to "prepare, develop, and transmit" the guidelines to the Resources Agency on or before July 1,2009. The Resources Agency must certify and adopt the guidelines on or before January 1,2010. Assembly Bill 32 requires achievement by 2020 of a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent 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 emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. While the state of California has established programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are no established standards for gauging the significance of greenhouse gas emissions; these standards are required to be in place by 2012. Neither CEQA 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 meaningful 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 environment in which it would occur, and what mitigation measures are available to avoid or reduce impacts. . Although greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) generated by future development projects in the Open Space district, as allowed under the Comprehensive Plan, would cumulatively contribute to global climate change, the City's regulations supports development while preserving and conserving natural areas. In addition, the City has adopted green building regulations that apply to all development projects, residential and otherwise, which further facilitates the reduction of the GHG emissions of all projects. The proposed Ordinance would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with greenhouse gas emissions. All individual proposed projects in the will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for its potential impacts. ( ; Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 20 Negative Declaration SOURCE REFERENCES 1. Project Planner's knowledge of the proposed project 2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning) & Title 21 (Subdivisions) 4. Proposed Draft Ordinance 5. Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety and Windload 6. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 7. City of Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan, http://www.cityofpaJoalto.org/civicalfilebanklblobdload.asp?BlobID-9986 8. Green Building Regulations, PAMC 18.44 9. Tree Preservation Ordinance, PAMC 8.10 10. City of Palo Alto, Historic Inventory List ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Ordinance B. City Manager's Report #335:09, July 27, 2009 r I Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets Page 21 Negative Declaration DETERMINA TION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will 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 will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MA Y have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MA Y 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 all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DE CLARA TION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARA TION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Project Planner r ; Ordinance to Specify Minimum Widths for Private Streets D:1) -'7(0 -Dq Date Page 22 Negative Declaration City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2009 CMR: 372:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Approval of Negative Declaration and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $202,639, and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 10 by RepeaJing Chapter 10.46 (Residential Permit Parking) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code In Its Entirety and Enacting a New Chapter 10.46 (College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program) (RPPP) . RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Adopt the attached project's Negative Declaration (Attachment C); and 2. Approve and adopt the Ordinance for the Residential Parking Pennit Program in College T~rrace (Attachnient A); and 3. Approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment B) in the amount of $202,639 to provide funding for the implementation of the College Terrace Residential Parking Pennit Program; and 4. Direct Staff to evaluate the residential parking pennit program's effectiveness '90 days after program implementation and work with the neighborhood on whether additional parking limitations need to be added to the program and report back to Council. ". i BACKGROUND On July 6,2009, Council approved the elements of an Ordinance to be included in a Residential Parking Pennit Program in College Terrace as outlined in Attachment D. Also incorporated into CMR:372:09 Page 1 of 5 the motion was direction that Staff attempt to expedite the process so the program is in place prior to the start of 2009 Stanford fall quarter and accept additional parking program petitions from College Terrace. DISCUSSION The Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) allows vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit be permitted to use on-street parking, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit could park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods and exceeding the 2-hour maximum parking allowance would be cited by the Police Department. Additional details of the program are described further and outlined in the project ordinance in Attachment A. Staff has been working closely with the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) members of the College Terrace neighborhood to help with the outreach efforts for this program, in order to accept additional petitions from additional residential blocks that would like to opt into the RPPP. To date, approximately 90% of the resident blocks have opted into the program (see Attachment E). In order to participate in the RPPP, the requirements called for 51 % of the number of houses on a street block to sign a petition requesting that their street block be added to the RPPP. With over 50 percent of the neighborhood blocks now opting into the program, the cost of the permits has been reduced to $15. As supported by Council in July, the cost of citations has also been raised from $40 to $50 to better recover program costs. The true cost of the program may not be accurately assessed until the program is actually implemented. Staff recommends that these costs be assessed and evaluated one year after implementation in order to determine if adjustments to the permit costs will be necessary to remain at cost recovery levels. Staff from Transportation, Revenue Collections, and Police has been working towards implementation of the program. The process for hiring a contractor for the sign installation and temporary staff for Revenue Collections has started. An information letter and application has been prepared to be sent out to all households who have requested to be included in the program. Staff from Revenue Collections will also set up a location in the neighborhood once the program is underway in order to process the applications for obtaining the residential parking permits. Facebook Parking On May 14, 2009, Facebook moved 850 local employees to a 150,000-square foot office building in the Stanford Research Park at 1601 California Avenue. This move has raised new concems for residents in the upper College Terrace neighborhood since many Facebook employees are parking in the neighborhood streets. This has resulted in concerns expressed that the propo~d residential parking permit program's 2-hour parking allowance would not address the empldyees who are currently parking on the nearby streets; as they may move their cars every 2 hours in order to avoid getting citations. CMR:372:09 Page 2 of5 The residential parking pernlit program that was developed did not address the recent move of Facebook into the neighborhood. Staff feels that the proposed 2-hour parking limitation, which requires cars to move to another block after 2-hours, will improve the parking situation in the neighborhood. Staff has, however, also included language in the proposed ordinance to allow revisions to the program if the Director determines that the current parking problems are not substantially addressed by the RPPP. The Ordinance provides for: a. Staff monitoring parking prior to implementation and then subsequent to implementation, likely on a twice weekly basis. . b. Monthly updates to the neighborhood residents, and an informational report to Council 90 days after implementation. c. Recommendation by the Director for changes, if deemed necessary, to be included in the informational report, and to be presented to residents. Revisions could include, but are not limited to, restricting re-parking throughout the College Terrace neighborhood or in some subarea of the neighborhood. d. Implementation within 30 days after the report, unless 25 percent or more of the RPPP participants provide written objections, in which case the Council would review the program changes at a public meeting at the earliest possible date. RESOURCE IMPACT Program Start-Up Costs With almost the entire College Terrace neighborhood opting into the Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP), start-up costs total nearly $250,000. These funds are needed for the design and installation of street signs, the hiring of temporary personnel and purchase of office equipment in the Revenue Collections Department, and vehicle and equipment for the Police Department. Other initial costs include the hiring of a consultant to assess the program, the purchase of the pernlits, preparation of educational brochures, office supplies and equipment. Staff is proposing to use the initial General Use Permit deposit of $1 00,000 contributed by Stanford University and interest of $36,839, which has been accumulating since 2001, to help fund the initial start up costs. The remaining startup costs will be offset by the revenues generated through permit fees and citation fees, with the intention of full cost recovery. The assessment of the College Terrace RPPP was funded by the $100,000 from the Stanford University General Use Permit; of which $46,200 was used for consultant fees for the development of the RPPP. The balance of the deposit, $53,800, the interest earned of $36,839, and a projected $112,000 in revenues generated by permit and citation fees will be used for the implementation of the College Terrace RPPP. Based on current cost estimates and revenue projections, below is a summary of program costs to implement the College Terrace RPPP in year one. r SummariofProjected Cost and Revenue to Implement Start up Costs . Stanford Deposit CMR:372:09 $248,839 ($100,000) Page 3 of5 Interest on Deposit Projected Permit Fee Revenue Projected Citation Fee Revenue ($36,839) ($27,000) ($85,000) Of the total start up costs totaling $248,839, $46,200 was previously spent in January 2008 for the transportation consultants, therefore leaving a remaining balance of $202,639 for implementation. The College Terrace RPPP has been established as Special Revenue Fund with the intent of capturing and segregating future revenues and costs within this program and maintaining neutrality to the General Fund. After the first year of implementation, full cost allocations will be applied to the program, which is likely to increase permit fees. It is important to note that the cost and resources needed for implementation of this program have been prepared for the College Terrace neighborhood only and do not include provisions for other neighborhoods in the City. Although the Police Department has stated that it could staff this current program in College Terrace without the necessity to hire another officer, if other neighborhoods request to have a RPPP in their neighborhood, additional staffing and resources . will be needed in both the Police Department and Revenue Collections Division. Revenue projections for this type of program are difficult to calculate due to the uncertainties in the actual number of citations that would be issued and the number of resident permits that would be purchased. The revenue estimated to be generated by the program is based on historical citation rates evaluated in the City of Palo Alto and compared with other cities with similar residential parking permit programs. The true cost of the program may not be accurately assessed until the program is actually implemented. Staff recommends that these costs be assessed and evaluated one year after implementation in order to determine if adjustments to the permit costs will be necessary to remain at cost recovery levels. TIMELINE Preliminary work involving the design and purchase of permits and necessary equipment, including hiring of temporary staff to help with the application process, has taken place. A 31-day enactment period is required after the second reading of the ordinance, scheduled for October 5,2009, with implementation and enforcement beginning on November 5,2009. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The implementation of a Residential Parking Permit program is consistent with the City'S Comprehensive Plan T -47: "Utilize engineering, enforcement, and educational tools to improve traffic safety on City roadways." ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Negative Declaration (ND) has been completed and is attached to this report (Attachment A) for approval by the City Council. The draft Negative Declaration was available for review on June 12,2009. CMR:372:09 Page 4 of5 PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: J~ SHAHLA YAZDY Transportation Engineer CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTACHMENTS A. Residential Parking Permit Program Ordinance B. Budget Amendment Ordinance C. Negative Declaration D. Program Outline E. Resident Participation COURTESY COPIES: College Terrace Resident's Association Board College Terrace Project Advisory Committee Jean Mc Cown, Stanford University r I CMR:372:09 Page 5 of5 ( ". ) ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED Ordinance No. ---Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 10 by Repealing Chapter 10.46 (Residential Pennit Parking) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in Its Entirety and Enacting a New Chapter 10.46 (College Terrace Residential ParkingPennit Program) (RPPP) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Legislative Purpose. The ordinance codified in this chapter is enacted in response to the serious adverse effects caused in the College Terrace neighborhood of Palo Alto by motor vehicle congestion, particularly the long-term parking of motor vehicles on the streets and neighborhood by nonresidents thereof. As set forth in more specific detail in Section 2, such long-term parking by nonresidents threatens the health, safety and welfare of residents of College Terrace. In order t6 protect and promote the integrity of the neighborhood, it is necessary to enact parking regulations restricting unlimited parking by nonresidents therein, while providing the opportunity for residents to park near their homes. Uniform parking regulations restricting residents and nonresidents alike do not serve the public interests, rather such regulations contribute to neighborhood decline. For the reasons set forth in this chapter, a system of residential permit parking is enacted for the College Terrace Neighborhood. SECTION 2. Legislative Findings. (a) General Findings. The City Council fmds, as a result of evidence generated by professional studies and derived from other sources, which the continued vitality of Palo Alto depends on the preservation of safe, healthy and attractive neighborhoods and other residential areas therein. The Council further finds that one factor that has detracted from the safety, health and attractiveness of Palo Alto is the excessive and burdensome practice of nonresidents parking their motor vehicles for extended periods of time in the College Terrace neighborhood. Since at anyone time there is in College Terrace a surplus of motor vehicles over available on-and off- street parking spaces, this condition detracts from ahealthy and complete urban environment. A system of residential permit parking will serve to reduce a number of strains on residents of the neighborhood and thus promote the general public welfare. (b) Specific Findings. The following specific legislative findings for the City Council in support of residential permit parking are set forth as illustrations only and do not exhaust the subject of the factual basis supporting its adoption: i (1) The safety, health and welfare of the residents of Palo Alto can be greatly enhanced by maintenance of the attractiveness and livability of its neighborhoods and other residential areas. 1 090917 syn 0120406 NOT YET APPROVED (2) A large portion of Palo Alto residents possess automobiles and as a result are daily faced with the need to store these automobiles in or near their residences. (3) The College Terrace neighborhood is burdened by influxes of motor vehicles owned by nonresidents which compete for the available on-street parking spaces. (4) There further exist certain parking "attractors" near College Terrace including, but not limited to, Stanford University, Stanford Research Park, and EI Camino Real commercial uses which further exacerbate neighborhood parking problems. (5) College Terrace does not have sufficient on-or off-street space to accommodate the convenient parkinK of motor vehicles by residents thereof in the vicinity of their homes with the addition of nonresident parking. To the extent that such facilities do exist, the program set forth herein is designed to encourage the maximum feasible utilization of parking facilities by neighborhood residents. (6) Unnecessary vehicle miles, noise, pollution, and strains on interpersonal relationships, caused by the conditions set forth herein, work unacceptable hardships on residents of the neighborhood by causing the deterioration of air quality, safety, tranquility and other values available in an urban residential environment. (7) If allowed to continue unchecked, these adverse effects on the citizens of Palo Alto will contribute to a further decline of the living conditions therein, a reduction in the attractiveness of residing within Palo Alto and consequent injury to the general public welfare. (8) The system of residential permit parking, as enacted by the ordinance codified in this chapter, will serve to promote the safety, health and welfare of the citizens of College Terrace by (a) reducing unnecessary personal motor vehicle travel, noise, and pollution; and (b) promoting improvements in air quality and the convenience and attractiveness of urban residential living, now and in the future. II II II II II II II r i 090917 syn 0120406 2 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. Title 10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing in its entirety Chapter 10.46 (Residential Permit Parking) and enacting a new Chapter 10.46 to read as follows: Sections: 10.28.010 10.28.020 10.28.030 10.28.040 10.28.050 10.28.060 10.28.070 10.28.080 10.28.090 10.28.100 10.28.110 10.28.120 10.28.010 Chapter 10.46 COLLEGE TERRACE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM (RPPP) Definitions. Permit parking exemption. Designation of initial residential permit parking area. Designation of additional residential permit parking area. Withdrawal as a residential permit parking area. Issuance of residential parking permits. Guest permits. Parking permit fees. Residential parking area. Revocation of permit. Violation--Penalty. Chapter interpretation. Definitions. As used in this chapter: (a) "Address" means and includes any residential address. Each dwelling unit within an apartment building that is distinguished by an apartment number shall be considered an address. (b) "Block" means any street segment intersected by two other streets. Blocks include the following: North-South Blocks 1) Yale Street from Stanford Avenue to Oxford Avenue 2) Yale Street from Oxford Avenue to College Avenue 3) Yale Street from College A venue to Cambridge Avenue 4) Yale Street from Cambridge Avenue to California Avenue 5) Williams Street from Stanford Avenue to College Avenue 6) Williams Street from College A venue to California Avenue 7) Wellesley Street from Stanford Avenue to Oxford Avenue 3 090917 syn 0120406 NOT YET APPROVED 8) Wellesley Street from Oxford Avenue to College Avenue 9) Wellesley Street from College Avenue to Library 10) Wellesley Street from Library to California A venue 11) Cornell Street from Stanford Avenue to College Avenue 12) Cornell Street from College Avenue to California Avenue 13) Princeton Street from Stanford Avenue to College Avenue 14) Princeton Street from College A venue to California Avenue 15) Oberlin Street from Stanford Avenue to College Avenue 16) Oberlin Street from College Avenue to California Avenue 17) Harvard Street from Stanford Avenue to College Avenue 18) Harvard Street from College Avenue to California Avenue 19) Hanover Street from Stanford Avenue to College Avenue 20) Hanover Street from College Avenue to California Avenue 21) Dartmouth Street from Stanford Avenue to Werry Park 22) Dartmouth Street from Werry Park to College Avenue 23) Dartmouth Street from College Avenue to Weisshaar Park 24) Dartmouth Street from Weisshaar Park to California Avenue 25) Columbia Street from Stanford Avenue to College Avenue 26) Columbia Street from College A venue to California Avenue 27) Bowdoin Street from Stanford Avenue to College Avenue 28) Bowdoin Street from College A venue to California Avenue 29) . Amherst Street from Stanford Avenue to College Avenue 30) Amherst Street from College Avenue to California Avenue 31) Staunton Court from Oxford Avenue to College Avenue East-West Blocks 1) Stanford Avenue from El Camino Real to Yale Street 2) Stanford Avenue from Yale Street to Williams Street 3) Stanford Avenue from Williams Street to Wellesley Street 4) Stanford Avenue from Wellesley Street to Cornell Street 5) Stanford A venue from Cornell Street to Princeton Street 6) Stanford Avenue from Princeton Street to Oberlin Street 7) Stanford Avenue from Oberlin Street to Harvard Street 8) Stanford A venue from Harvard Street to Escondido Street 9) Stanford Avenue from Escondido Street to Hanover Street 10) Stanford Avenue from Hanover Street to Dartmouth Street 11) Stanford Avenue from Dartmouth Street to Columbia Street 12) Stanford Avenue from Columbia Street to Bowdoin Street 13) Stanford Avenue from Bowdoin Street to Amherst Street 14) College Avenue from Yale Street to Williams Street 15) CS'5llege Avenue from Williams Street to Wellesley Street 16) College Avenue from Wellesley Street to Cornell Street 17) College A venue from Cornell Street to Princeton Street 18) College Avenue from Princeton Street to Oberlin Street 19) College Avenue from Oberlin Street to Harvard Street 20) College Avenue from Harvard Street to Hanover Street 4 090917 syn 0120406 NOT YET APPROVED 21) College Avenue from Hanover Street to Dartmouth Street 22) College Avenue from Dartmouth Street to Columbia Street 23) College Avenue from Columbia Street to Bowdoin Street 24) College Avenue from Bowdoin Street to Amherst Street 25) California A venue from Yale Street to Williams Street 26) California Avenue from Williams Street to Wellesley Street 27) California A venue from Wellesley Street to Cornell Street 28) California A venue from Cornell Street to Princeton Street 29) California A venue from Princeton Street to Oberlin Street 30) California A venue from Oberlin Street to Harvard Street 31) California Avenue from Harvard Street to Hanover Street 32) California A venue from Hanover Street to Dartmouth Street 33) California Avenue from Dartmouth Street to Columbia Street 34) California A venue from Columbia Street to Bowdoin Street 35) California Avenue from Bowdoin Street to Amherst Street 36) Oxford Avenue from Stanton Court to Yale Street 37) Cambridge Avenue from EI Camino Real to Yale Street (c) "College Terrace" means the area bounded by EI Camino Real on the east, Amherst Street on the west, California A venue on the south, and Stanford A venue on the north. The residential portion of the CN zone on the east side of Yale Street, the north side of Cambridge A venue, the west side of Stanton Court and Oxford A venue from Staunton Court to Yale, is also included in the boundary of College Terrace. Areas, including block faces on the north side of Stanford Avenue and on the south side of California A venue are excluded. (d) "Day care center" means and includes any state-licensed day care center with five or more employees. (e) "Designated residential parking area," sometimes referred to as "residential permit parking area," means any block upon which the Council imposes parking limitations pursuant to the authority granted by this chapter. (f) "Guest parking permit" means a parking permit issued pursuant to this chapter or an ordinance or resolution enacted pursuant to authority granted herein, which when displayed upon a motor vehicle, as described herein, shall exempt the motor vehicle from parking time restrictions established pursuant to this chapter. (g) "Guest" means an individual who calls upon a resident in the designated residential permit parking area with specific intent to spend time in or about that resident's residence for the purpose of social intercourse or to provide a service. r i (h) "Motor vehicle" means and includes automobile, truck, motorcycle or other motor driven form of transportation. (i) "Neighborhood-serving establishment" means all libraries, schools, day care centers, and nonprofit public service organizations. 5 090917 syn 0120406 NOT YET APPROVED 0) "Nonresident vehicle" means a motor vehicle not eligible to be issued a residential parking permit, pursuant to the terms and conditions of this chapter, for the specific area in which it is parked. (k) "One-day guest parking permit" means a parking permit issued pursuant to this chapter which when displayed upon a motor vehicle, as described herein, shall exempt the motor vehicle from parking time restrictions established pursuant to this chapter or an ordinance or resolution enacted pursuant to authority granted herein, for the date indicated upon the face of said permit. (1) "Residential parking permit" means a permit issued under this chapter which, when displayed upon a motor vehicle, as described herein, shall exempt said motor vehicle from parking time restrictions established pursuant to this chapter. (m) "Residence" means a legal residential address and shall exclude business addresses. (n) "Resident" means any person sixteen (16) years of age or older whose legal residential address is in the designated residential permit parking area. (0) "RPPP" means residential parking permit program. (P) "RPPP year" means and includes the days between September 1 and August 31 of the following year. (q) "School" means and includes any state-licensed preschool, elementary, middle, junior high, or high school with five or more employees. 10.28.020 Permit parking exemption. (a) A motor vehicle displaying a valid residential parking permit issued pursuant to the terms of this Chapter shall be permitted to stand or be parked in the residential permit parking area for which the permit has been issued, without being limited by time restrictions established pursuant to this chapter. Any motor vehicle that does not display a valid residential parking permit shall be subject to the time restrictions and consequent penalties in effect for the residential permit parking area. (b) A residential parking permit shall not guarantee or reserve to the holder thereof an on-street parking space within the designated residential permit parking area. r I (c) This chapter shall not exempt the permit parking holder from other traffic controls and regulations existing in the designated residential permit parking area. (d) This chapter shall not permit the permit parking holder to leave standing his or her vehicle for more than seventy-two (72) hours. 6 090917 syn 0120406 NOT YET APPROVED 10.28.030 Designation of initial residential permit parking area. The initial residential permit parking area is identified in the Updated College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program map, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference. 10.28.040 Designation of additional residential permit parking area. (a) City staff shall consider for designation any proposed block in College Terrace for which a petition has been submitted which meets and satisfies the following requirements: (1) The petition shall contain a description or a map showing the proposed residential permit parking area. (2) Said description or map shall be followed in the petition by the following statement: "We~ the undersigned, are residents in the proposed residential permit parking area described in this petition. We understand that, if this area is designated as a residential permit parking area, certain restrictions will be placed upon on-street parking within the designated area; that subject to the regulations and restrictions established by the City Council, guests to residences will be eligible to use permits exempting them from such parking restrictions; that the annual fee for a residential parking permit will be as set forth in the City of Palo Alto Municipal Fee Schedule; that a residential parking permit may be issued to a resident of a residential address and/or to each additional resident of the same address; that no more than one residential parking permit shall be issued to each motor vehicle owned or leased for which application is made; that fees for guest parking permits (either one-day or annual guest parking permits) are as set forth in the City Municipal Fee Schedule. We the undersigned hereby request that the Council of the City of Palo Alto consider this petition for establishment of the above described areas as a residential permit parking area." (3) The aforementioned statement shall be followed by a signature, printed name~ address, and date of signing of the petition by residents representing at least fifty-one (51) percent of the addresses within each proposed block. In addition, the petition sponsor must certify that a reasonable means of inquiry was undertaken to assure the validity of petition signatures. Receipt of a petition representing at least fifty-one (51) percent of the addresses within a proposed area will initiate the residential permit parking review process. Subsequent counter petitions received from residents within a proposed block will be reviewed, but they will in no waX" invalidate the initial petition requesting establishment of residential permit parking or terminate the review process. (4) Both sides of a street must be included in each block area unless determined by the City Manager or his or her designee to be impractical or undesirable. 7 090917 syn 0120406 NOT YET APPROVED (b) Upon receipt by City staff of a petition as described in subsection (a) of this section, City staff shall: (1) Undertake or cause to be undertaken such surveys or studies deemed necessary; (2) Conduct an official voting ballot of the blocks requesting participation in the RPPP. The ballot shall allow each residence to vote in favor or against the RPPP and their block to be included in the program. All blocks with at least fifty-one (51) percent of the addresses supporting the RPPP will be considered for inclusion in the program. (3) Cause to be drafted a resolution which would establish a residential permit parking area based upon the aforementioned petition, survey, studies and vote, including any regulations and time restrictions as established in this chapter. (c) The City Council may approve, reject, or modifY the resolution establishing a residential permit parking area. The City Council must approve the resolution in order to establish a residential permit parking area. (d) Blocks determined to meet the established requirements set forth herein will be included in the current RPPP year and terminating no less than one (1) year following. 10.28.050 Withdrawal as a residential permit parking area. (a) Once a block is enrolled, there is a one year waiting period before it may withdraw from the RPPP program. A block may withdraw from the program following submission of a petition by the following statement: (1) We, the undersigned, are residents in the College Terrace residential permit parking area described in this petition. We request that the block described in this petition be removed from the College Terrace residential parking permit program. We understand that, if this area is removed as a residential permit parking area that nonresidents may park along the block without time restrIctions of the RPPP but it does not exempt vehicles from other traffic controls and regulations existing in the College Terrace neighborhood. (2) The aforementioned statement shall be followed by a signature, printed name, address, and date of signing of the petition by residents representing at least fifty-one (51) percent of the addresses within each proposed block requesting removal from the program. In addition, the petition sponsor must certifY that a reasonable means of inquiry was undertaken to assure the validity of petition signatures. Receipt of a petition representing at least fifty-one (51) percent of the addresses within a proposed area will initiate the residential permit parking withdrawfll process. The city shall conduct an official vote of the blocks requesting withdrawal in the RPPP. Results of the petition and vote will be used in determining whether the block may be removed from the program. Removal from the RPPP shall be administered by the City Manager or his or her designee. 8 090917 syn 0120406 NOT YET APPROVED 10.28.060 Issuance of residential parking permits. (a) Residential parking, permits shall be issued by the Administrative Services Department's Revenue Collections Division in accordance with requirements set forth in this chapter. Each such permit shall be designed to state or reflect thereon the identification of the particular residential permit parking area (Le. College Terrace) as well as the license number of the motor vehicle for which it is issued. No more than one residential parking permit shall be issued to each motor vehicle owned or leased for which application is made. (b) Revenue Collections shall issue residential parking permits with a term of one year from September 1 to August 31 regardless of when during the year a resident purchases the parking permit, to motor vehicles which comply with the requirements set forth in this chapter. Purchase of permits will be available starting 30 days prior to the beginning of the next RPPP year. A grace period will be recognized from September 1 to September 30 for residents with a permit from the previous year. Vehicles displaying a permit from the previous year will not be cited during the grace period. (c) Residents applying for a permit will be required to provide proof of vehicle ownership and residency. A vehicle registration form as well as one of the following shall be required at the time of registration showing College Terrace residency: • Driver's license -indicating College Terrace Address • Rental agreement with name of resident • Current (i.e. not more than 60 days old) utility bill with street address noted (d) One residential parking permit may be issued for each vehicle owned, leased or any person who can demonstrate that they are currently a resident of the area for which the permit is to be issued. (e) A residential parking permit may be issued for any vehicle owned, leased or any person who is employed ,by or a representative of a neighborhood-serving establishment located within the particular residential permit parking area. Each employee or representative of a neighborhood-serving establishment will be allowed to obtain one permit for each vehicle they own or lease subject to the following criteria which shall be used to establish the eligibility of a neighborhood-serving establishment and the maximum number of permits to be issued: (1) An establishment for which there is no off-street parking and no financially feasible way of creating adequate off-street parking on the site of the establishment; (2) In areas where it appears that the number of permits sold per block would exceed the number oflegal on-street parking spaces per block the initial sale would be limited to two or possibly one permit per neighborhood-serving establishment; (3) Distribution of permits shall be through a designated representative of the establishment who will be responsible for allocation of the permits to employees. 9 090917 syn 0120406 NOT YET APPROVED (f) Renewal of residential parking permits shall be subject to the same conditions imposed on new permits. (g) The residential parking permit shall consist of a bumper sticker that is to be affixed to the left side of the rear bumper or on the outside of the rear window on the lower left hand comer. (h) Revenue Collections is authorized to issue such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with this chapter, governing the issuance and display of residential parking permits. (i) Any person to whom a residential parking permit has been issued pursuant to this section shall be deemed a parking permit holder. 10.28.070 Guest permits. (a) Revenue Collections shall issue guest parking permits in accordance with this section. A guest parking permit shall be of limited duration, but shall otherwise grant to the holder thereof all the rights and privileges of a regular residential parking permit. Guest parking permit shall be of two types: . (1) One-day guest parking permits; and (2) Annual guest parking permits. (b) A one-day guest parking permit shall clearly display the date upon which it becomes effective, and shall designate the particular residential permit parking area for which it applies (Le. College Terrace). A one-day guest parking permit shall, during the date indicated upon the face of said permit, exempt the applicable vehicle from parking time restrictions established pursuant to this chapter. (c) An annual guest parking permit shall, for the period between September 1 and August 31 of the following year exempt the applicable vehicle from parking time restrictions established pursuant to this chapter. (d) Guest passes shall hang from the rear view mirror and must be clearly displayed in this fashion. (e) Revenue Collections is authorized to establish rules and regulations, not inconsistent with this chapter, concerning the issuance and display of guest parking permits to permit holders. f ; (f) An eligible applicant for a guest parking permit shall be any person having obtained a residential parking permit pursuant to criteria set forth in this chapter, but no more than two annual guest parking permits per address shall be issued during a single RPPP year. 10 090917 syn 0120406 NOT YET APPROVED (g) The total number of one-day guest permits issued will be limited to 20 permits in a 3-month calendar quarter. (h) The use of guest permits is restricted to visitors to the permit parking area. Holders of residential parking permits are prohibited from displaying guest permits in the permit parking area. 1028.080 Parking permit fees. (a) The initial purchase of a residential parking permit for a vehicle owned or leased of a resident and registered at a qualifYing residence in addition to vehicles owned, leased of an owner or employee of a qualifYing neighborhood serving center shall be assessed the corresponding fees set forth in the city Municipal Fee Schedule. (b) Renewal of residential parking permits shall be subject to the fees set forth in the ,city Municipal Fee Schedule. (c) Replacement of stolen, lost, or damaged residential parking permits shall be subject to the fees set forth in the city Municipal Fee Schedule. (d) Lost or stolen guest permits will be subjected to a higher replacement fee as set forth in the City Municipal Fee Schedule. (e) The fee for each guest parking permit (one-day and annual) will be as set forth in the city Municipal Fee Schedule. (f) Residential parking permit fees will be pro-rated for half year increments. Thus permits applied for between September 1 and the last day of February pay full price. Permits applied for between March 1 and August 31 pay half price. (g) One-day guest permits pay full price. (h) No partial'or full refund will be administered for any resident or guest permit. (i) Residents will be required to complete their initial application for the resident permit and guest passes in person at the Revenue Collections office at the City of Palo Alto City Hall located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Subsequent renewal of the resident permit and guest passes will also required to be completed in person at the Revenue Collections office. 10.28.090 f' , Time limitations. (a) Upon the adoption by the City Council of the resolution designating a residential permit parking area, City staff shall cause appropriate signs to be erected in the area, indicating prominently thereon the time limitation, period of the day for its application, and conditions under which permit parking shall be exempt therefrom. 11 090917 syn 0120406 NOT YET APPROVED (b) Vehicles not displaying a valid residential parking permit may park up to two (2) hours. After the two hour period, vehicles will be prohibited from re-parking within the same block. These limits will be enforced every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except holidays. Vehicles not displaying a valid permit during these periods and exceeding the two (2) hour maximum parking allowance may be cited pursuant to section 1O.44.010(c) of this Code. All vehicles may utilize on-street parking in College Terrace outside of this specified enforcement period. (c) For the first 90 days following the effective date of this Ordinance, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall provide monthly updates to the neighborhood and residents of the permit parking area, outlining the parking conditions in the neighborhood as compared to parking conditions prior to implementation. The Director shall also, not later than 3 months after implementation of the program, provide an informational report to the City Council summarizing such information and, if deemed necessary, outlining changes to the residential permit parking regulations. If the Director determines that parking problems are not substantially addressed by the program. The Director may, after consultation and input from the neighborhood, implement such changes to the time limitations described in subsection (b). These may include, but are not limited to: 1. No re-parking after 2 hours anywhere within the neighborhood area ii. No re-parking after 2 hours within a specific subarea of the neighborhood If recommended by the Director, the revisions to the RPPP shall be installed not later than 30 days after presentation and notice to the neighborhood. If, during the 30 day period, a minimum of 25% of the program participants provide written requests for Council review of the changes, implementation shall be delayed until the Council reviews the changes at the soonest available date." ( c) Ambulances, fire department vehicles, police vehicles or public utilities vehicles which have an official seal or logo identifying them as such shall be exempt from the time restrictions established in this subsection. (d) Motor vehicles identified as used by disabled persons meeting the requirements of Section 22511.5 of the California Vehicle Code shall be exempt from time posted time limitations. 10.28.100 Revocation of permit. In addition to all other remedies, the City may temporarily revoke (for a period of time not to exceed ten working days) the residential parking permit of any person found to be in violation of this chapter by providing written notice of the temporary revocation to the permittee. Such wrip:en notice shall include a statement outlining the grounds for revoking the permit as well as the date, time, and place set for a hearing before the Hearing Officer or his or her representative to determine if the revocation shall be in effect until the expiration of the permit. Written notice of the date, time and place of such hearing shall be served upon the permittee five days prior to the date set for such hearing. 12 090917 syn 0120406 NOT YET APPROVED At the hearing before the Hearing Officer or his or her representative, the permittee shall have the right to be represented by an attorney, and/or to present evidence and a written or oral argument, or both. No decision shall be invalidated because of the admission into the record and the use of any proof of any fact in dispute of any evidence not admissible under the common law or statutory rules of evidence. Within five working days after close of hearing, the Hearing Officer or his or her representative shall enter his or her decision based upon the record presented and notify the permittee in writing of such decision. The decision of the Hearing Officer shall be final. Failure, when so requested, to surrender a residential parking permit so revoked shall constitute a violation of this chapter. Any such violation is a misdemeanor. There will be no refunds for revoked permits. 10.28.110. Violation--Penalty. (a) It is unlawful and shall constitute a violation of this chapter for any person to stand or park a motor vehicle, without a current residential parking permit properly displayed, at a curb within a residential permit parking area for a period of time exceeding the time limitation established for such area. (b) The following shall be unlawful: (1) For any person to falsely represent himself or herself as eligible for a parking permit or to furnish false information in an application therefore; (2) For any person holding a valid parking permit issued pursuant hereto to permit use or display of or to use or display such permit on a motor vehicle other than that for which the permit was issued; (3) For any person to copy, reproduce or otherwise bring into existence a facsimile or counterfeit parking permit or permits without written authorization from Revenue Collections; . (4) For any person to knowingly use or display a facsimile or counterfeit parking permit in order to evade time limitations on parking applicable in a residential parking permit area; r (5) For any person holding a valid parking permit issued pursuant hereto to sell, give or exchange said permit to any other person; (6) For any person to knowingly commit any act which is prohibited by the terms of this chapter or any ordinance enacted by authority granted by this chapter. 13 090917 syn 0120406 NOT YET APPROVED 10.28.120 Chapter interpretation. Staff has discretion in the implementation, and/or interpretation ofthis chapter. SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Code herein adopted will have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 5. date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM,: Assistant City Attorney r ; 090917 syn 0120406 Thi~ ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the 14 Mayor APPROVED: City Manager Director of Planning & Community Environment EXHIBIT A UPDATED COLLEGE TERRACE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM (RPPP) Escondido Escondido School Bowdoin r I 1: S c: <II U5 I OJ 1: 0> S .!!! X (5 0 u EI Camino Real OJ 0> "U ~ E ro u I I I ro '1: g iii u I LEGEND • RPPP enforcement area (Represents 51 % of the number of households on a block that voted "yes") Hanover r j I I I I ATTACHMENTB ORDINANCE NO.xxxx ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS OF $202,639 WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM FUND FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COLLEGE TERRACE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM (RPPP) . The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 15, 2009 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2010; and B. In 2000, as part of Condition of Approval H.2.a., of the Stanford University's 2000 County General Use Permit, Stanford University was required to provide a $100,000 deposit to the City of Palo Alto for a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) for the College Terrace neighborhood; and C. These funds were specifically designated for the consider~tion and initiation of a RPPP and were deposited with the City in October 2001; and D. On July 30, 2007, in response to a Colleagues Memorandum from then Mayor Kishimoto and Council Members Beecham and Drekmeier, Council members recommended that Council direct sta to initiate an assessment of a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) in ~ollege Terrace; and E. Staff was authorized to retain outside expertise as needed to supplement staff, using an initial contribution of $100,000 deposited by Stanford University's General Use Permit; and F. In January 2008, sta retained the services of a transportation consultant, expending $46,200 of the $100,000 Stanford University General Use Permit deposit, to initiate and develop,a Residential Parking Permit Program in College Terrace; I and G. A Project Advisory Committee (PAC) consisting of eight College Terrace residents appointed by the College Terrace Residents Association (CTRA) Board, staff from Transportation, Police Department, Revenue Collections, and consultant was formed to work on the development of the RPPP; and H. Sta presented to the City Council on July 6, 2009, the results of parking occupancy study conducted by the transportation consultant, the results of neighborhood surveys, program options and details, and recommendations from staff, the PAC and CTRA; and I. Council approved the elements of an Ordinance for the College Terrace RPPP and directed staff to attempt to expedite the implementation process to be place prior to the start of 2009 Stanford fall quarter and accept additional parking program petitions from College Terrace; and J. Sta established a new Special Revenue-Residential Parking Permit Program Fund (Fund 239) to capture and segregate the revenues and expenses of the program; and K. The adopted budget for fiscal year 2010 did not incorporate revenues and expenses related to the RPPP for College Terrace in the ,Special Revenue-Residential Parking Permit Program Fund (Fund 239); and L. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2010 budget of the Special Revenue-Residential Parking Permit Program Fund (Fund 239) for College Terrace to make an additional appropriation of Two Hundred Two Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Nine Dollars ($202,639) in expenses ($81,715 sa ry expenses and $ 0,924 in nonsalary expenses); and M. City Council authoriz~tion is needed to transfer the balance of the Stanford University's General Use Permit deposit totaling $53,800 from the General Fund to the Special Revenue- Resident Parking Permit Program Fund; and N. City Council authorization is needed to trans the interest earned on the $100,000 Stanford University's General Use Permit deposit totaling $36,839 from the General Fund to the Special Revenue-Residential Parking Permit Program Fund; and SECTION 2. by the sum ($90,639-) . As Reserve)will be The Budget Stabilization Reserve is hereby decreased Ninety thousand six hundred thirty nine dollars a result of this change the Budget Stabilization reduced from $22,225,000 to $22,134,361. As specified in Section 2.2B.OBO(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance SECTION 3. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that this is not a proj ect under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. SECTION 4. As prov~ded in Section 2.04.350 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney I' 1 APPROVED: Mayor City Manager Director Services of Administrative f , I I ATTACHMENT C City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environm.entai Quality A.ct DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLAFATION I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: June 11,2009 Project Name: Project Location: Applicant: Owner: Project Description: College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program The project area is the College Terrace Neighborhood and is located in the southern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and west of State Route 82 (EI Camino Real), and is bounded by EI Camino Real on the east side, California Avenue on the south side, Amherst Street on the west side and Stanford A venue on the north. City of Palo Alto, Transportation Division City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 The proposed project, the Residential Parking Permit Program, requires participants to purchase a parking permit (resident permit, guest permit, or day permit) for display on their vehicles that would allow use of on-street parking, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods and exceeding the two hour maximum parking allowance will be cited by the Police Department. As pali of the RPPP, permit parking/2 hour signs will be installed on affected blocks. Depending on the length of the block, approximately 2-3 signs will be placed on each block face to warn drivers that the street block is designated as residential parking permit only. The signs will be placed between property lines and behind the sidewalk. The signs will be no larger the 14 inches by 20 inches in size. The signs will be a minimum 7 feet high from the ground to the bottom of the sign. Sign P9les will be 2-inch tubular galvanized steel post and will be posted 24 inches below ground and surrounded by 6 inches of concrete. No damage will be done to existing landscaped areas. II. DETERMINATION r In accordance with the City of Palo Alto's procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project could have a Significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: Page I of 2 The pr,{])pose{l pil."ojec:t COULD NOT ha:v:e a significant effed on llh'e envi;ro:nment, aino a NEGATIVE DECLARt\ 'IION as herehy adopted. Although. th.e project, as proposed, couM hay~ a signiflze'Blnt eff.e£t on tht: envlronment, there win not be a signHlcant -effect on the environment in this case because mitigat.ion measures for traffic impacts have been added to th~ project and, tnerefOlr£, a IHITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. r I Date Page 2 of 2 ENVJRONMENTAL CHECKLJST FORM rtment 'Of P! PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1, PROJECT TITLE College Terrace Residential Parlcing Permit Program 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME Al~D ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Shahla Yazdy City of Palo Alto 650-617 -3151 4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND AQDRESS Shahla Yazdy, Transportation Engineer Transportation Division 5. APPLICATION NUMBER Not applicable 6. PROJECT LOCATION College Terrace Neighborhood Palo Alto, CA City of PaJQ Alto and Commu Envkcmmerrt The project site is located in the southern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and west of State Route 82 (El Camino Real). The College Terrace Neighbornood is bounded by E1 Camino Real on the east side, California Avenue on the south side, Amherst Street on the west side and Stanford A venue on the north as shown on Figure 2. College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 1 Figure 1: CityofPaio Alto Figure 2. CoJlege Terrace Neighborhood F i College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 2 1. GENERo..L PLAN DESIGN.ll. TION: The College Terrace neighborhood is designated as Single Family Residential in the Palo Alto 1998 -2010 Comprehensive Plan. The area predominantly contains single-family residences except for a small amount of commercial uses along Camino Real. Main land uses surrounding College Terrace area consist of Stanford University on the north and west sides and Stanford Research Park on the south side. 8. ZONING Zoning within the College Terrace neighborhood includes Single-Family Residential (R-I), Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District (RivID), Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (1'i'P), Public Facilities District (PF) and Neighborhood Commercial (CN). 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Background The College Terrace neighborhood, located adjacent to Stanford University and Stanford Research Park, has historically been affected by large amounts of non-neighborhood traffic and parking. Residents continue to suffer from a longstanding and growing problem with daytime and night time parking of students and employees of the university and other nearby employers who regularly park on neighborhood streets to avoid the cost of parking permits or because of convenience. Increasingly, as Stanford works to discourage commute trips onto campus, more people park nearby and walk, bike or take the Marguerite Shuttle to their campus destination. The construction of multi-story graduate student housing immediately adjacent to Stanford Avenue has added to.the problem as well, since some of the student residents and guests prefer to park on nearby city streets rather than in campus parking facilities. The nature of the College Terrace neighborhood compounds these problems. Small lots and relatively dense housing is common throughout. Many residents have inadequate or no off-street parking. Drivers frequently park too close to intersections, driveways and fire hydrants, creating visibility and safety hazards. This is especially problematic along Stanford Avenue, a route used by many children who walk or bike to school. In January 2008, staff retained the services of transportation consultants, Kimley Hom and Associates, to initiate and develop a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) in College Terrace. A Project Advisory Committee (PAC) consisting of eight College Terrace residents appointed by the College Terrace Resident's Association Board, staff from Transportation, Police and Revenue Collections Department and consultants, was formed to work on the development of the Residential Parking Permit Program. In early March 2008, in order to understand the current on-street parking conditions in the College Terrace neighborhood, to document baseline parking demand in the neighborhood and to help establish how much of the neighborhood should be included in the program, a parking occupancy study was conducted for both a weekday (Thursday, March 61\ 2008) and a weekend day (Saturday, March lSI, 2008). On each day vehicle occupancies were surveyed midday (roughly 12 p.m. to 1 p.m.) and in the evening (roughly 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.). On weelCday evenings, the higher occupancies were found to be spread more evenly throughout the neighborhood. There was still a high percentage of parked cars along Stanford Avenue and in the commercial area, but there were also higher percentages along the cross streets within the neighborhood as well as along College A venue. There was found to be relatively low parking density along California Avenue during the College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 3 evening hours, most likely since the main non-residential usage along Califomia A vt:TIue is Stanford Resear<:h Park, which would tend to empty in the nIghttime hours. Weekend midday survey shmved a high density of parking in the r::ornmercial district and along some areas of Stanford A venue. College A venue and some of the cross streets had areas of higher parking occupancies, while California Avenue again displayed lower occupancies. In summary, driving both midday and evening time periods on a typical weekday and weekend day, the on- street parking levels of College Terrace were found to be relatively high in specific areas. Proposed Project The proposed project, the Residential Parking Permit Program, requires participants to purchase a parking pennit (resident pennit, guest pennit, or day permit) for display on their vehicles that would allow use of on- street parking, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods and exceeding the two hour maximum parking allowance will be cited by the Police Department. As part of the RPPP, "Pennit Parking/2 hour" signs will be installed on affected blocks. Depending on the length of the block, approximately 2-3 signs will be placed on each block face to warn drivers that the street block is designated as residential parking permit only. The signs will be placed between property lines and behind the sidewalk. The signs will be .no larger the 14 inches by 20 inches in size. The signs will be a minimum 7 feet high from the ground to the bottom of the sign. Sign poles will be 2-inch tubular galvanized steel post and will be posted 24 inches below ground and surrounded by 6 inches of concrete. No damage will be done to existing landscaped areas. A workable community majority has been reached in favor of the Residential Parking Permit Program. The percentage of homes on a block that must approve a RPPP petition to be considered and to go into effect is set at 51% of households on a street block. Initially, it is anticipated that approximately 25 blocks will participate, but wil1likely expand into other blocks ofthe College Terrace neighborhood. 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The neighborhood consists primarily of single family residential properties, with some neighborhood and regional/community commercial properties on the easterly edges of the neighborhood adjacent to El Camino Real. Local parks are located within College Terrace neighborhood. Stanford University is located on the north and west sides of College Terrace area. Stanford Research Park is located on the area's south side. 11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES REQUIRING REVIEW None r I College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 4 ENVIRONlVIENTAL CIIECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF lIVIPACTS· EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) 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 follO\;ving each question. [A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the r·eferenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impactll answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will 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 EJR is required. 4) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less 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 EIR, 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 Used. 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 (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page 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 mitigiiion measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. College Terrace Residential Parking Program Page 5 DISCUSSION OF Il\'IPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identity environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. Th.e left-hand colum.,'1 in the checklist lists rhe source(s) for the answer to esch 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 Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Would the project: Mitigation Incorporated a) Substantially degrade the existing visual 1,2,4 X character or quality of the site and its surroundings? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1,4 X public view or view corridor? 2-Map L4 c) Substantially damage scenic resources, 1,4 X including, but not limited to, trees, rock 2-Map L4 outcroppings, and historic buildings within i a state scenic highway? d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan 1,4, X policies regarding visual resources? e) Create a new source of substantial light or 1,2,4 X glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? f) Substantially shadow public open space 1,2,4 X (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a,m. and 3:00 I p.rn. from September 21 to March 21? DISCUSSION: The Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) would result in some street signs placed in the neighborhood where residents have requested to have parking permits on their street block. These signs will be noticeable but are not uncharacteristic features of a typical streetscape. The proposed signs will not detract from the residential character of the streets nor will it significantly ,degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and surroundings. It is anticipated that the implementation of the RPPP will actually help improve the street aesthetics (where applicable) as it will reduce the number of non-resident vehicles from parking on the residential streets, The proposed project will not damage scenic resources, creative new source of light or glare that will impact views in the area nor shadow public open spaces. The project area does not include designated scenic routes as indicated by the California State Department of Transportation, . Mitigation Measures: None required /' B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant envirorrmental 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 agriculture and farmland. College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 6 i Issues and Supporting InformatBim Resources I Sour·ces Potentially 1 Potentially Less Tban f No SignHitant Significant Signifitalrt I Impad WQulrl the project; Issu~5 Unless impa~t , Mitigation Incorporated ., Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, 1 '"' I I :( dJ ~ ,.1.. i or Farmland of Statewide Importance I I (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared ! pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and I Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2- use, or a Williamson Act contract? MapL9 X I c) Involve other changes in the existing 1 environment which, due to their location or I a) b) nature, could result in conversion of X Farmland, to non-agricultural use? I DISCUSSION: The site is not located in a "Prime 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 will not convert or result in the conversion of farmland and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None required C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation i Incornorated Conflict with or obstruct with implementation 1 X of the applicable air quahtyplan (1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)? Violate any air quality standard or contribute 1 X substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation indicated by the following; i. Direct and/or indirect operational 1 X emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine particul5lte matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PMlO); 11. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) 1,2 X concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 7 I ssues an dS f I f f R uppor mg • n firma lOn . es()u:r.ces s . ()UriCfS P f H {It<fn lay p t' II oten III y L Th ;ess an N 1 0 I Significant I Signliicant Significant I I \Yould the pro}eet: I Issues Unless Impact I i I I Mitigation I , illcorporated ! demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, I i I 'which would be performed when a) project , I I I CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day I or 100 tons per year; or b) proj ect traffic I I would impact intersections or roadway li~s operating at Level of Service (LOS) , D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or c) project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by I 10% or more)? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 1,2 X increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) ? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels 1 X of toxic air contaminants? 1. Probability of contracting cancer for the 1 X Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl) exceeds 10 in one million 11. Ground-level concentrations ofnon-1 X carcinogenic TACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEl e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 1 X substantial number of people? f) Not implement all applicable construction 1,2 X emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? DISCUSSION: The proposed Residential Parking Permit Program will not conflict with any applicable air quality plans, expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants, nor add any objectionable odors to the neighborhood. This program will not contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard and will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions from stationary sources in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and through its planning and review process. All development in Palo Alto is subject to the BAAQMD regulations. r J Mitigation Measures: None required College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 8 Do BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES i Issues and Supporting Information ReSOUf1:fS I Sourczs Potentially i Potentially I Less Than :'11) I S i gnifi call t Significant Significant Impact I Would the project: I Issues I Unless I Impact I I I Mitigation I I Incorporated i a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 1, , X I , I ! I I I directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, 2-MapNI or special status species in local or regional 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 1, X riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 2-MapNI community identified in local or regional plans, 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 interruption, or other means? c) Interfere substantially with the movement of 1, X any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 2-MapNI species or with established native resident or I migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,2,5 X protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.1 O)? e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat 1,2 X Conservation Plan, Natural Cpmmunity 1 Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? i DISCUSSION: The proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any species, or have any substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, or interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources (trees), such as a tree preservation policy or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project area is entirely within the urban setting, with urban adapted wildlife species. There are no native habitats, sensitive plant or wildlife species, or adopted Habitat Conservation Plans for the project area, nor are there any wetlands that could be affected by the proposed project. r I Mitigation Measures: None required College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 9 l E. CULTURAL RESOURCES ! Issues and Supportlng :l.nformati,on Res;(}u:rees ; Sourtfs I Potentially Pot"ntially I i~ss Than I Nv in:qJ:tct I I Signifh::mt Significant Significant I I I Issues Unless Impa<:t I 'Would the project: f Mitigation j ! I Incornonued I a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural 1,2 I X resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? I b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1, X significance of an archaeological resource 2-MapL8 I pursuant to 15064.5? I c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1, X paleontological resource or site or unique 2-MapL8 geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1, X interred outside of formal cemeteries? 2-MapL8 e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or 1,2-X eligible for listing on the National and/or MapL7 California Register, or listed on the City's Historic Inventory? f) Eliminate important examples of major periods 1 X of California history or prehistory? I DISCUSSION: Much of the City of Palo Alto is identified in the Comprehensive Plan EIR (1996) as having at least moderate sensitivity with respect to archaeological resources. Several pockets of "Extreme Sensitivity" are also indicated. The proposed project has virtually no potential to impact archaeological resources. This project does not involve widening onto previously undisturbed ground that wouldhavea potential for impacting archaeological resources. There are no known historical resources that would be impacted by the proposed project. None of the project features are located in areas of known paleontological resources or unique geological features. In addition, implementation of project sign poles would not involve excavation to depths that would reveal unknown paleontological resources. This project will not directly or indirectly destroy any local cultural resources, directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or disturb any human remains, or adversely affect any historical resources listed. Mitigation Measures: None required F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan t Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated i a) Expose people 6r structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk ofloss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a lrnown earthquake fault, 1,2 X as delineated on the most recent College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 10 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a bown fault? Refer to Division of Mines and I I Geology Special Publication 42. I ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 11 2-I I X I MapN10 I I iii) Seismic-related ground failure, 1,2-MapNS X including liquefaction? I I iv) Landslides? 1,2-MapNS X I I b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss 1 I X I of topsoil? c) Result in substantial siltation? 1 I X d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 1,2-MapNS X unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or' off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 1,2-MapNS X Table l8-l-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? f) Have soils incapable of adequately 1 X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ! g) Expose people or property to major 1,2 X ! geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? DISCUSSION: This proposed project is located in the seismica1ly active San Francisco Bay area and an area with expansive soils, but this project would not increase the risk to the public and safety or increase the potential for geo-seismic hazards. The project streets are located in an area of high potential for surface rupture along fault traces and potential for earthquake induced landslides where sloped. Since the project streets are on flatlands, there is no impact. The proposed project will not create any new geology, soils and seismicity impacts. The City is subject to fault rupture and related seismic shaking from several faults in the area (Comprehensive Plan, 1996). The risk associated with the project is no greater than any other construction activity and, in fact, is considered low because of the relatively small amount of construction involved and its short duration. Once implemented, the project would not significantly 'expose people or structures to hazards associated with fault rupture to any greater seismic risk than that which would otherwise be experienced. Mitigation Measures: None required College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 11 G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS r~JATEruALS ?.fote: Some of the threshold:; can also be dealt l"v'ith under a topic heading of Public Health and Sa(e1:1J if the primary issues are related to a subjecI oiher them hazardous material use. Issues and Supporting Information R.esources SO!liCeS Potentialiy Potentially I Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the prnject: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1 1,2 X environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? I b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,2 X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? . c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous 1,2 X or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile oEan existing or proposed school? d) Construct a school on a property that is subject 1,:2 X to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions or accidental release? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list 1,2-MapN9 X of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the puhlic or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use 1 X plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1 X airstrip, would the project result ina safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? h) Impair implementation of or physically 1,2-MapN7 X interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 2-MapN7 X of loss, injury, or death involving wildland flres, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,2 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 site? College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 12 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) DISCUSSION; The proposed project will not create any new hazards and hazardous materials The project implementa~ion includes improveoents entirely within the public right-of-way. Tne project not increase the exposure to hazardous materials. The project area does not include any hazardous materials The project is not within 1/4 mile of the ru,'1way at Palo Alto airport, the only airport within Palo Alto. The project streets are not identified in city of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as primary evacuation routes, nor are they located in areas of wildland fire risk. Mitigation Measures: None required H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No . Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Violate any water quality standards or waste 1,2 X discharge requirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 1,2-X interfere substantially with groundwater MapN2 recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering ofthe local groundwater table level (e.g., 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 permits have ! been granted)? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,2 X 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 erosion or siltation on-or off-site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,2 X 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 in flooding on-or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water which would 1,2 X exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? i Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? i 1,2 X Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard 1 1,2 X area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard r Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area 12-MapN6 X structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? • Expose people or structures to a significant risk I College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 13 of loss, injury or death involve flooding, I i includi.11g flooding as a result of the failure of a 2-MapN6 I I X levee or dam or located witr,in a 100-year i I flood hazard area'? i I : j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? I 1 I j X i ! I k) Result in stream ban.!.;: instability? 1,2:-Map I I V I .1'- r N2 DISCUSSION: The proposed project would comply with City, State and Federal standard pertaining to water quality and waste discharge and storm water run-off. City standard conditions of approval require incorporation of Best Management Practices for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations. The project would not create any new water quality and hydrology impacts. Mitigation Measures: None,required I. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 1,2,3,4,5 X policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 1,2,4 X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? d) Substantially adversely change the type or 1,2,3,4 X intensity of existing or planned land. use in the area? e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1,2,3,4 X f) g) the general character ofthe surrounding area, including density and building height? Conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? Convert prime farmland, unique fannland, or farmland of statewide importance (fannland) to non-agricultural use? r I DISCUSSION: 1,2,3,4 X 1,2 X The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. The project will not create any new land use impacts. Compliance with the designated land uses and zoning is a requirement for all projects. The implementation of the project would further the goals of policies and programs in the Transportation Element of the College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 14 I Cit<;'s Comprehensive Plan The project is consistent with the following Transportation Goals T-47: Utilize engineering, enforcement and educational tools to improve traffic safety on City roadways. Mitigation Me~sures: None requked J IVI1NERA.L RESOURCES . Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant W<>uld the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated I a) Result in the loss of availability of a knO\vn 1,2 X mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-1,2 X a) important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? DI~CUSSION: The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resourc'e Zone 1 (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 Required. K. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Exposure of persons to or generation of noise 1,2 X levels in excess of standards established in the local 'general plan or noise ordinance, or ! applicable standards of other agencies? I I b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 1,2 X excessive ground borne vibrations or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient 1,2 X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? I d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 1,2 X ambient noise le-vels in the project vicinity above levels eXIsting without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use 1,2 X plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to ~ College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 15 i I Issues and Supportlng Information ResouTces Sour1!es PQt.entiaHy Potentially I ' Signl:l1cant Signlfieam 7yVvuld the project: Issues Vnless Less Than Significant Impact I Mitigation 1-.~ .. ~ __________ ~ ____ ~r--____ -+ _____ -+-...:I=nc~()::.r.J::.P{);:;.;·r:.::a:.::;te::..::d=--+ _____ _+_ I excessive noise levels? I t) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1,2 Ii I I X II I airstrip, would the project expose people , residing or working in the project area to i I ~e~x~ce~s~s~iv~e~n~o~is~e~le~v~'e~ls~? __ ~~~~~~ __ +-~ ___ ~ ______ ~ _____ +-____ -+ _____ ~ g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 1,2 X I increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an I' i existing residential area, even if the Ldn would , remain below 60 dB? h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1,2 X 1 an existing residential area, thereby causing the 1 I ' Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?! i I I , i) Cause an increase of3.0 dB or more in an 11,2 I 1 I' X I , existing residential area where the Ldn , currently exceeds 60 dB? ---t--------ii------+-----+-------il • j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1,2 I I X I development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? ! k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1,2 than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater? 1) Generate construction noise exceedD.lg the daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more? DISCUSSION: 1,2 x X All development in the City, including construction activities, must comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with cons1ruction activity. Short-term construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are expected to be less than significant. This proposed project will not expose persons to noise levels in excess of the established standards nor will it create any new noise impacts. Mitigation Measures: None req'uired. L. POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially I Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues I Unless Impact Mitigation • Incorporated I a) Induce substantial population growth in an 1,4 X area, either directly (for example, by proposing i new homes an<fbusinesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other i infrastructure)? i b) Displace substantial numbers of existing 1,4 i X I housing, necessitating the construction of I replacement housing elsewhere? College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 16 Is§ues and Supporting Inf.ormatl.on Rc50urteS SOUToCes lP{)t~mtially Significant Issues Less Than Significant Impact No Impan I ! c ) D' b" I lsplace su stan@ numbers or peop e, 1 4 . , necessilating the construction of replacement I Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated I x I ,r housing elsewhere? I I d) Create a substantial imbalance between 1,2,4 X employed residents and jobs? e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local I 1,2,4 X population projections? DISCUSSION: The proposed project does not encourage gro'wth and development in the district and therefore will not create any ne,v population and housing impacts. The proposed plan's goal is to reduce non-resident parking in the College Terrace neighborhood, This project does not add any new, nor displace existing housing nor will it induce popUlation growth or displacement of the existing population. Mitigation Measures: None required 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 Incoroorated 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 performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 1,4 X b) Police protection? 1,4 X c) Schools? 1,4 X d) Parks? 1,4 X e) Other public facilities? 1,4 X DISCUSSION: This project does not encourage growth and development in the City and is not anticipated to generate a significant number of new users as to create impacts to the existing public services for the City. The installation of the necessary parking signs cOll.1d result in increased maintenance workload for upkeep of these features but compared to the total City maintenance needs, these additional features do not represent a significant increase in maintenance requirements . . Mitigation Measures: None required College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 17 I N. RECREATION r Issues and Supporting Jnformati!m Resol.lrtes I Would the proj.d: I a) I I Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilit would occur or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the constru.ction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the envrronment? DISCUSSION: Sour:ces 1,4 1,4 Pou:ntially Signl!1cant issues i Pot.:m:ial1y I Signifl.cant I , Unj~ss . Mitigation Incor orated Less Thlln Signifkant Impaet No Impn·:! x x The proposed project does not result in any new land uses and does not increase the demand for recreational facilities or curtail the use of existing facilities. This project does not encourage growth and development in the district and is not anticipated to' generate a significant number of new users as to create impacts to the existing City recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures: None required O. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC I Issues and Supporting Information Resources I Sources Potentially Potentially I Less Than No Impact I Significant Significant Significant I Would the project: I Issues Unless I Impact I Mitigation Incorporated a) Cause an increase in traffic which is r 1,4 X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., ! result in a substantial increase in either the I ! number of vehicle trips, the volume to i I capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 1,4 I X a level of service standard established by the i county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? I c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, 1,4 X including either an increase in traffic levels ! i or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially inc.rease hazards due to a 1,4 X design feature (r!.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,4 X College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 18 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,4 x ~'------~--~~-~--~~~--~------~:----------~----------+-----~.----'.---------~I~--~--~ i O·i Conflict wiTh adopted policies, plans, or X ' I,' !:;>, • 1 ' I programs supportmg a tematlve , transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & 1,2,3,4 I bicycle facilities)7 ! b) Cause a local (City ofralo Alto) inrersection ! ~ I to deterioraTe below Level of Service (LOS) I D and cause an increase in the average . stopped delay for the critical movements by I~I four seconds or more and the critical volume/capacity ratio (VIC) value to increase by 0.01 or more? I i) Cause a local intersection already operating at I LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more? j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate 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 or contribute traffic in excess of 1 % of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? 1) Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? m) Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at tum lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, andspillback queues on ramps. 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 n) Impede the development or function of 1,4 planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? 0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1,4 result of congestion? p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1, 4 DISCUSSION: I x i x I 1 x i x x i x I x I x The proposed pJ;oject does not encourage growth and development in the district and is not anticipated to generate transportation irhpacts. This project will not cause an increase in traffic nor directly add vehicle trips to the area. Therefore, the operational level of service (LOS) in the project area is not expected to deteriorate to less than acceptable (LOS F). College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 19 I I I Signs installed within the project area will prevent fewer non-resident cars being parked on streets therefore there will be an increase in safety due to improved visibility and sight distance and less congestion along the sides of the road. The proposed project will not impede the deyelopment or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities to the operation of a tmnsi. system and create any operational safety hazards. l'V1itigatlon.: None requjred P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTElVIS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of • 1,4 I X the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new 1,4 I X water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? I c) Require or result in the construction of new 1,4 . X storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to 1,4 X serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or arenew or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 1,4 treatment provider which serves or may X serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider'S existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with suffic4mt 1,4 permitted capacity to accommodate the X project's solid waste disjJosal n~eds? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes i 1,4 X and regulations related to solid waste? h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration ! 1,4 of a public facility due to increased use as a ! X result of the proj ect? I DISCUSSION: No utilities or service systems would be affected by the proposed Project. This project does not encourage growth and development and therefore no significant increase in the demand on existing utilities and service systems or impacts to these services are expected. Mitigation Measures: None required. College Ten-ace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 20 · , MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGN1FICANCE ::Issues and Supporting Informatic')il Resourees Sour.ces i Potentially I Significant I Issues )'/{mld the project: I Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation IneOrp()rllt~d --, Less Than Signlfkllnt lmpa~t Nv Impact i i I a) Does the project have the potential w I 1 4 I X degrade the quality of the environment, I ' substantially reduce the habitat of a tish or I wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining I , levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are 1,4 X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects ·of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? i c) Does the project have environmental effects 1,4 X which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION: The proposed project area is within the existing public right-of-way and therefore does not have the potential to significantly degrade the environment as discussed above. The project would not have any impacts that would be considered cumulatively significant. The nature of the proposed project is relatively small in scope and would have no significant adverse effects on human beings .. 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 outer space, which is known as the "greenhouse" effect. The world's leading climate scientists have reached consensus that global climate change is lUlderway and is very likely caused by humans. 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, pursuant to Senate Bill 97 the Governor's Office of PlalUling and Research (OPR) is in the process of developing CEQA guidelines "for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions." OPR is required to "prepare, develop, and transmit" the guidelines to the Resources Agency on or before July 1, 2009. The Resources Agency must certify and adopt the guidelines on or before January 1;-2010. , Assembly Bill 32 requires achievement by 2020 of a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent 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 emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. While the state of California has established programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are no College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 21 established standards for gauging the significance of greenhouse gas emissions; these standards are required to in place by 2012. Neither CEQA 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 a Lead Agency to trai1sbto; issue dO'.:vn to the level of a CEQA document for a specifi:: project in a way that is meaningf.l1 to decision making process. Under CEQA, the essential questions are whether a project creates or contributes to an environmental impac: or is subject to impacts from the envlTDlL1J.1ent in which it would occur, and what mitigation measures are available to avoid or reduce impacts. The project would not generate substantial greenhouse gases because it is minor in scope with little physical construction (i.e. street signs). Although not studied, the implementation of a parking permit program may reduce vehicles trip due to the disincentive of limited or paid parking. Given the overwhelming scope of global climate change, it is not anticipated that a single project would have an individually discernable effect on global climate change (e.g., that any increase in global temperature or in sea level could be attributed to the emissions resulting from one single development project). Rather, it is more appropriate to conclude that the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the proposed project would combine with emissions across the state, nation, and globe to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. To detennine whether the proposed project would have a significant impact on global climate change is speculative, particularly given the fact that there are no existing numerical thresholds to detennine an impact. However, in an effort to make a good faith effort at disclosing environmental impacts and to confonn with the CEQA Guidelines [§16064(b)], it is the City's position that based on the nature of this project with its nominal increase in greenhouse gas emissions, the proposed project 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. For these reasons, this project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with greenhouse gas emissions. r I Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 22 SOURCE REFERENCES 1. Proj~ct Manager's proposed project; Shahla Yazdy, 2. Palp Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title j 8 -Zoning Ordinance 4. Technical Memo \yith Program Details 5. City of Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance, PiuvIC Section 8.10 ( , ..... v·""~;v Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 23 DE TERLVHNATI ON On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the prnposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a 'N"EGATlVE DECL4..RA TION will be preparf:d. I find that although the proposed project could have a. significant effect on the environment, there wiH 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 NEGATf'ilE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL L'VIPACT 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 IMP ACT 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 all potentially 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. Prepared by: i Date Transportation Engin ¢ Reviewed by: Date College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program x I i Page 24 ATTACHMENTD COLLEGE TERRACE PROPOSED PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM 1. Provide for enforcement of the blocks, in the residential parking permit program, Mondays through Fridays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Vehicles displaying a permit may use on-street parking during this period. Vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to 2 hours during this period. Violators will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. Weekends and holidays will be exempt. 2. Allow a block to opt into the residential parking program (RPPP) if 51 % of households on that block sign a petition to be considered in the program. 3. Provide one (1) residential parking permit for each vehicle of a household owner or person(s) renting a household in the College Terrace Neighborhood. The annual parking permit will consist of a bumper sticker that is to be affixed to the rear bumper, to the left of the license plate bracket. 4. Require residents to complete their initial application for the residential parking permit and guest passes in person at the Revenue Collections office at the City of Palo Alto City Hall located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Residents applying for a permit will be required to provide vehicle registration and proof of residency such as a driver's license, rental agreement or a utility bill with street address noted. Application will require name, household address, license plate number, car manufacturer, color, year and model. There will be a $10 re-issue fee for lost permits or new vehicle ownership for existing residential parking permit holders. 5. Allow new residents to College Terrace to purchase resident permits throughout a permit year. These parking permit fees will be pro-rated for half year increments. No refund will be administered for any resident, guest, or day permits. 6. Provide, at no cost, two (2) annual guest permits per household in the College Terrace neighborhood that has registered for at least one resident parking permit. This allowance is to provide accessibility for resident services in the neighborhood such as lawn care, house cleaners, contractors, etc. as well as for guests of the household. Annual guest permits are provided per household rather than per vehicle ownership. Guest permits will be designed to hang from the rear view mirror .and must be clearly displayed. The selling of guest passes will be considered illegal under the adopted ordinance. 7. Allow residents to purchase one-day permits for a fee, in person at the Revenue Co)lections office. One-day permits will be applicable for one 24-hour period. Day permits will be designed to hang from the rear view mirror and allow the user to scratch off the day of usage, which must be clearly displayed. The total number of day permits issued will be limited to 20 days passes for each quarter that the College Tenace Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) applies. 8. Allow normal construction and maintenance permits to be available for long-term construction activities on regulated streets, consistent with cunent practice by the City. 9. Provide residential parking permits at an initial cost of $25, or $15 if more than 50% of the blocks in the neighborhood vote for inclusion in the program. Current Program Details • One (1) residential parking permit will be issued for each vehicle of a household owner or person(s) renting a household in the College Terrace Neighborhood. Residents applying for a permit will be required to provide proof of vehicle ownership and residency. Therefore, a vehicle registration form as well as one of the following would be required at the time of registration showing College Terrace residency: ° Driver's License ° Rental Agreement ° Recent Utility Bill With Street Address Noted • Multiple resident permits could be purchased per physical address based on multiple vehicle ownership and the following criteria: ° The RPPP year is proposed to take place between September 1 and August 31 of the following year. Yearly permit renewal date is September 1. This RPPP year was selected based on consultation with the City's Revenue Collections staff workload and schedule as well as flexibility for the Stanford students residing in the College Tenace neighborhood, but this date could be changed. ° Parking permits may be purchased yearly starting August 1st each year, through September' 30th• . ° A grace period will be recognized from September 1 st to September 30th for residents with previous year permits (i.e. vehicles not displaying a permit during the grace period will be cited but vehicles displaying the permit from the previous year will not be cited during the grace period). ° The annual parking permit will consist of a bumper sticker that is to be affixed to the rear bumper, to the left of the license plate bracket. ° The annual parking permit will be a different color each permit year (September 1 to August 31 st the following year). rO New residents to College Tenace may purchase resident permits throughout a I permit year. Parking permit fees will be pro-rated based on date of purchase. ° No refund will be administered for any resident, guest, or day permits. • Two (2) reusable guest passes (at no cost) will be issued for any household that has registered for at least one resident parking permit. This allowance is to provide accessibility for resident services in the neighborhood such as lawn care, house cleaners, contractors, etc. as well as for guests of the household. Guest passes are provided per household rather than per vehicle ownership. Guest passes will be designed to hang from the rear view mirror and must be clearly displayed in this fashion. The selling of guest passes will be considered illegal under the adopted ordinance. • Residents will be required to complete their initial application for the resident parking permit and guest passes in person at the Revenue Collections office at Palo Alto City Hall located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Applications will require name, household address, license plate number, car manufacturer, color, year and model. Subsequent renewals of the residential parking permits and guest passes could be completed by mail or online, as this program evolves. . • There will be a $15 re-issue fee for lost permits or new vehicle ownership for existing residential parking permit holders. • Day permits may be purchased in person at the Revenue Collections office. Day permits will be applicable for one 24-hour period. At the time of purchase, the date of each day permit will be logged in a registry at the Revenue Collections office based on the number of the day permit. A fee of $2 will be charged for each day permit. Day passes will be designed to hang from the rear view mirror and allow the user to scratch off the day of usage, which must be clearly displayed. The total number of day permits issued will be limited to 20 day passes for each quarter that the College Terrace RPPP applies. • Construction and maintenance permits will be available for long-term construction activities, consistent with current practice by the City. • The percentage of homes on each block that must approve the RPPP petition to be considered for the program is to be set at 51 % of households. • The residential parking permit program does not obviate the compliance with the City's ordinance relating to vehicles parked on the street for more than 72 hours. r i /" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ATTACHMENT E UPDATED COLLEGE TERRACE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM (RPPP) Escondido Escondido School Bowdoin I , "E .f2 s:: .lll (/) I I ID "E Ol ~ .l!! (5 0 0 I I EI Camino Real Columbia Bowdoin Amherst ID Ol "0 ~ E til 0 I I I Harvard Hanover til °E g "iii 0 I I LEGEND • RPPP enforcement area (Represents 51 % of the number of households on a block that voted "yes") Hanover September 21, 2009 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor’s Office Audit of Police Investigative Fund At its meeting on July 21, 2009, the Finance Committee unanimously recommended to the City Council acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Audit of Police Investigative Fund. Minutes of the meeting are attached. Respectfully submitted, Lynda Flores Brouchoud City Auditor Attachments:  Attachment 1 - Auditor’s Office Audit of Police Investigative Fund  Attachment 2 - Finance Committee Minutes of July 21, 2009 pgs 17-19 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR ATTACHMENT 1 Audit of the Police Investigative Fund 1 July 21, 2009 July 21, 2009 Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Audit of the Police Investigative Fund SUMMARY OF RESULTS In accordance with the City Auditor’s Fiscal Year 2008-09 Work Plan, and at the request of the former Chief of Police, the City Auditor’s Office performed a surprise audit of the Police Investigative Fund (PIF) on April 7, 2009. The audit objective was to verify the accuracy of the reported cash on hand and assess controls over the use of the funds. The audit scope included a review of transactions since the prior audit in April 2007 through April 2009. We conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. The Police Department can use the PIF as a cash fund to pay for certain investigative costs such as payments to informants and purchases of narcotics, contraband, stolen property, or other evidence. The PIF balance is limited to $1,500. The PIF procedures provide guidance on the appropriate use of the PIF. These procedures limit access to the PIF, require accurate bookkeeping and documentation, and specify legitimate uses of the funds. The City Auditor’s Office reviewed procedures, performed a cash count of the funds on hand, and examined the fund ledger and supporting documents. Following is a summary of our review:  At the time of our surprise audit, we found that the PIF cash balance was accurately reported in the ledger, the cash was properly secured, and access to the vault was properly controlled. Specifically, the PIF balance totaled $928 on the date of our last audit, conducted on April 19, 2007. From April 2007 through April 2009, there were only three PIF transactions: two disbursements totaling $80, and one reimbursement totaling $40. The PIF balance as of April 7, 2009 was $888.  These overall findings are consistent with the results of our last surprise audit conducted in April 2007. We also noted three areas for improving the Police Department’s internal controls of the PIF:  The Police Department should ensure each PIF transaction has complete and consistent documentation. Specifically, we found that the three transactions during the review period had incomplete documentation. For example, the procedures require that payment vouchers to confidential informants include the signature of the informant in addition to the signature of the CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR Audit of the Police Investigative Fund Page 2 July 21, 2009 supervisor and officer, and that no payment be made if the informant refuses to sign the voucher.1 One of the disbursements paid an informant; however, the informant’s signature was not on the payment voucher. The second disbursement did not list the reason and utilized the “credit voucher” form (used for documenting returns to the fund) rather than the form for fund disbursements. The third transaction had incomplete signatures. Complete and consistent documentation for transactions will help improve internal controls over the use of the funds.  The Police Department has not revised the PIF internal procedures since 1997, and as a result, the procedures include outdated information. For example, as noted above, even though the procedures require the signatures of informants, police officers were not obtaining informants’ signatures because it is impractical to do so in the field. However, the informant’s signature serves as verification for the use of the funds and if this control is not implemented, another control should be developed and documented. Upon further inquiry, the Police Department stated that although it is not documented, whenever there is a payment to a confidential informant, there are at least two officers present. This “dual custody” or involvement of at least two individuals to check each other, can reduce the risk of a loss occurring and provides some assurance the funds are appropriately used. We also noted inconsistencies between the written procedures and subsequent verbal agreements delineating the timeframe and responsibilities for conducting cash counts of the PIF.  The Police Department’s PIF procedures are essentially desk procedures and are not part of the department’s formalized manual or procedures. As a result, they may not receive the same level of periodic review, training and authorization as the department’s formal procedures. We shared the above audit results with the Police Department’s Investigative Services Division and the Administrative Services Department’s Supervisor of Revenue Collections. The Police Department concurred with the audit findings and recommendations and proactively began updating its procedures of the Police Investigative Fund. RECOMMENDATIONS In our opinion, the Police Department should continue its update of the Police Investigative Fund procedures. We recommend that the Police Department update the PIF procedures to reflect actual practices including: 1. Integration of the PIF procedures into the Department’s approved policies; 2. A requirement for the two officers who had direct knowledge of the disbursements from the PIF to document the final disposition of the funds on an updated fund form and/or updated log; and 3. Clarification of the timing and responsibility for performing periodic cash counts of the PIF. On behalf of the Auditor’s Office, I would like to express my appreciation to the Police Department for their cooperation and assistance during this review. Respectfully submitted, Lynda Flores Brouchoud City Auditor Audit staff: Lisa Wehara Attachment: City Manager’s Response 1 The Police Department has a separate policy to document and approve the use of Confidential Informants in investigations. ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2009 CMR:330:09 REPORTTVPE:CONSENT SUBJECT: Approval of Appointment of Dennis Burns as Police Chief and At-Will Employment Contract RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council approve the appointment of Dennis Bums as Police Chief and approve the at-will employment agreement (Attached). BACKGROUND Municipal Code Section 2.08.020 provides that appointments to the position of Police Chief "shall be made by the city manager with the approval of the council." This action will comply with the provisions of the Municipal Code. DISCUSSION The City Manager is recommending appointment of Dennis Bums as Police Chief. In February 2009, the City hired Bob Murray & Associates, an executive search fIrm in California experienced in Police Chief recruitment. There were 48 candidates from all over the country and seven individuals were invited for interviews on July 17 with both a citizen panel and professional panel of evaluators. The two panels both recommended three local fInalists, who then were interviewed by the City Manager, met the City's Executive Leadership Team and underwent extensive background checks and suitability assessments. Following the public release of fInalist names, there was also substantial public comment and media reporting. The City Manager is recommending Dennis Bums for the Chief position for several reasons: 1) He will be able to build and maintain strong and effective relationships with the community, his department, and the City Council, City Manager, the Executive Leadership Team and other City staff. 2) He knows and understands the demands of the Palo Alto environment. CMR:330:09 Page lof2 3) The Palo Alto Police Department is a good department but it also needs to change. The City Manager believes that Mr. Burns is best able to bring about change in the Department. 4) Mr. Burns is committed to Palo Alto and will devote himself selflessly to his duties. 5) Mr. Burns is a man of character and integrity. Mr. Burns brings over 27 years of professional public safety experience to this position. He began his career with the Palo Alto Police Department in 1982 and has worked all Patrol shifts, has served as Field Training Officer, a Detective and Detective Supervisor, and a Crime Prevention Officer. Mr. Burns progressed through the ranks of Agent, Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain and he was promoted to Assistant Chief in 2007. Dennis attended San Jose State University where he earned his B.S. degree in Administration of Justice in 1981. In 1988, he received his Masters degree in Public Administration from the University of San Francisco. Dennis has also attended the FBI National Academy in Quantico, Virginia. RESOURCE IMPACT The annual control point for the Police Chief position is $178,573. The attached at-will employment for Mr. Burns reflects that salary level, and all other terms are consistent with the at-will agreement template that the Council approved in 2004 when it transitioned to an at-will system for new department heads. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation is consistent with existing City policies. ATTACHMENT Employment Agreement between Dennis Burns and the City of Palo Alto DEPARTMENT HEAD: ___ -f\= ~' .. =-_Q~..._~-S:..;;.::-:-'---------.,;;~n __ ~Carlsen Director of Human Resources CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ___ ?'9--r------P-_---'--7"t_-t--:;;<-__ CMR:330:09 Page 20f2 E~LOYMENTAGREEMENT 'BETWEEN CITY OF PALO 'ALTO AND DENNIS BURNS THIS AGREEMENT is between the City of Palo Alto, a municipal corporation and chartered city ("City") and Dennis Bums, its Police Chief ("Burns"). It is effective on the latest date next to the signatures on the last page. This Agreement is entered into on the basis of the following facts, among others: A. City, acting by and through its duly appointed City Manager and with the approval of its duly elected City Council, desires to employ Burns as its Police Chief subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Palo Alto Municipal Code and in the Charter of the City of Palo Alto (the "Charter"). B. Burns desires to be employed by the City as its Police Chief, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and in the Charter. C. City and Burns desire to establish specific terms and conditions relating to compensation and benefits, performance evaluations, and related matters. D. Notwithstanding any provision of the City of Palo Alto Merit System Rules and Regulations, the City desires Bums to serve on an at~will basis, with no expectation of ' continued employment, and with nO,right to pre-or post-separation due process or appeal. E. Bums desires a predictable amount of severance notice and severance pay should his employment be terminated with or without cause or notice. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, CITY AND BURNS AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Employ;ment. City will appoint and employ Bums as Police Chief with the City of Palo Alto and Buins will accept the appointment and emploYment for the City for an indefInite term to begin on September 22,2009. In the event Burns does not actually report for or commence work on September 22, 2009, the Employment Start Date will be the date, if any, as otherwise mutually agreed by the parties. 2. Duties of Police Chief. Burns shall perform the duties established for the Police Chief by the Charter, Palo Alto Municipal Code, direction of the City Manager, or as otherWise provided by law, ordinance, or regulation. 2.1. Full Energy and Skill. Bums shall devote his full energy, skill, ability, and productive time to the performance of his duties. -1- 8261042 2.2. No Conflict. Bums shall not engage in any employment, activity, consulting service, or other enterprise, for compensation or otherwi$e, which is actually or potentially in conflict with, inimical to, or which interferes with the performance of his duties. Bums acknowledges that he is subject to ~e various conflict of interest requirements found in the California Government Code and state and local policies and regulations. 2.3 Permission Required For Outside Activities. . Bums shall not engage in any employment, activity, conSUlting service, or other enterprise, for compensation or otherwise, without the express, written permission of the City Manager. 3. Compensation. While performing the duties of Police Chief, Bums shall be compensated as provided in this Section 3. 3.1. Compensation. Bums shall receive an initial base annual salary of one hundred seventy eight thousand five hundred seventy three Dollars ($178,573.00) per year commencing on the effective date of the contract. 3.2. Salary Adjustments. Not less than once each year, the City Manager shall meet with Bums for the express purpose of evaluating the performance of Bums The City Manager will act in good faith in determining whether to increase the salary of Bums, but the ultimate decision in this regard is within the sole discretion of the City Manager. 3.3. Variable Management Compensation. If a Variable Management Compensation ("VMC") program is provided in any given year, Bums shall be entitled to receive VMC pursuant to the terms of a City Council approved management compensation plan. 4. Regular Benefits and Allowances. Bums will be eligible for, and shall receive, all regular benefits (Le., health insurance, PERS contribution paid by City, etc.) and vacation, sick leave, and management leave as are generally provided to management employees pursuant to the City Council-approved Management Compensation Plan .. 5. Additional' Expenses of Employment. City shall pay the following usual and customary employment expenses: 5.1 The cost of any fidelity or other bonds required by law for the Bums. 7. Duration of Employment. Bums understands and agrees that he has no constitutionally protected property or other interest in his employment as Police Chief. He understands that notwithstanding any provision in the Merit System Rules and Regulations, he . has no right to pre-or post-disciplinary due process. He understands and agrees that he works at the will and pleasure of the City Manager and that he may be terminated, or asked to resign, at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days written notice to Bums. Bums may terminate this agreement upon 30 days written notice to the City Manager. -2- 7.1. Severance Pay. If BUms is asked to resign or is tenninated as Police Chief he shall receive a cash severance payment, or payments (without . interest) at intervals specified by Bums, equaling 6 months salary and benefits. 7.2. Non-Payment of Severance Under Certain Conditions. If the termination of Bums is the result of conviction of a felony, helshe shall not be paid any severance pay. 8. Miscellaneous. 8.1. Notices. Notices given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be ,either: a) served personally; or b) sent by facsimile (provided a hard copy is mailed within one (1) business day); or c) delivered by first-class United States mail, certified, with postage prepaid and a return receipt requested; or d) sent by Federal Express, or some equivalent private mail delivery serviee. Notices shall be deemed received at the earlier of actual receipt or three (3) days following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid. Notices shall be directed to the addresses shown below, provided that a party may change such party's address for notice by giving written notice to the other party in accordance with this subsection. CITY: BURNS: Attn: City Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 95901 Phone: (650) 329-2226 FAX: (650) 328-3631 Dennis Bums, Police Chief 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: 650-329-2413 FAX: 650-617-3120 8.2. Entire Agreement! Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to those matters contained in it, and supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, representations and understandings of the parties. This Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of the parties, but any such amendment must be in writing, dated, and signed by the parties and attached hereto. 8.3. Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. Venue of any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the proper court in Santa Clara County. 8.4. Severability. In the event any portion of this Agreement is declared void, . such portion shall be severed from this' Agreement and the remaining provisions shall remain in effect, unless the result of such severance would be to substantially alter this -3- Agreement or the obligations of the parties, in which case this Agreement shall be immediately tenninated. 8.5. Waiver. Any failure of a party to insist upon strict compliance with any tenn, undertaking, or condition of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such tenn, undertaking, or condition. To be effective, a waiver must be in writing, signed and dated by the parties. 8.6. Representation by Counsel. Bums and City acknowledge that they each did, or had the opportunity to, consult with legal counsel of their respective choices with respect to the matters that are the subject of this Agreement prior to executing it. 8.7 Section Headings. The headings on each of the sections and subsections of this Agreement are for the convenience of the parties only and do. not limit or expand the contents of any such section or subsection. CITY OF PALO ALTO G-. Dated: q. I (p. 0'1 POLICEC~L DeGSBUfl}; . Attest: City Clerk Approved as to Fonn: By: ____________________ _ -4- TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2009 CMR:374:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Approval of a Contract With Golden Bay Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $488,424 for FY 2009-10 Sidewalk Replacement Project Capital Improvement Program Project PO-89003 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with Golden Bay Construction, Inc. (Attachment A) in the amount of $488,424 for FY 2009-2010 Sidewalk Replacement Project -Capital Improvement Project PO-89003; and 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Golden Bay Construction, Inc. for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $49,000. DISCUSSION Project Description The work to be performed under this contract is for sidewalk, curb, gutter, asphalt pavement, and catch basin replacemehts; and Portland cement concrete and asphalt recycling. The sidewalk replacement locations are shown on Location Maps 1 and 2 (Attachment B). The project also includes the intensive-use sidewalk replacement on downtown University Avenue, San Antonio Road between San Antonio Court and Middlefield Road, and Bryson Avenue in midtown area; and the tree-well grate installations on downtown University Avenue as shown on Location Map 1 (Attachment B). The project is expected to begin by the end of October 2009 and be completed by the end of April 2010. Work in downtown and other intensive use areas will be stopped during lunch hours to minimize the inconvenience to merchants and the public. This contract also includes the construction of eighteen curb ramps with detectable warning surface in compliance with the American 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 or hazards on a circulation path. Detectable warning surface is required on curb ramp by the Americans with CMR:374:09 Page 1 of3 Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines and in accordance with the 2007 Public Works Standard Drawings and Specifications. Detectable warnings consist of a surface of truncated domes aligned in a square grid pattern and yellow in color. Bid Process On August 3, 2009, a notice inviting formal bids for the FY 2009-10 Sidewalk Replacement Project was posted at City Hall, and sent to 11 builder's exchanges and 8 contractors. The bidding period was twenty-two days. Bids were received from 5 qualified contractors on August 25,2009, as listed on the attached bid summary (Attachment C). S fB'd P ummaryo 1 rocess Bid NamelNumber 2009-10 Sidewalk Replacement / IFB # 132902 Proposed Length of Pr~iect 180 calendar days Number of Bids Mailed to 8 Contractors Number of Bids Mailed to Builder's 11 Exchanges Total Days to Respond to Bid 22 Pre-Bid Meeting? No Number of Company Attendees at NA Pre-Bid Meeting Number of Bids Received: 5 Bid Price Range From a low of $488,424 to a high of $547,895 Bids ranged from a high of $547,895 to a low bid of $488,424. Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $488,424 submitted by Golden Bay Construction, Inc. be accepted and that Golden Bay Construction, Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The bid is 12 percent below the engineer's estimate of $556,460. The change order amount of $49,000, which equals 10 percent of the total contract, is requested for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project. 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 and has no outstanding complaints. Project Coordination The work was coordinated with other projects at the monthly UtilitiesIPublic Works department street work coordination meetings and by use of the GIS project coordination program. The monthly street work coordination meeting purpose is to coordinate the installation, replacement, and repairs of city's subsurface infrastructure and street and sidewalk improvements with the street maintenance plan whenever is practicable. The 2009 -10 Sidewalk Replacement Project has no conflicts with the other Public Works and Utility projects. RESOURCE IMPACT Funds for this project are included in the FY 2009-10 Capital Improvement Program Sidewalk Replacement Project, PO-89003. Any excess funds remaining will return to their respective Capital Improvement Program budgets. CMR:374:09 Page 2 of3 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 fUliher environmental review is necessary. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Contract Attachment B: Location Maps 1 & 2 Attachment C: Bid Summary (2 pages) PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR:374:09 MATTHEW RASCHKE Page30f3 FdRMAL CONTRACT CONTRACT No. C10132902 (Public Work) Public Works Department ATTACHMENT A SECTION 500 This Contract, number C10132902 dated _______ is entered into by and between the City of Palo Alto, a California Charter City ("City"), and Golden Bay Construction, Inc. ("Contractor"). For and in consideration of the covenants, terms, and conditions (*the provisions*) of this Contract, City and Contractor (lithe 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: 2009-10 Sidewalk Replacement Project, Invitation for Bids (IFB) Number 132902. Bid: $488,424.00 (Four hundred eighty-eight thousand four hundred twenty-four 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. 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 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 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 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 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT C10132902 PAGE 1 OF 7 rev. 12/00 FORMAL CONTRACT SECTION 500 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, Contractorfurther 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. ~~9601-6975, as amended): the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. ~~6901-6992k, as amended): the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. ~~2601-2692, as amended); the Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act (Health & Safety Code, ~~25300-25395, as amended); the Hazardous Waste Control Law (Health & Safety Code, ~~251 00-25250.25, as amended); the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Health & Safety Code, ~~25249.5-25249.13, as amended); the Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances Act (Health & Safety Code, ~~25280-25299.7, 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 shalt 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 surety 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. Bid Security. 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 Bids. CITY OF PALO ALTO rev. 12/00 CONTRACT C10132902 PAGE20F7 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 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 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 CITY OF PALO ALTO rev. 12100 CONTRACT C10132902 PAGE 3 OF7 FORMAL CONTRACT SECTION 500 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 Operations Division 3201 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Attn: Matt Raschke, Project Manager Golden Bay Construction, Inc. 3826 Depot Road Hayward, CA 94545 Attn: Johnny Zanette 17. Appropriation of Citv 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 16 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 Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version) of this Contract are incorporated herein by reference. 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. CITY OF PALO ALTO rev. 12100 CONTRACT C10132902 PAGE40F7 FORMAL CONTRACT SECTION 500 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 ofthis 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 Satu<rday, 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, 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. CITY OF PALO ALTO rev. 12/00 CONTRACT C10132902 PAGES OF7 FORMAL CONTRACT SECTION 500 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 if! 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 Altemative 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. 12100 CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager CONTRACTOR: By: ________________________________ __ Title: __________________ _ CONTRACT C10132902 PAGE60F7 FORMAL CONTRACT SECTION 500 CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT (Civil Code -'I 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. 12/00 CONTRACT C10132902 (Seal) PAGE 7 OF7 LOCATION 4 DRAWN BY, DATE, CHEC'D DATE, BY, SCALE' SIDEwALK NONE City REPLACEtJlENT PROJECT LOCATION MAP of Pa]lo Alto , ) APPROVED BY, PE NO. ____ _ DATE' DRAWING 2 NO. BID ITEM 1 2 r- 3 r- 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 BID ITEM 1 2 3 4 5 2009 -10 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROJECT IFB NO. 132902 ATTACHMENT C BID SUMMARY Engineer's GOLDEN BAY BASE BID: Estimate CONSTRUCTION, INC. DESCRIPTION BID UNIT BID UNIT BID QTY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT Remove sidewalk only 2,060 SF $3 $6,180 $2.50 $5,150.00 Sidewalk, 4" thick 22,220 SF $10 $222,200 $8.00 $177,760.00 Driveway, 6" thick 7,250 SF $11 $79,750 $9.50 $68,875.00 Integral sidewalk & curb & gutter 1,090 LF $71 $77,390 $65.75 $71,667.50 Integral driveway & curb & gutter 310 LF $74 $22,940 $71.75 $22,242.50 New ramp w\ detectable warning surface 18 EA $1,800 $32,400 $1,903.00 $34,254.00 Existing ramp wI detectable warning surface 9 EA $600 $5,400 $350.00 $3,150.00 Curb 530 LF $24 $12,720 $24.75 $13,117.50 Gutter 2,760 SF $11 $30,360 $9.50 $26,220.00 Asphalt pavement 2,970 SF $8 $23,760 $9.75 $28,957.50 Special saw cutting 3,180 LF $3 $9,540 $4.00 $12,720.00 Catch basins 4 EA $800 $3,200 $1,100.00 $4,400.00 Tree well frames & grates 9 EA $700 $6,300 $350.00 $3,150.00 Recycle asphalt & concrete 1,550 Ton $3 $4,650 $0.01 $15.50 Traffic control 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 $3,244.00 $3,244.00 BASE BID TOTAL: $541,790 $474,923.50 ADD ALTERNATE: DESCRIPTION BID UNIT BID UNIT BID QTY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT Sidewalk, 4' thick 710 SF $10 $7,100 $8.00 $5,680.00 Driveway, 6' thick 500 SF $11 $5,500 $9.50 $4,750.00 Integral sidewalk & curb & gutter 20 LF $71 $1,420 $65.75 $1,315.00 Asphalt pavement 180 SF $8 $1,440 $9.75 $1,755.00 Recycle asphalt & concrete 50 Ton $3 $150 $0.01 $0.50 ADD ALTERNATE BID TOTAL: $15,610 $13,500.50 BID GRAND TOTAL: $557,400 $488,424.00 Spencon Construction, Inc. UNIT BID PRICE AMOUNT $1.00 $2,060.00 $9.75 $216,645.00 $9.80 $71,050.00 $67.75 $73,847.50 $67.75 $21,002.50 $1,500.00 $27,000.00 $385.00 $3,465.00 $23.00 $12,190.00 $8.50 $23,460.00 $6.00 $17,820.00 $1.00 $3,180.00 $500.00 $2,000.00 $500.00 $4,500.00 $1.00 $1,550.00 $950.00 $950.00 $480,720.00 UNIT BID PRICE AMOUNT $9.75 $6,922.50 $9.80 $4,900.00 $67.75 $1,355.00 $6.00 $1,080.00 $1.00 $50.00 $14,307.50 $495,027.50 Sposeto Engineering, Inc. UNIT PRICE $3.70 $8.30 $9.70 $71.00 $80.00 $1,420.00 $490.00 $18.00 $11.00 $10.80 $3.30 $1,600.00 $490.00 $0.10 $6,800.00 UNIT PRICE $8.30 $9.70 $71.00 $10.80 $0.10 BID AMOUNT $7,622.00 $184,426.00 $70,325.00 $77,390.00 $24,800.00 $25,560.00 $4,410.00 $9,540.00 $30,360.00 .$32,076.00 $10,494.00 $6,400.00 $4,410.00 $155.00 $6,800.00, $494,768.00 BID AMOUNT $5,893.00 $4,850.00 $1,420.00 $1,944.00 $5.00 $14,112.00 $508,880.00 page 1 of 2 ~ ~ n ~ ~ n BID ITEM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I--- 10 r-- 11 I--- 12 r-- 13 r-- 14 15 BID ITEM 1 2 3 4 L~ BASE BID: DESCRIPTION Remove sidewalk only Sidewalk, 4" thick Driveway, 6" thick Integral sidewalk & curb & gutter Integral driveway & curb & gutter New ramp w\ detectable warning surface Existing ramp wi detectable warning surface Curb Gutter Asphalt pavement Special saw cutting Catch basins Tree well frames & grates Recycle asphalt & concrete T rafflc control ADD ALTERNATE: DESCRIPTION Sidewalk, 4' thick Driveway, 6' thick Integral sidewalk & curb & gutter Asphalt pavement Recycle asphalt & concrete 2009 -10 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROJECT IFB NO. 132902 ATTACHMENT C BID SUMMARY Engineer's JJR F8D Vanguard Estimate Construction, Inc. Construction 81D UNIT 810 UNIT BID UNIT BID , QTY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT 2,060 SF $3 $6,180 $4.45 $9,167,00 $6.00 $12,360.00 22,220 SF $10 $222,200 $7.96 $176,871.20 $8.85 $196,647.00 7,250 SF $11 $79,750 $10.71 $77,647.50 $9.85 $71,412.50 1,090 LF $71 $77,390 $72.81 $79,362.90 $74.00 $80,660.00 310 LF $74 $22,940 $78.00 $24,180.00 $84.00 $26,040.00 18 EA $1,800 $32,400 $1,975.00 535,550,00 $2,140.00 $38,520.00 9 EA $600 $5,400 $307.80 $2,770.20 $340.00 $3,060.00 530 LF $24 $12,720 $15.19 $8,050.70 $28.00 $14,840.00 2,760 SF $11 $30,360 S10.84 $29,918.40 $10.00 S27,600.00 2,970 SF $8 $23,760 $10.65 $31,630.50 $8.35 $24,799.50 3,180 LF $3 $9,540 $3.65 $11,607.00 $4.00 $12,720.00 4 EA $800 $3,200 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,200.00 $4,800,00 9 EA $700 $6,300 $600.00 $5,400.00 $220.00 $1,980.00 1,550 Ton $3 $4,650 $0.01 $15.50 $2.00 53,100.00 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 514,000.00 $14,000.00 BASE BID TOTAL: $541,790 $504,170.90 $532,539.00 BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID QTY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT 710 SF $10 $7,100 $7.96 $5,651.60 $9.30 $6,603.00 500 SF $11 $5,500 $10,71 $5,355,00 $10.30 $5,150.00 20 LF $71 $1,420 $72.81 $1,456.20 S100.00 $2,000.00 180 SF $8 $1,440 $10.65 $1,917.00 $8.35 $1,503.00 50 Ton $3 $150 $0.01 SO.50 S2.00 $100.00 ADD ALTERNATE BID TOTAL: $15,610 $15,356.00 BID GRAND TOTAL: $557,400 $518,551.20 5547,895.00 page 2 of 2 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2009 CMR: 371:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Approval of a Water Enterprise Fund Contract with Anderson- Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. in a Not to Exceed Amount of $3,870,000 for the Design-Build of the Eleanor Pardee Park and Main Library/Community Gardens WellslEmergency Water Supply Wells Project WS-08002 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached Agreement with Anderson-Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. (Attachment A) in a not to exceed amount of $3,870,000 for the Design-Build of Eleanor Pardee Park and Main Library/Community Gardens Emergency Water Supply wells, as part of the Emergency Water Supply Project WS-08002. BACKGROUND The Eleanor Pardee Park and the Main Library/Community Gardens Emergency Water Supply Wells Project (Wells Project) is part of the overall Emergency Water Supply Project (EWSP), WS-08002. The purpose of these projects is to ensure that an adequate water supply is available to meet the City'S needs in the event of an emergency. The project will ensure the City's compliance with the California Department of Public Health's (CDPH) recommendation to have stand-alone emergency water (including groundwater) sufficient to supply eight hours of usage at the highest hourly demand plus a reserve for fire fighting. The EWSP will construct a 2.5 million gallon reservoir, three new wells, rebuild Lytton Pump Station, rehabilitate up to five existing wells, and rebuild the Mayfield Pump Station and supporting pipelines. DISCUSSION During the pre-design phase of the wells project (CMR:291 :08), Siegfried Engineering, Inc. (SEI) conducted a geotechnical investigation of the two well sites by drilling two pilot holes for the wells and preparing a report indicating the required depths of these two wells to meet the design basis of 1000 gallons per minute production. This report was used to prepare the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the construction of the two new wells. A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was prepared by City staff to prequalify design-build engineer/contractors. SEI prepared CMR: 371:09 Page 1 of 4 an RFP (RFP#131390) which was advertised July 21, 2009 after City staffprequalified four (4) design-build engineer/contractor teams. SEI will continue to assist with implementation of the design-build contract by facilitating continuity between the pre-design effort and the final design effort during the design-build phase, and will assure conformance of the final design with the construction requirements and design intent set forth in the RFP. Solicitation Process Summary of Solicitation Process Proposal Title Design-Build of Eleanor Pardee Park and Library/Community Gardens Water Production Wells for the Emergency Water Supply Project Proposal Number l3l390 Proposed Length of Contract 8 months Number of Proposals mailed &/or 4 emailed Total Days to Respond to Proposal 24 Pre-proposal Meeting Date July 28, 2009 Number of Company Attendees at 4 Mandatory Pre-proposal Meeting Number of Proposals Received: I Company Name Location (City, State) Proposal Amount* Anderson-Pacific Engineering Santa Clara, CA $3,870,000 Construction, Inc. tlasea on veslgn-tlUlla project metnoa ot aellvery. Consultants involved with the pre-design phase (CMR:291 :08) were excluded from submitting a proposal in the design-build phase. Non-responsive proposers indicated they were unable to meet the project requirements. Cost of Design-Build Contract: As shown in the table above, Anderson-Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. submitted a proposal for $3,870,000, approximately 3% less than the Engineer's Estimate of $4,000,000. Staff reviewed Anderson-Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc.' s proposal, qualifications, and state contractor's license, met with the design-build engineer/contractor project team and determined that the design-build engineer/contractor team has the expertise and experience necessary to perform the work. RESOURCE IMPACT Funds required for this design-build project in amount of $3,870,000 are included in the WS- 08002 Emergency Water Supply Project CIP. The Emergency Water Supply Project (WS-08002) was approved by Council as part of the FY 2007-09 CIP Adopted Capital Budgetl . POLICY IMPLICATIONS On June 23, 2008, Council adopted a resolution approving design-build for the wells project (CMR:291:08). I http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaifilebankiblobdload.asp?BlobID=8773; page 243/354. CMR: 371:09 Page 2 of4 Approval of the Design-Build contract is consistent with existing City policies, and with Municipal Code Title 2, section 2.30.300, Public Works Contracts, with respect to alternative project delivery methods. The design-build model, however, is a departure from the City's customary design-bid-build practice. Design-Build Pursuant to City Municipal Code Section 2.30.300(c) regarding alternative project delivery methods, staff recommends that the wells be designed and constructed via a design-build process. In a "design-build" project delivery method, both design and construction services are covered under a single contract, whereas, in a traditional "design-bid-build"project delivery method, the agency contracts with separate entities for both the design and construction of a project. Design-build contracts are usually awarded by a process other than formal competitive bidding, (which mandates award to the lowest monetary bidder) in order to allow consideration of qualitative factors, such as a bidder's experience and performance on prior jobs, in addition to pnce. A significant difference between design-build contracts and traditional design-bid-build contracts is that in a design-build method, the final design work is done concurrently with construction. As a result, the design-build method can accelerate the project schedule and reduce overall project costs. The design-build method also allows the contractor to begin certain construction activities, such as excavation, before detailed design is completed, and accelerates project progress by eliminating or reducing certain design and/or procurement steps, such as submittal preparation and review. Due to the current deficiency in emergency water supply, staff is recommending that Palo Alto add capacity to its emergency water supplies as soon as possible. The design-build contract process will accelerate the completion of this project. Specifically, based on the Design- Build Institute of America's (DBIA) design-build project method of delivery industry data on water facility projects, staff estimates that the use of a design-build contract process will: • Allow the project to be completed 7 months earlier; and • Result in savings of $300,000. Although Article VII, Section 6 of the City Charter requires formal bidding and award to the lowest monetary bidder for public works contracts funded by bonded indebtedness of the city, no bond financing will be used for this project since funds are available in CIP WS-08002 Emergency Water Supply Project. Section 2.30.300(c) of the City Municipal Code requires formal bidding for all public works contracts unless Council determines by resolution "that a particular public works project may be solicited and contracted for using alternate project delivery methods, including but not limited to design build, construction manager at risk, or competitive negotiation." The approval of this Water Enterprise Fund contract is consistent with existing City policies. This recommendation is consistent with the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan Key Strategy No.1, "Operate distribution system in a cost effective manner," Strategy No.7, "Implement programs that improve the quality of the environment" and Objective No.2, "Invest in utility infrastructure to deliver reliable service." CMR: 371:09 Page 3 of4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The field work, including drilling work, conducted during pre-design, as well as the project for construction of wells in Eleanor Pardee Park and at the Main Library/Community Gardens site, are part of the overall project EIR for the Emergency Water Supply Project (SCH #2066022038), which Council certified on March 5, 2007 as being adequate to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ATTACHMENTS A: Agreement with Anderson-Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. Exhibits A through G B: Project Location Map PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 371:09 [2if.r Romel Antonio, Senior Project Engineer ",,~eg Scoby, WGW Engineering Manager ~m Marshall, Assistant Utilities Director VALE~NG Directo of Uti Ities Page 4 of4 ATTACHMENT A CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. CI0131390 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND ANDERSON-PACIFIC ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE DESIGN-BUILD OF WATER PRODUCTION WELLS FOR EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AT ELEANOR PARDEE PARK AND LIBRARY/COMMUNITY GARDENS PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA This AGREEMENT is made as of the day of ------in the year of , by and between the following parties, for services in connection with the PROJECT identified below. CITY: CITY OF PALO ALTO, a charter city and Municipal corporation of the State of California (CITY) 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 DESIGN-BUILDER: ANDERSON-PACIFIC ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC., a California corporation (DESIGN-BUILDER) PROJECT: 1390 Norman Avenue Santa Clara, CA95054 DESIGN-BUILD OF WATER PRODUCTION WELLS FOR EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AT ELEANOR PARDEE PARK AND LIBRARY/COMMUNITY GARDENS (PROJECT) In consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations contained herein, City and Design-Builder agree as set forth herein. Article 1 Scope of Work 1.1 Design-Builder shall perfonn all design and construction services, and provide all material, equipment, tools and labor, necessary to complete the Work described in and reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.2 Definitions. 1.2.1 Agreement shall mean this Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. for the Design-Build of Eleanor Pardee Park and Library/Community Gardens Water Production Wells for Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project, including the exhibits, which exhibits are specifically made a part ofthis Agreement by this reference. 1.2.2 Application for Payment constitutes a representation by Design-Builder that the design and/or construction has progressed to the point indicated by the end of the month, that the quality of the Work covered by the Application for Payment is in accordance with the Contract Documents and that Design-Builder is entitled to payment in the amount requested. 1.2.3 Application for Final Payment constitutes a representation by Design-Builder that Design-Builder has completed all of the Work in confonnance with the Contract Documents and that Design-Builder is entitled to final payment in the amount requested. The Application for Final Payment shall be submitted in accordance with Section 6.6 of the General Conditions. 1.2.4 Certificate of Substantial Completion shall mean a certificate prepared and issued by the City, setting forth: (i) the date of Substantial Completion of the Work or portion thereof, (ii) the remaining items of Work that have to be completed before final payment, (iii) provisions (to the extent not already provided in the Contract Documents) establishing City's and Design-Builder's responsibility for the Project's security, maintenance, utilities and insurance pending final payment and (iv) an acknowledgment that warranties commence to run on the date of Substantial Completion, except as may otherwise by noted in the Certificate of Substantial Completion. 1.2.5 Change Order is a written instrument issued after the execution of this Agreement signed by the City and Design-Builder stating their agreement upon the scope of the change in the Work and the adjustment in the Contract Price and/or Contract Time{s), if any. 1.2.6 City shall mean the City of Palo Alto. 1.2.7 City's Project Criteria shall mean the City's requirements and objectives for the Project, including use, space, price, time, site requirements, as well as submittal requirements and other requirements governing Design-Builder's performance of the Work. City's Project Criteria may include conceptual documents, design criteria, performance requirements and other Project-specific technical materials and requirements. The City's Project Criteria are described in the Pre-Design Engineering Report (PER) prepared by Siegfried Engineering, Inc. 1.2.8 City's Representative shall mean the person designated to be the City's representative pursuant to Section 8.1.2 of this Agreement. 1.2.9 City's Senior Representative shall mean the person designated to be the City's senior representative pursuant to Section 8.1.1 of this Agreement. 1.2.10 Construction Documents shall mean documents setting forth in detail the requirements for construction of the Work, which may consist of drawings, specifications and other documents and electronic data. 1.2.11 Contract Documents shall mean the documents referred to in Section 1.3 hereof. 1.2.12 Contract Price shall mean the Design-Builder's Fee plus the Cost of the Work, subject to the GMP and any adjustments made in accordance with the General Conditions of Contract as described in Exhibit B. 1.2.13 Day or Days shall mean calendar days unless otherwise specifically noted in the Contract Documents. 1.2.14 Design-Builder shall mean Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. 1.2.15 Design-Builder's Representative shall mean the person designated to be Design-Bui1der's representative pursuant to Section 8.2.2 of this Agreement. 1.2.16 Design-Builder's Senior Representative shall mean the person designated to be Design- Builder's senior representative pursuant to Section 8.2.1 ofthis Agreement. 1.2.17 Design Consultant is a qualified, licensed design professional who is not an employee of Design-Builder, but is retained by Design-Builder, or employed or retained by anyone under contract with Design-Builder, to furnish design services required under the Contract Documents. 1.2.18 Differing Site Conditions shall mean concealed or latent physical conditions or subsurface conditions at the Site that (i) materially differ from the conditions indicated in the Contract Documents or (ii) are of an unusual nature, differing materially from the conditions ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in the Work. 1.2.19 Final Completion is the date on which all requirements for the design and construction of the Project identified under this Agreement are fully satisfied. 1.2.20 General Conditions olContract shall mean Exhibit C of this Agreement. 1.2.21 GMP or Guaranteed Maximum Price is as defined in Section 6.5 of this Agreement. 1.2.22 Hazardous Conditions are any materials, wastes, substances and chemicals deemed to be hazardous under applicable Legal Requirements, or the handling, storage, remediation, or disposal of which are regulated by applicable Legal Requirements. 1.2.23 Legal Requirements are all applicable federal, state and local laws, codes, ordinances, rules, regulations, orders and decrees of any government or quasi-government entity having jurisdiction over the Project or Site, the practices involved in the Project or Site, or any Work. 1.2.24 Notice 01 Completion means and refers to a Notice of Completion pursuant to California Civil Code §3093. 1.2.25 Parties means the City of Palo Alto and Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. 1.2.26 Pre-Design Engineering Report or PER means the Pre-Design Engineering Report prepared by Siegfried Engineering, Inc. pursuant to City of Palo Alto Contract No. C08126041. 1.2.27 Project shall mean the improvements for which Design-Builder is to provide services under this Agreement, including two (2) new emergency water supply wells and appurtenant facilities at Eleanor Pardee Park and at Library/Community Gardens. 1.2.28 Project Schedule shall mean that schedule for performance of the Work prepared by Design-Builder and approved by the City as set forth in Exhibit D, as such schedule may be updated from time to time pursuant to Section 2.1.3 of the General Conditions of Contract. 1.2.29 Site is the land or premises on which the Project is located. 1.2.30 Subcontractor is any person or entity retained by Design-Builder to perform a portion of the Work and shall include materialmen and suppliers. 1.2.31 Sub-Subcontractor is any person or entity retained by a Subcontractor to perform any portion ofa Subcontractor's Work and shall include materialmen and suppliers. 1.2.32 Substantial Completion means the date on which the Work, or an agreed upon portion of the Work, is sufficiently complete so that City can occupy and use the Project or a portion thereof for its intended purposes. 1.2.33 Work is comprised of all Design-Builder's design, construction and other services required by the Contract Documents, including procuring and furnishing all materials, equipment, services and labor reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents necessary to complete the Project. 1.2.34 Work Product is comprised of all wntmgs, reports, drawings, plans, specifications, calculations, electronic data, and other documents, and copyright interests developed under this Agreement. 1.3 Contract Documents. The Contract Documents are comprised of the following documents and everything incorporated by these documents: 1.3.1 All written modifications, amendments and change orders to this Agreement issued in accordance with the General Conditions of Contract; 1.3.2 This Agreement, including all exhibits and attachments; 1.3.3 The General Conditions of Contract attached as Exhibit C to this Agreement; 1.3.4 Construction Documents prepared and approved in accordance with Section 2.4 of the General Conditions of Contract; 1.3.5 City's Project Criteria as described in the Pre-Design Engineering Report; and 1.3.6 Request for Qualifications (RFQ) 131390 (PART 1.) 1.3.7 Request for Proposal (RFP) 131390 (PART II). 1.3.8 The Design-Builder's proposal dated August 14, 2009 and letter of proposal clarification dated August 26,2009. Article 2 The Parties' Services and Responsibilities 2.1 Design Services. Design-Builder shall, consistent with applicable state licensing laws, provide design services, including architectural, engineering and other design professional services, required by this Agreement. Such design services shall be provided through qualified, State of California licensed design professionals who are either (i) employed by Design-Builder, or (ii) procured by Design-Builder from independent sources. Nothing in this Agreement creates any legal or contractual relationship between City and any independent design professional. Design-Builder shall have a separate written agreement with any such persons or entities providing such architectural, engineering or other design professional services, and shall require such entities to obtain and maintain professional liability coverage in the amounts set forth in Attachment B of the RFP any claims, damages, errors and omissions arising out of the professional services to be performed by such parties. 2.2 Preliminary Services 2.2.1 Design-Builder will assist City in expanding upon the City's PER. The Design- Builder shall review and prepare a written evaluation of the City's Project Criteria, including recommendations to City for any necessary different and innovative approaches to the design and construction of the Project. The Parties shall meet to discuss Design-Builder's written evaluation of the City's PER and agree upon what revisions, if any, should be made to the City's PER. No revisions shall be made to the PER without City'S approval. Any revisions to the PER that result in additional costs or saved costs, shall be documented by a change order and executed in accordance with Article 9 of the General Conditions. 2.3 Construction Documents. Design-Builder shall prepare Construction Documents based on City's final PER, as may be revised in accordance with Section 2.2.1 hereof. The Construction Documents shall include design criteria, drawings, diagrams, specifications and all other items necessary to build the Project. The Parties shall meet to discuss the Construction Documents and agree upon what revisions, if any, should be made. No revisions shall be made to the Construction Documents without City's approval. Design- Builder shall make such agreed-upon revisions. To the extent that changes to the Construction Documents impose increased costs on Design-Builder, Design-Builder shall be entitled to a change order pursuant to Article 9 of the General Conditions. 2.4 Proposal. Based on City's PER, the Construction Documents, as each may be revised pursuant to Sections 2.2.1 and 2.3 above, and any other documents upon which the Parties may agree, Design-Builder shall submit a proposal to City (the "Proposal"), which shall include the following; 2.4.1 A proposed Contract Price for the design and construction of the Project, which price shall be the Design-Builder'S Fee plus the Cost of the Work subject to the Guaranteed Maximum Price ("GMP") as described in Exhibit B; and 2.4.2 A schedule and date of Substantial Completion of the Project upon which the Contract Price for the Project is based as described in Exhibit D. 2.5 Review of Proposal. Design-Builder and City shall meet to discuss and review the Proposal. If City has any comments regarding the Proposal, or finds any inconsistencies or inaccuracies in the information presented with respect to the City's PER, it shall promptly give written notice to Design-Builder of such comments or findings. If Design- Builder finds the revisions acceptable, Design-Builder shall, upon receipt of City's notice, adjust the Proposal. If Design-Builder and the City do not agree on a price or time of completion, either Party may terminate the Agreement without further costs. Article 3 Interpretation and Intent 3.1 The Contract Documents will provide for the Design-Builder to complete the Work and all obligations required by the Contract Documents within the Contract Time(s) for the Contract Price. The Contract Documents are complementary and shall be interpreted in harmony so as to avoid conflict, with words and phrases interpreted in a manner consistent with construction and design industry standards. In the event of any inconsistency, conflict, or ambiguity between or among the Contract Documents, the Contract Documents shall take precedence in the order in which they are listed in Section 1.3.1 hereof. 3.2 Tenus, words and phrases used in the Contract Documents shall have the meanings given them in this Agreement, if not defined elsewhere in the Contract Documents. 3.3 The documents constituting the Contract Documents as set forth in Section 1.3 hereof, represent the entire and integrated agreement between City and Design-Builder and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, whether written or oral, between City and Design-Builder related to the Project or the Work. Article 4 Ownership of Work Product 4.1 Work Product. All Work Product, including without limitation, all writings, reports, drawings, plans, specifications, calculations, electronic data, and other documents, and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of the City without restriction or limitation upon their use. All copyrights which arise from creation of the Work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in City, and Design-Builder waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the City. Neither Design-Builder, its Subcontractors, nor its Sub-Subcontractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the City's prior written approval. Article 5 Contract Time 5.1 Date of Commencement. The Work shall commence within five (5) days of Design- Builder's receipt of a written notice issued by the City authorizing Design-Builder to proceed with the Work or some portion of the Work ("Date of Commencement") unless the Parties mutually agree otherwise in writing. 5.2 Substantial Completion and Final Completion. 5.2.1 Substantial Completion of the entire Project shall be achieved no later than the date detenuined pursuant to Section 2.4.2 hereof ("Scheduled Substantial Completion Date"). 5.2.2 Interim milestones and/or Substantial Completion of identified portions of the Work shall be based upon final negotiated schedule proposed by DESIGN-BUILDER and agreed upon by CITY. 5.2.3 Final Completion of the Work or identified portions of the Work shall be achieved as expeditiously as reasonably practicable. 5.2.4 All of the dates set forth in this Article 5 ("Contract Time(s)") shall be subject to adjustment in accordance with the General Conditions of Contract. 5.3 Time is of the Essence. City and Design-Builder mutually agree that time is of the essence with respect to the dates and times set forth in the Contract Documents. 5.4 Liquidated Damages. Design-Builder understands that if Substantial Completion is not attained by the Scheduled Substantial Completion Date, City will suffer damages which are difficult to determine and accurately specify. If Substantial Completion is not attained by fourteen (14) days after the Scheduled Substantial Completion Date (the "LD Date"), Design-Builder shall pay City five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) as liquidated damages for each day that Substantial Completion extends beyond the LD Date. The liquidated damages provided herein shall be in lieu of all liability for any and all extra costs, losses, expenses, claims, penalties and any other damages, whether special or consequential, and of whatsoever nature incurred by City which are occasioned by any delay in achieving Substantial Completion. Article 6 Contract Price 6.1 Contract Price 6.1.1 City shall pay Design-Builder in accordance with Article 6 of the General Conditions of Contract, a Contract Price which is equal to Design-Builder's Fee (as defined in Section 6.2 hereof), plus the Cost of the Work (as defined in Section 6.3 hereof), subject to the GMP established in Section 6.5 hereof and any adjustments made in accordance with the General Conditions of Contract. 6.2 Design-Builder's Fee 6.2.1 Design-Builder's Fee shall be: Three Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($380,000). 6.3 Cost of the Work. The term Cost of the Work shall mean costs reasonably incurred by Design-Builder in the proper performance of the Work for the procurement, furnishing, installation and construction of the Work. The Cost of the Work shall also include only the following: .1 Wages of direct employees of Design-Builder performing the Work, provided, however, that the costs for employees of Design-Builder performing design services shall be calculated on the basis of prevailing market rates for design professionals performing such services . • 2 Wages or salaries of Design-Builder's supervisory and administrative personnel engaged in the performance of the Work to assist in the production or transportation of material and equipment necessary for the Work. .3 Wages or salaries of Design-Builder's personnel stationed at Design-Builder's principal or branch offices and performing the following functions. The reimbursable costs of personnel stationed at Design-Builder's principal or branch offices shall include a fifteen percent (15%) markup to compensate Design- Builder for the Project-related only overhead associated with such personnel. .4 Costs incurred by Design-Builder for employee benefits, premiums, taxes, insurance, contributions and assessments required by law, collective bargaining agreements, or which are customarily paid by Design-Builder, to the extent such costs are based on wages and salaries paid to employees of Design-Builder covered under Sections 6.3.1 through 6.3.3 hereof. .5 The reasonable portion of the cost of travel, accommodations and meals for Design-Builder's personnel necessarily and directly incurred in connection with the perfonnance of the Work . . 6 Payments properly made by Design-Builder to Subcontractors and Design Consultants for perfonnance of portions of the Work, including any insurance and bond premiums incurred by Subcontractors and Design Consultants . . 7 Costs incurred by Design-Builder in repairing or correcting defective, damaged or nonconfonning Work, provided that such defective, damaged or nonconfonning Work was beyond the reasonable control of Design-Builder, or caused by the ordinary mistakes or inadvertence, and not the negligence, of Design-Builder or those working by or through Design-Builder. If the costs associated with such defective, damaged or nonconfonning Work are recoverable from insurance, Subcontractors or Design Consultants, Design-Builder shall exercise best efforts to obtain recovery from the appropriate source and credit City if recovery is obtained . . 8 Costs, including transportation, inspection, testing, storage and handling, of materials, equipment and supplies incorporated or reasonably used in completing the Work. .9 Costs less salvage value of materials, supplies, temporary facilities, machinery, equipment and hand tools not customarily owned by the workers that are not fully consumed in the perfonnance of the Work and which remain the property of Design-Builder, including the costs of transporting, inspecting, testing, handling, installing, maintaining, dismantling and removing such items . . 10 Costs of removal and lawful disposal of debris and waste from the Site . . 11 The reasonable costs and expenses incurred in establishing, operating and demobilizing the Site office, including the cost of facsimile transmissions, long- distance telephone calls, postage and express delivery charges, telephone service, photocopying and reasonable petty cash expenses . . 12 Rental charges and the costs of transportation, installation, minor repairs and replacements, dismantling and removal of temporary facilities, machinery, equipment and hand tools not customarily owned by the workers, which are provided by Design-Builder at the Site, whether rented from Design-Builder or others, and incurred in the performance of the Work. .13 Premiums for insurance and bonds required by this Agreement or the performance of the Work. .14 All fuel and utility costs incurred in the performance of the Work . . 15 Sales, use or similar taxes, tariffs or duties incurred in the performance of the Work. .16 Legal costs, court costs and costs of mediation and arbitration reasonably arising from Design-Builder's performance of the Work, provided such costs do not arise from disputes between City and Design-Builder . • 17 Costs for permits, royalties, licenses, tests and inspections incurred by Design- Builder as a requirement of the Contract Documents . . 18 The cost of defending suits or claims for infringement of patent rights arising from the use of a particular design, process, or product required by the City, paying legal judgments against Design-Builder resulting from such suits or claims, and paying settlements made with City's consent. .19 Deposits which are lost, except to the extent caused by Design-Builder's negligence . • 20 Costs incurred in preventing damage, injury or loss in case of an emergency affecting the safety of persons and property . . 21 Other costs reasonably and properly incurred in the performance of the Work to the extent approved in writing by City. 6.4 Non-Reimbursable Costs The following shall be excluded from the Cost of the Work: .1 Compensation for Design-Builder's personnel stationed at Design-Builder's principal or branch offices, except as provided for in Sections 6.3.1, 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 hereof . • 2 Overhead and general expenses, except as provided for in Section 6.3 hereof. .3 The cost ofDesign-Builder's capital used in the performance ofthe Work. .4 If the Parties have agreed on a GMP, costs that would cause the GMP, as adjusted in accordance with the Contract Documents, to be exceeded. 6.5 The Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) 6.5.1 Establishment of the GMP 6.5.1.1 Design-Builder guarantees that it shall not exceed the GMP of Three Million Eight Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($3,870,000). Design-Builder will be responsible for paying all costs for completing the Work which exceeds the GMP, as adjusted in accordance with the Contract Documents. Documents used as a basis for the GMP shall be identified in an exhibit to this Agreement (Exhibit B). 6.5.2 Savings 6.5.2.1 If the sum of the actual Cost of the Work and Design-Builder's Fee (and, if applicable, any prices established under Section 6.1.2 hereof) is less than the GMP, as such GMP may have been adjusted over the course of the Project, the difference ("Savings") shall be shared as follows: Eighty percent (80%) to Design-Builder and twenty percent (20%) to the City. 6.5.2.2 Savings shall be calculated as part of the City's final payment under Section 7.3 hereof, with the understanding that to the extent Design-Builder incurs costs after Final Completion which would have been payable to Design-Builder as a Cost of the Work, Design-Builder shall be entitled to payment from the City for that portion of such costs that were allocated to the City as Savings. Article 7 Procedure for Payment 7.1 Progress Payments 7.1.1 Design-Builder shall submit to the City on or before the twenty-fifth (25th) day of each month, beginning with the first month after the Date of Commencement, Design-Builder's Application for Payment in accordance with Article 6 of the General Conditions of Contract. 7.1.2 The City shall make payment within thirty (30) days of City's receipt of each properly submitted and accurate Application for Payment in accordance with Article 6 of the General Conditions of Contract, but in each case less the total of payments previously made, and less amounts properly withheld under Section 6.3 ofthe General Conditions of Contract. 7.1.3 If Design-Builder's Fee under Section 6.2.1 hereof is a fixed amount, the amount of Design-Builder's Fee to be included in Design-Builder's monthly Application for Payment and paid by the City shall be proportional to the percentage of the Work completed, less payments previously made on account of Design-Builder's Fee. 7.2 Retainage on Progress Payments 7.2.1 Unless otherwise provided below, the City will retain ten percent (10%) of progress payments for construction costs until thirty-five (35) days following recordation of a Notice of Completion. City will not retain any portion of the progress payments reflecting design costs. 7.2.2 In accordance with law, or otherwise, City may withhold payment (in excess of retentions) or, on account of subsequently discovered evidence, nullify the whole or a part of any certificate to such extent as may be necessary to protect City from loss on account of the following: .1 Defective work not in the process of being remedied . . 2 "Stop Notice" or mechanic's liens claims filed with City . . 3 State, federal and governmental agency claims or liens . .4 Failure of Design-Builder, its Subcontractors or Sub-Subcontractors to make payments properly to contractors for material or labor when no actual dispute exists concerning such payment. .5 Default of Design-Builder or its Design-Consultants in the performance of any material term of this Agreement. .6 If stop notices or mechanic's liens are filed against the Project or state, federal or other governmental agency claims or liens are filed, City shall withhold the amount required by law from progress payments or certificates until such claims and liens shall have been resolved pursuant to applicable law. However, if the cause of the stop notice is due to City's unexcused failure to pay Design-Builder in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, then Design-Builder shall be entitled to make a claim for any damages incurred as a result of or arising out of the withholding. 7.2.3 Upon Substantial Completion of the entire Work or, if applicable, any portion of the Work, pursuant to Section 6.4 of the General Conditions of Contract, City shall release to Design-Builder all retained amounts relating, as applicable, to the entire Work or completed portion of the Work, less an amount equal to the reasonable value of all remaining or incomplete items of Work as noted in the Certificate of Substantial Completion and less an amount equal to the reasonable value of the City's loss on account of any items listed under Section 7.2.2 of this Agreement. 7.2.4 When the Certificate of Substantial Completion is fully executed and all remammg incomplete items noted in the Certificate of Substantial Completion have been completed, the City'S Representative will issue a Notice of Completion and within ten (10) days after formal acceptance by the City Council of the City, will record such Notice of Completion. A certified, conformed copy of the recorded Notice of Completion will be sent to Design-Builder. 7.3 Final Payment. Design-Builder shall submit its Application for Final Payment to the City in accordance with Section 6.6 of the General Conditions of Contract. The City shall make payment on Design-Builder's properly submitted and accurate Application for Final Payment within thirty (30) days after City's receipt of the Application for Final Payment. provided that Design-Builder has satisfied the requirements for final payment set forth in Section 6.6.2 of the General Conditions of Contract. 7.4 Record Keeping and Finance Controls. Design-Builder acknowledges that this Agreement is to be administered on an "open book" arrangement relative to Cost of the Work. Design-Builder shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management, using accounting and control systems in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and as may be provided in the Contract Documents. During the performance of the Work and for a period of three (3) years from the effective date of the Notice of Completion, Design-Builder shall preserve and City and City's accountants shall be afforded access from time to time, upon reasonable notice, to Design-Builder's records, books, correspondence, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to the Work. Article 8 Representatives of the Parties 8.1 City's Representatives 8.1.1 City designates the individual listed below as its Senior Representative ("City's Senior Representative''), which individual has the authority and responsibility for avoiding and resolving disputes under Section 10.2.3 ofthe General Conditions of Contract: Rome) Antonio, P.E., Senior Project Engineer City of Palo Alto, Water-Gas-Wastewater Utilities Engineering 1007 Elwell Court, Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650)566-4518 phone (650)566-4536 fax romel.antonio@cityofpaloalto.org 8.1.2 City designates the individual listed below as its City'S Representative, which individual has the authority and responsibility set forth in Section 3.2 of the General Conditions of Contract: Lex A. Corrales, P.E., President Siegfried Engineering, Inc. 3244 Brookside Rd., Ste. 100, Stockton, CA 95219 (209)943-2021 phone (209) 942-0214 fax lcorrales@siegfriedeng.com 8.2 Design-Builder's Representatives 8.2.1 Design-Builder designates the individual listed below as its Senior Representative ("Design-Builder's Senior Representative',), which individual has the authority and responsibility for avoiding and resolving disputes under Section 10.2.3 of the General Conditions of Contract: Peter Anderson, President Anderson-Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. 1390 Nonnan Avenue Santa Clara, CA 95054 (408) 970-9900 telephone (408) 970-9975 fax pea@andpac.com 8.2.2 Design-Builder designates the individual listed below as its Design-Builder's Representative, which individual has the authority and responsibility set forth in Section 2.1.1 of the General Conditions of Contract: Mathew Miranda, Project Manager Anderson-Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. 1390 Nonnan Avenue Santa Clara, CA 95054 (408) 970-9900 telephone (408) 970-9975 fax mm@andpac.com Article 9 Notices 9.1 All notices, demands or other communications required or pennitted to be given under the Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly delivered: (a) upon personal delivery to the individual intended to receive such notice; (b) four (4) days after mailing by United States mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid, addressed to the proper party at the appropriate address set forth below; or (d) if transmitted by facsimile, by the time stated in a machine generated confinnation that notice was received at the facsimile number of the intended recipient at the appropriate fax number set forth below. Ifto City: Romel Antonio, P.E., Senior Project Engineer City of Palo Alto, Water-Gas-Wastewater Utilities Engineering 1007 Elwell Court, Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650)566-4518 phone (650)566-4536 fax romel.antonio@cityofpaloalto.org If to Design-Builder: Peter Anderson, President Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. 1390 Nonnan Avenue Santa Clara, CA 95054 pea@andpac.com In executing this Agreement, the City and Design-Builder each individually represents that it has the necessary financial resources to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, and each has the necessary corporate approvals to execute this Agreement, and to perfonn the services described herein. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager or his designee APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior A5S1. City Attorney AITACIIMENTS: EXHIBIT "A": SCOPE OF WORK ANDERSON-PACIFIC ENGu\"EERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. // ~ ," Ii J ! I J : .. ';'--[1'1 I By' :f, /{ I .. /F /J'! ../ l: • ,~' i b "L l' -,. !,.,....... ~ N. . ~ ,; '-".. .. ~ ,,_ .. /i 'f" _ ' .. arne. tv I itT 1\ H <. •.• '-.... -r l. "e, .... ' .... ,;;, /. Title: \!~ {'oz:., (); ;;:;\" ;')~:',--;- EXHIBIT "B": EXHIBIT "C": CONTRACr PRICE / GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE GENERAL CONDITIONS EXHIBIT "D": PROJECT SCHEDULE EXHIBIT "E": INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS EXHIBIT "F": PERFORMANCE BOND EXHIBIT "G": PAYMENT BOND EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK DESIGN-BUILDER shall perform all necessary design and furnish all material, equipment, tools and labor necessary for the construction of two (2) fully operational emergency supply water wells at the Eleanor Pardee Park and Library/Community Gardens sites for connection to the CITY's water distribution system: 1. in accordance with the design criteria described in the Pre-Design Engineering Report including, but not necessarily limited to, • submittal of 1) Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) chart identifying the required tasks and deliverables for the Project, 2) a Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) chart scheduling logic, sequences, and duration of the tasks and deliverables including identifying the critical path of the schedule, and 3) a Gantt chart representing the duration of the Project tasks and deliverables against the progression of time; • obtaining final approval of the Permit Amendment application from CDPH; • preparation of design drawings for submittal to CITY for review and approval, including architectural renderings for presentation to the Architectural Review Board (ARB); • obtaining ARB approval of the architectural renderings; • implementing all applicable mitigation measures of Table S-l, "Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measure for the City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project"; • submittal of equipment and material specifications, product data, design drawings, shop drawings and other documents to the CITY for review and comment prior to starting the applicable Work; • providing a qualified professional well construction expert to inspect the well drilling, casing installation and well development and testing activities; • providing a certified inspector to inspect all of contractor's field work; • facilitating and scheduling meetings on a regularly scheduled time between the contractor's inspector, site superintendent and CITY personnel to update Project progress and to resolve construction issues or problems; • coordinating construction activities to accommodate CITY activities on the well sites, including utility work, park or library activities and events, and applicable public activities or concerns; and submittal of detailed record drawings of the work; and 2. in accordance with the Design-Builder's Proposal, dated August 14, 2009 and letter of Proposal Clarification dated August 26, 2009 (attached). City of Palo Alto Purchasing/Contract Administration August 26, 2009 Attn: Mr. Ramel Antonio, Project Manager 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Additional Information for Staff Report Mr, Antonio: RFP Number 131390 (PART II) DESIGN-BUILD OF WATER PRODUCTION WELLS EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY ELEANOR PARDEE PARK AND LIBRARY/COMMUNITY GARDENS As requested in the City of Palo Alto's email dated 8/24/09 we submit the following responses to your questions. 1. Cost Break Down Summary Attached please find Cost-Breakdowns using the CITY's format. 2. Clarification of design interface / approach with CITY SCADA The SCADA design process will start with a meeting with CITY personnel to identify the monitoring requirements for each site. These monitoring requirements will be reflected in the design of the RTU with respect to the inputs / outputs necessary to provide the required monitoring. Programming will be performed on field equipment provide. SCADA programming will utilize software and format this is compatible with existing CITY equipment. 3. Opportunities to reduce mitigation costs Cost identified in the section "Community Out Reach and Mitigation" refer to the cost of conducting the environmental/ biological surveys required in the EIR. It is doubtful that these costs could be reduced while still adhering to the requirements of the EIR. 4. Estimate for permit fees We were unable to obtain estimates from CPA Building Department or CPAU for permit fees prior to the proposal deadline. In reviewing past project in the City of Palo Alto we budgeted $4,000 for building permits and $10,000 for CPAU connection fees. An adjustment will be made when the actual cost are established. SCVWD responded to our inquiry and identified fees of $300 for each well. 1390 Norman Avenue Santa Clara, CA 95054 408/970-9900 408/970-9975 Fax 5. impact of SCWJD permit process It is our understanding that SCVWD is aware of the project, and will grant approval upon completion of the permit application process and payment of fee. We have coordinated with SCVWD on previous well projects, and are familiar with their general requirements. We will start this process immediately and follow up with SCWJD regularly so as to expedite the permit process. We do not anticipate that the overall project schedule will be impacted by the permit process. Please feel free to contact Peter Anderson or me with additional question and I or concerns. /) ~incere~J. . (_ tlf 1)./1 . L(l'01 / I I I/(V Y Vv-"......-/"· /' Matthew Mirenda Project Manager Anderson-Pacific Engineering Const. Inc. 1390 Norman Avenue Santa Clara, CA 95054 408/970·9900 408/970-9975 Fa".: Lie. No. 245215 EXHIBIT B SUMMARY DESIGN·BUILD PRICE FOR CITY OF PALO ALTO LIBRARY COMMUNITY GARDENS AND ELEANOR PARDEE PARK EMERGENCY WATER WELL IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIPTION A. DESIGN·BUILDER FEE 1. LIBRARY COMMUNITY GARDENS WELL SITE 2. ELEANOR PARDEE PARK B. COST OF WORK . 1. WELL CONSTRUCTION a. LIBRARY COMMUNITY GARDENS b. ELEANOR PARDEE PARK 2. WELL SITE FACILITIES a. LIBRARY COMMUNITY GARDENS $190,000 $190,000 $650,000 $600,000 1) EQUIPMENT $504,000 2) STRUCTURES & ARCHITECTURE (INCL. FEES) $185.000 b. ELEANOR PARDEE PARK 1) EQUIPMENT $442.000 2) STRUCTURES & ARCHITECTURE (INCL. FEES) $343.000 3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS a. PROJECT MANAGEMENT b. QC/QA & INSPECTION C. MITIGATION $246,000 $322,000 $198,000 TOTAL $380,000 $1,250.000 $689.000 $785,000 $766,000 ·$3j870tOOO A: B. DESIGN·BUILD PRICE FOR CITY OF PALO ALTO LIBRARY COMMUNITY GARDENS EMERGENCY WATER WELL IMPROVEMENTS I ITEM IDESCRIPTION I QUANTITY I uNIT I uNIT PRICE I c:9ST DESIGN-BUILDER'S FEE 1 1 DESIGN-BUILDER'S FEE 1 LS $190,000.00 $190,000.00 TOTAL DESIGN-BUILDER'S Fr;E COST OF WORK 1. WATER WELL CONSTRUCTION 2 WELL PERMITS 1 LS $300.00 $300.00 DRILLING THE WELL (540') INCLUDING FURNISHING AND INSTALLING WELL CASING. SCREENING, GRAVEL PACKING, 3 GROUTING, AND SEALING 1 LS $649,700.00 $649,700.00 MATERIALS, DEVELOPING AND DISINFECTING THE WELL. AND TESTING FOR PRODUCTION CAPACITY AND WATER QUALITY OF THE WELL. TOTAL WATER WELL CONSTRUCTION PRICE 2. WATER WELL.SITE FACILITIES a. EQUIPMENT PUMP AND PIPING 4 SUBMERSIBLE PUMP AND 8" 1 LS $92,000.00 DISCHARGE PIPE $92,000.00 5 WELL DRAIN BOX SYSTEM 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 6 VALVES 1 LS $38,000.00 $38,000.00 12" DISCHARGE PIPE AND 7 CONNECTION TO CITY'S WATER 1 LS . $42,000.00 $42,000.00 MAIN PUMP AND PIPING PRICE $187,000.00 SITE GRADING 8 GRADING 1 lS $18,000.00 $18,000.00 GRADING PRICE $18000.00 ELECTRICAL 9 1 ELECTRICAL 1 1 LS $180,000.001 $180,000.00 ELECTRICAL PRICE $180,000.00 SCADA 10 [SCADA I 1 LS I $45,000.001 $45000.00 SCADAPRICE $46.000.00 TOTAL EQUIPMENT PRICE b. STRUCTURES & ARCHITECTURE 11 ARCHITECTURAL BUILDINGS 1 LS $227,000.00 $227,000.00 12 LANDSCAPING, IRRIGATION, 1 LS $32,000.00 $32,000.00 BENCHES, DECKING ETC. TOTAL STRUCTURES & ARCHITECTURE PRICE (INCL. FEES) 3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS a. PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1 LS $123,000.00 $123,000.00 b. QC/QA & INSPECTION 1 LS $161,000.00 $161,000.00 c. MITIGATION 1 . LS $99,000.00 $99,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT & MISCELLANEOUS PRICE I TOTAL COST $190,000.00 $650,000.00 $430,000.00 $259.000.00 $383,000.00 ", : ,.,,:. '.':;'.; ,-,,-, ··<·.OS$I~~~$tlJt.:P<PRICEJ TQTAL#.$1.912~OOO.OO " A. B. '--- :., '" DESIGN-BUILD PRICE FOR CITY OF PALO ALTO ELEANOR PARDEE PARK EMERGENCY WATER WELL IMPROVEMENTS I ITEM IDE~I.iI'CIt" IIUN ~ QUAJ'oII!!!J UNl! U"IT~RIC~ ~ DESIGN-BUILDER'S FEE I 1 DESIGN-BUILDER'S FEE 1 1 LS 1 $190,000.001 TOTAL DESIGN-BUILDER'S FEE COST OF WORK 1. WATER WELL CONSTRUCTION 2 WELL PERMITS 1 LS $300.00 DRILLING THE WELL (540') INCLUDING FURNISHING AND INSTALLING WELL CASING, SCREENING, GRAVEL PACKING, 3 GROUTING, AND SEALING 1 LS $599,700.00 MATERIALS, DEVELOPING AND DISINFECTING THE WELL, AND TESTING FOR PRODUCTION CAPACITY AND WATER QUALITY OF THE WELL. TOTAL WATER WELL CONSTRUCTION PRICE 2. WATER WELL SITE FACILITIES a. EQUIPMENT PUMP AND PIPING 4 SUBMERSIBLE PUMP AND 8" 1 LS $98,000.00 DISCHARGE PIPE 5 WELL DRAIN BOX SYSTEM 1 LS $21,000.00 6 VALVES 1 LS' $38,000.00 12" DISCHARGE PIPE AND 7 CONNECTION TO CITY'S WATER 1 LS $31,000.00 MAIN PUMP AND PIPING PRICE SITE GRADING 8 IGRADING 1 LS $12,000.00 GRADING PRICE ELECTRICAL 9 1 ELECTRICAL I 1 LS $170,000.00 ELECTRICAL PRICE SCADA 10 lSCADA 1 LS $42.oo0.00J SCADAPRICE TOTAL EQUIPMENT PRICE b. STRUCTURES & ARCHITECTURE 11 UNDERGROUND VAULT & ACCESS 1 LS $335,000.00 DeCKING 12 LANDSCAPING, IRRIGATION, 1 LS $38,000.00 BENCHES DECKING ETC. TOTAL STRUCTURES & ARCHITECTURE PRICE (INCL. FEES) 3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS a. PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1 LS $123,000.00 b. QC/QA & INSPECTION 1 LS $161000.00 c. MITIGATION 1 LS $99000.00 TOTAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT & MISCELLANEOUS PRICE ~T ~ TOTAL COST $190,000.00 $190,000.00 $300.00 $599,700.00 $600,000.00 $98,000.00 $21,000.00 $38,000.00 $31,000.00 $188,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $170,000.00 $170,000.00 $42,000.00 $42.000.00 $412,000.00 $335,000.00 $38,000.00 $373,000.00 $123,000.00 $161000.00 $99,000.00 $383,000.00 ., , " , .' "'",;;,'> .::".... . ..... , ·.,:'DESI$N~$lJJ~Q',PRIQE,TOTAL =:,1',9SEl.OOQ.OO EXHIBITC GENERAL CONDITIONS Article 1 General 1.1 Mutual Obligations 1.1.1 City and Design-Builder shall at all times cooperate fully with each other, and proceed on the basis of trust and good faith, so that each party shall realize the benefits afforded under the Contract Documents. Article 2 Design-Builder's Services And Responsibilities 2.1 General Services 2.1.1 Design-Builder's Representative shall be reasonably available to City and shall have the necessary expertise and experience required to supervise the Work. Design-Builder's Representative shall communicate regularly with City and shall be vested with the authority to act on behalf of Design-Builder. Design-Builder's Representative may be replaced only with the agreement of the City. 2.1.2 Design-Builder shall provide City with a monthly status report detailing the progress of the Work, including whether (i) the Work is proceeding according to schedule, (ii) discrepancies, conflicts, or ambiguities exist in the Contract Documents that require resolution, (iii) health and safety issues exist in connection with the Work, and (iv) other items require resolution so as not to jeopardize Design-Builder's ability to complete the Work for the Contract Price and within the Contract Time(s). 2.1.3 Design-Builder shall prepare and submit, at least three (3) days prior to the meeting contemplated by Section 2.1.4 hereof, a Project Schedule including Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) charts for the execution of the Work for City's review and response. The Project Schedule, including the WBS and PERT charts, shall indicate the dates for the start and completion of the various stages of Work, including the dates when City information and approvals are required to enable Design-Builder to complete the Project within the Contract Time(s). The Project Schedule shall be revised as required by conditions and progress of the Work, but such revisions shall not relieve Design-Builder of its obligations to complete the Project within the Contract Time(s), as such dates may be adjusted in accordance with the Contract Documents. City's review of and response to the Project Schedule shall not relieve Design-Builder of its complete and exclusive obligation to control the means, methods, sequences and techniques for executing the Work. 2.1.4 The Parties will meet within seven (7) days after execution of the Agreement to discuss issues affecting the administration of the Work and to implement the necessary procedures, including procedures relating to submittals and payment, to facilitate the ability of the Parties to perform their obligations under the Contract Documents. 2.2 Design Professional Services 2.2.1 Consistent with State of California licensing laws, Design-Builder shall provide the necessary design services, including architectural, engineering and other design professional services for the preparation of the required drawings, specifications and other design submittals to complete the Project consistent with the Contract Documents through qualified, licensed design professionals employed by Design-Builder or procured from qualified, independent licensed Design Consultants. 2.2.2 Design-Builder is an independent contractor and is not an agent or employee of the City. Nothing in the Contract Documents creates any legal or contractual relationship between the City and any Design Consultant. 2.3 Standard of Care for Design Professional Services 2.3.1 The standard of care for all design professional services performed to execute the Work shall be the care and skill ordinarily used by members of the design profession practicing under similar conditions at the same time and locality of the Project. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, in the event the Contract Documents specify that portions of the Project be performed in accordance with specific performance standards, the design professional services shall be performed to achieve such standards. 2.4 Design Development Services 2.4.1 Design-Builder and City shall, consistent with any applicable prOVISiOn of the Contract Documents, agree upon any interim design submissions that City may wish to review, which interim design submissions may include design criteria, drawings, diagrams and specifications setting forth the Project requirements. On or about the time of the scheduled submissions, Design- Builder and City shall meet and confer about the submissions, with Design-Builder identifying during such meetings, among other things, the evolution of the design and any significant changes or deviations from the Contract Documents, or, if applicable, previously submitted design submissions. Minutes of the meetings will be maintained by Design-Builder and provided to all attendees for review within seven (7) days of the meeting. Following the design review meeting, City shall review and approve the interim design submissions in a time that is consistent with the turnaround times set forth in the Project Schedule. 2.4.2 Design-Builder shall submit to City Construction Documents setting forth in detail drawings and specifications describing the requirements for construction of the Work. The Construction Documents shall be consistent with the latest set of interim design submissions, as such submissions may have been modified in design review meetings. The Parties shall have a design review meeting to discuss, and City shall review and approve, the Construction Documents in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 2.4.1 above. Design-Builder shall proceed to construct the Project in accordance with the approved Construction Documents and shall submit one set of approved Construction Documents to City prior to commencement of construction. 2.4.3 City's review and approval of interim design submissions and the Construction Documents is for the purpose of mutually establishing a conformed set of Contract Documents compatible with the requirements of the Work and consistent with the PER. Neither City's review nor approval of any interim design submissions and Construction Documents shall be deemed to transfer any design liability from Design-Builder to City. 2.4.4 To the extent not prohibited by the Contract Documents or Legal Requirements and subject to the City's approval, Design-Builder may prepare interim design submissions and Construction Documents for a portion of the Work to permit construction to proceed on that portion of the Work prior to completion of the Construction Documents for the entire Work. 2.5 Legal Requirements 2.5.1 Design-Builder shall perform the Work in accordance with all Legal Requirements and shall provide all notices applicable to the Work as required by the Legal Requirements. 2.5.2 The Contract Price and/or Contract Time(s) shall be adjusted to compensate Design-Builder for the effects of any changes in the Legal Requirements enacted after the date of the Agreement affecting the performance of the Work, or if a Guaranteed Maximum Price is established after the date of the Agreement, the date the Parties agree upon the Guaranteed Maximum Price. Such changes may include, without limitation, revisions Design-Builder is required to make to the Construction Documents because of changes in Legal Requirements. 2.6 Permits and Approvals 2.6.1 Design-Builder shall provide, procure and pay for all permits, approvals, licenses and fees required for construction of the Project. Payment of all costs and expenses for such permits, approvals, licenses and fees shall be included in the Cost of the Work pursuant to Section 6.3 of the Agreement. 2.7 Design-Builder's Construction Phase Services 2.7.1 Unless otherwise provided in the Contract Documents, Design-Builder shall provide through itself or Subcontractors the necessary supervision, labor, inspection, testing, start-up, material, equipment, machinery, temporary utilities, and all other temporary facilities necessary to complete the Project consistent with the Contract Documents. 2.7.2 Design-Builder shall perform all construction activities efficiently and with the requisite expertise, skill and competence to satisfy the requirements of the Contract Documents. Design- Builder shall at all times exercise complete and exclusive control over the means, methods, sequences and techniques of construction. 2.7.3 Design-Builder shall employ only Subcontractors who are duly licensed, qualified to perform the Work consistent with the Contract Documents, and in compliance with all applicable laws of the City and all other governmental entities including, but not limited to, the state, federal and county governments. The City may reasonably object to Design-Builder's selection of any Subcontractor. 2.7.4 Design-Builder assumes responsibility to City for the proper performance of the Work of Subcontractors and any acts and omissions in connection with such performance. Nothing in the Contract Documents shall create any legal or contractual relationship between City and any Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor, including but not limited to any third-party beneficiary rights. Design-Builder shall bind every Subcontractor (and require every Subcontractor to so bind its subcontractors and material suppliers) to all the provision of the Agreement and the Contract Documents as they apply to the Subcontractor's portion of the Work. 2.7.5 All Subcontractors and Sub-Subcontractors must comply with the terms of the Contract Documents. Design-Builder shall contractually require its Subcontractors and Sub- Subcontractors to cooperate with, and coordinate their activities so as not to interfere with separate contractors under the City's control, in order to enable the timely completion of the Project. If the City performs other Work on the Project or at the Site with separate contractors under City's control, Design-Builder shall reasonably cooperate and coordinate its activities with the activities of such separate contractors so that the Project can be completed in an orderly and coordinated manner without unreasonable disruption. 2.7.6 Design-Builder shall keep the sites reasonably free from debris, trash and construction wastes, and shall perform its construction services efficiently, safely and without interfering with the use of adjacent land areas. Upon Substantial Completion of the Work, or a portion of the Work, Design-Builder shall remove all debris, trash, construction wastes, materials, equipment, machinery and tools arising from the Work or applicable portions thereof to permit City to occupy the Project or a portion of the Project for its intended use. 2.8 Design-Builder's Responsibility for Project Safety 2.8.1 Design-Builder recognizes the importance of performing the Work in a safe manner so as to prevent damage, injury or loss to (i) all individuals at the Site, whether working or visiting, (ii) the Work, including materials and equipment incorporated into the Work or stored on-Site or off- Site, and (iii) all other property at the Site or adjacent thereto. Design-Builder assumes responsibility for implementing and monitoring all safety precautions and programs related to the performance of the Work. Design-Builder shall, prior to commencing construction, designate an individual at the Site in the employ of Design-Builder who shall act as Design Builder's designated safety representative with the necessary qualifications and experience to supervise the implementation and monitoring of all safety precautions and programs related to the Work. Unless otherwise required by the Contract Documents, Design-Builder's designated safety representative shall be an individual stationed at the Site and may have responsibilities on the Project in addition to safety. The designated safety representative shall make routine daily inspections of the Site and shall hold weekly safety meetings with Design-Builder's personnel, Subcontractors and others as necessary or appropriate. 2.8.2 Design-Builder and Subcontractors shall comply with all Legal Requirements relating to safety, as well as any City-specific safety requirements set forth in the Contract Documents, provided that such City-specific requirements do not violate any applicable Legal Requirements. Design- Builder will immediately report in writing any safety-related injury, loss, damage or accident arising from the Work to City's Representative and, to the extent mandated by Legal Requirements, to all government or quasi-government authorities having jurisdiction over safety- related matters involving the Project or the Work. 2.8.3 Design-Builder's responsibility for safety under this section 2.8 does not relieve Subcontractors and Sub-Subcontractors of their own contractual and legal obligations and responsibility for (i) complying with all Legal Requirements, including Legal Requirements related to health and safety matters, and (ii) taking all necessary measures to implement and monitor all safety precautions and programs to guard against injury, losses, damages or accidents resulting from their performance of the Work. 2.9 Design-Builder's Warranty 2.9.1 Design-Builder warrants to City that the construction, including all materials and equipment furnished as part of the construction, shall be: (a) of good quality and new; (b) in conformance with the Contract Documents; (c) free of defects in materials and workmanship; (d) performed in a good and workmanlike manner; and (e) in compliance with Legal Requirements and conditions of the permits. In the event any construction does not conform with the requirements of the preceding sentence, Design-Builder shall correct such nonconformances in accordance with Section 2.10 hereof. Design-Builder's warranty obligation excludes defects caused by abuse, alterations, or failure to maintain the Work by persons other than Design-Builder or anyone for whose acts Design-Builder is responsible. Nothing in this warranty limits any manufacturer's warranty which provides City with greater warranty rights than set forth in this Section 2.9 or the Contract Documents. Design-Builder will provide City with all manufacturers' warranties upon Substantial Completion. 2.10 Correction of Defective Work 2.10.1 Design-Builder will correct any defective Work that is not in conformance with the Contract Documents, including that part of the Work subject to Section 2.9 hereof, within a period of one year from the date of Substantial Completion of the Work or any portion of the Work, or within such longer period to the extent required by the Contract Documents. 2.10.2 Design-Builder shall, within seven (7) days of receipt of written notice from City that the Work is not in conformance with the Contract Documents, commence correction of such nonconforming Work, including the correction, removal or replacement of the nonconforming Work and any damage caused to other parts of the Work affected by the nonconforming Work. If Design- Builder fails to commence the necessary steps within such seven (7) day period, City, in addition to any other remedies provided under the Contract Documents, may provide Design-Builder with written notice that City will commence correction of such nonconforming Work with its own forces. If City does perform such corrective Work, Design-Builder shall be responsible for all reasonable costs incurred by City in performing such correction. If the nonconforming Work creates an emergency requiring an immediate response, Design-Builder shall immediately take steps to correct the problem, and shall not have the seven (7) day period identified herein in which to commence correction of the nonconforming Work. 2.10.3 The one (1) year period referenced in Section 2.10.1 above applies only to Design-Builder's obligation to correct nonconforming Work and does not constitute a period of limitations for any other rights or remedies City may have regarding Design-Builder's other obligations under the Contract Documents. Article 3 City's Services And Responsibilities 3.1 Duty to Cooperate 3.1.1 City shall, throughout the performance of the Work, cooperate with Design-Builder and perform its responsibilities, obligations and services in a timely manner to facilitate Design-Builder's timely and efficient performance of the Work and so as not to delay or interfere with Design- Builder's performance of its obligations under the Contract Documents. 3.1.2 City shall provide timely reviews and approvals of interim design submissions and Construction Documents consistent with the turnaround times set forth in the Project Schedule. 3.2 City's Representative 3.2.1 City's Representative shall be responsible for providing City supplied information and approvals in a timely manner so that Design-Builder can fulfill its obligations under the Contract Documents. City's Representative shall also provide Design-Builder with prompt notice if it observes any failure on the part of Design-Builder to fulfill its contractual obligations, including any errors, omissions or defects in the performance of the Work. 3.3 Furnishing of Services and Information 3.3.1 Unless expressly stated to the contrary in the Contract Documents, if requested in writing by Design-Builder, City shall provide to Design-Builder the following: .1 Surveys describing the property, boundaries, topography and reference points for use during construction, including existing service and utility lines; . . 2 Geotechnical studies describing subsurface conditions, and other surveys describing other latent or concealed physical conditions at the Site; .3 Temporary and permanent easements, zoning and other requirements and encumbrances affecting land use, or necessary for the proper design and construction of the Project and to enable Design-Builder to perform the Work; .4 A legal description ofthe Site; .5 To the extent available, as-built and record drawings of any existing structures at the Site; and .6 To the extent available, environmental studies, reports and impact statements describing the environmental conditions, including Hazardous Conditions, in existence at the Site. 3.3.2 City is responsible for securing and executing all necessary agreements with adjacent land or property owners that are necessary to enable Design-Builder to perform the Work. City is further responsible for all costs, including attorneys' fees, incurred in securing these necessary agreements. 3.4 Permits and Approvals 3.4.1 City shall provide reasonable assistance to Design-Builder in obtaining permits, approvals and licenses that are Design-Builder's responsibility, provided however, that the City shall not be obligated to incur any third party cost or expense in respect of the same. 3.5 City's Separate Contractors 3.5.1 City is responsible for all Work performed on the Project or at the Site by separate contractors under City's control. City shall contractually require its separate contractors to cooperate with, and coordinate their activities so as not to interfere with Design-Builder in order to enable Design-Builder to timely complete the Work consistent with the Contract Documents. Article 4 Hazardous Conditions and Differing Site Conditions 4.1 Hazardous Conditions 4.1.1 Unless otherwise expressly provided in the Contract Documents to be part of the Work, Design~ Builder is not responsible for any existing Hazardous Conditions encountered at the Site. Upon encountering any Hazardous Conditions, Design~Builder will stop Work immediately in the affected area and duly notify City in writing and, if required by Legal Requirements, all government or quasi~government entities with jurisdiction over the Project or Site. 4.1.2 Upon receiving notice of the presence of suspected Hazardous Conditions, City shall take the necessary measures required to ensure that the Hazardous Conditions are remediated or rendered harmless. Such necessary measures shall include City retaining qualified independent experts to (i) ascertain whether Hazardous Conditions have actually been encountered, and, if they have been encountered, (ii) prescribe the remedial measures that City must take either to remove the Hazardous Conditions or render the Hazardous Conditions harmless. 4.1.3 Design-Builder shall be obligated to resume Work at the affected area of the Project after City's expert provides it with written certification that (i) the Hazardous Conditions have been removed or rendered harmless and (ii) all necessary approvals have been obtained from all government and quasi-government entities having jurisdiction over the Project or Site. 4.1.4 Design~Builder will be entitled, in accordance with the General Conditions of Contract, to an adjustment in its Contract Price and/or Contract Time(s) to the extent Design~Builder's cost and/or time of performance have been adversely impacted by the presence of Hazardous Conditions. 4.1.5 To the extent not caused by the solely negligent acts or omissions of Design-Builder, Design Consultants, Subcontractors, Sub~Subcontractors, anyone employed directly or indirectly for any of them, or their officers, directors, employees and agents, City shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Design-Builder, Design Consultants, Subcontractors, Sub-Subcontractors, anyone employed directly or indirectly for any of them, and their officers, directors, employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, liabilities and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expenses, arising out of or resulting from the presence, removal or remediation of Hazardous Conditions at the Site which were on the Site prior to the date of the Agreement. 4.1.6 Notwithstanding the preceding prOVISIons of this Section 4.1, City is not responsible for Hazardous Conditions introduced to the Site by Design~Builder, Subcontractors, Sub~ Subcontractors or anyone for whose acts they may be liable. Design~Builder shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City and City's officers, directors, employees and agents from and against all claims, losses, damages, liabilities and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expenses, arising out of or resulting from Hazardous Conditions introduced to the Site by Design- Builder, its Subcontractors, Sub-Subcontractors or anyone for whose acts they may be liable. 4.2 Differing Site Conditions 4.2.1 Concealed or latent physical conditions or subsurface conditions at the Site that (i) materially differ from the conditions indicated in the Contract Documents or (ii) are of an unusual nature, differing materially from the conditions ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in the Work are collectively referred to herein as "Differing Site Conditions." If Design- Builder encounters a Differing Site Condition, the Parties shall meet and confer in order to determine if an adjustment in the Contract Price and/or Contract Time(s) is warranted to the extent Design-Builder's cost and/or time of performance are adversely impacted by the Differing Site Condition. 4.2.2 Upon encountering a Differing Site Condition, Design-Builder shall, within fourteen (14) days after discovery of the Differing Site Condition, provide prompt written notice to City of such condition, setting forth with specificity the nature of the Differing Site Condition and a recommendation for handling the Differing Site Condition in a manner which causes the least disruption to the Project Schedule. Design-Builder shall, to the extent reasonably possible, provide such notice before the Differing Site Condition has been disturbed or altered. 4.2.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event the Parties are unable to agree to an adjustment in the Contract Price and/or Contract Time within sixty (60) days of the City's receipt of notice in accordance with Section 4.2.2 above, the City may at its election (i) terminate the Agreement in accordance with Article 8 of the Agreement, or (ii) resolve the dispute using the procedures established in Article 10 of these General Conditions of Contract. Article 5 Insurance and Bonds 5.1 Design-Builder's Insurance Requirements 5.1.1 Design-Builder is responsible for procuring and maintaining from insurance companies authorized to do business in California, and with a minimum rating set forth herein, the following insurance coverages for certain claims which may arise from or out of the performance of the Work and obligations under the Contract Documents: Insurance Requirements (Exhibit E) 5.1.2 Design-Builder's liability insurance shall include completed operations insurance for the period of time set forth in the Contract Documents. 5.1.3 Design-Builder'S liability insurance shall specifically delete any design-build or similar exclusions that could compromise coverages because of the design-build delivery of the Project. 5.1.4 To the extent City requires Design-Builder or any Design Consultant to provide professional liability insurance for claims arising from the negligent performance of design services by Design-Builder or the Design Consultant, the coverage limits, duration and other specifics of such insurance shall be as set forth in Article 5 hereof. Any professional liability insurance shall specifically delete any design-build or similar exclusions that could compromise coverages because of the design-build delivery of the Project. Such policies shall be provided prior to the commencement of any design services under the Contract Documents. 5.1.5 Prior to commencing any construction services under the Contract Documents, Design-Builder shall provide City with certificates evidencing that (i) all insurance obligations required by the Contract Documents are in full force and in effect and will remain in effect for the duration required by the Contract Documents and (ii) no insurance coverage will be canceled, renewal refused, or materially changed unless at least thirty (30) days prior written notice is given to City. 5.2 City's Property Insurance 5.2.1 Unless otherwise provided in the Contract Documents, City shall procure and maintain from insurance companies authorized to do business in the state in which the Project is located, property insurance upon the entire Project to the full insurable value of the Project, including professional fees, overtime premiums and all other expenses incurred to replace or repair the insured property. The property insurance obtained by City shall include as additional insureds the interests of City, Design-Builder, Design Consultants, Subcontractors and Sub-Subcontractors, and shall insure against the perils of fire and extended coverage, theft, vandalism, malicious mischief, collapse, flood, earthquake, debris removal and other perils or causes of loss as called for in the Contract Documents. The property insurance shall include physical loss or damage to the Work, including materials and equipment in transit, at the Site or at another location as may be indicated in Design-Builder's Application for Payment and approved by City. 5.2.2 Unless the Contract Documents provide otherwise, City shall procure and maintain boiler and machinery insurance that will include the interests of City, Design-Builder, Design Consultants, Subcontractors and Sub-Subcontractors. 5.2.3 Any loss covered under City'S property insurance shall be adjusted with City and Design-Builder and made payable to both of them as trustees for the insured as their interests may appear, subject to any applicable mortgage clause. All insurance proceeds received as a result of any loss will be placed in a separate account and distributed in accordance with such agreement as the interested parties may reach. Any disagreement concerning the distribution of any proceeds will be resolved in accordance with Article 10 hereof. 5.2.4 City and Design-Builder waive against each other and City'S separate contractors, Design Consultants, Subcontractors, agents and employees of each and all of them, all damages covered by property insurance provided herein, except such rights as they may have to the proceeds of such insurance. Design-Builder and City shall, where appropriate, require similar waivers of subrogation from City's separate contractors, Design Consultants and Subcontractors and each of them shall include similar waivers in their contracts. 5.3 Bonds and Other Performance Security. Design-Builder shall obtain performance and labor and material payment bonds, or other forms of performance security, the amount, form and other conditions of such security as set forth herein: 5.3.1 General Requirement . . 1 Before allowing a contractor to enter upon the Site and perform Project construction work, Design-Builder shall file with City four (4) duplicates of each performance bond and payment bond, in the form attached to the Agreement as Exhibits F and G, respectively, and incorporated herein by this reference, required under this section. These bonds shall be in the amounts and for the purposes specified below. The surety bonds shall be issued by an admitted surety insurer which complies with the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure §995.660 . . 2 Should any surety or sureties upon said bonds or any of them become insufficient, Design-BuiIder's contractors shall obtain replacement bonds with good and sufficient sureties within ten (10) days after receiving notice from City that the surety or sureties are insufficient. The costs of any required bonds (whether original or replacement) are included in the GMP. 5.3.2 Performance Bond. Design-Builder shall post: (a) a performance bond in favor of City in substantially the form attached to the Agreement as Exhibit F, as security for the faithful performance by Design-Builder of its obligations under the Agreement, and (b) require each Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor to deliver to City an executed performance bond in favor of City in substantially the form attached to the Agreement as Exhibit F, as security for the faithful performance by such contractor of the contractor's obligations under its construction contract. The cost of the foregoing bonds are included in the GMP. 5.3.3 Payment Bond. Design-Builder shall obtain a payment bond in favor of City in substantially the form attached to the Agreement as Exhibit G, as security for the payment to the Subcontractors or Sub-Subcontractors, and (b) require each Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor to deliver to City an executed payment bond in favor of City in an amount equal to 100% of the contract sum of such Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor's construction contract as security for the payment of all persons performing labor and furnishing materials under such construction contract. The cost of the foregoing bonds is included in the GMP. 5.3.4 Warranty Bond. Design-Builder shall deliver to City, substantially in the form of the City's standard defective materials and workmanship bond attached to the Agreement as Exhibit F, in the amount of 10% of the construction costs for the Project, concurrent with the release of the performance bond required in Section 5.3.2 hereof, a warranty bond conditioned upon the Design-Builder correcting any defective work of improvement or materials incorporated into the Project that is discovered within one (1) year following issuance of a Notice of Completion for the Project by the City. In lieu of a warranty bond, the Program Manager may extend the performance bond for one year following recording of the Notice of Completion. Article 6 Payment 6.1 Schedule of Values 6.1.1 Within ten (10) days of execution of the Agreement, Design-Builder shall submit for City's review and approval a schedule of values for all of the Work. The schedule of values will (i) subdivide the Work into its respective parts, (ii) include values for all items comprising the Work and (iii) serve as the basis for monthly progress payments made to Design-Builder throughout the Work. . 6.2 Monthly Progress Payments 6.2.1 On or before the date established in the Agreement, Design-Builder shall submit its Application for Payment to the City. The City shall have five (5) business days to review and approve the Application for Payment requesting payment for all Work performed as of the date of the Application for Payment. The Application for Payment shall be accompanied by all supporting documentation required by the Contract Documents and/or established at the meeting required by Section 2.1.4 hereof. The City shall make payment within thirty (30) days of City's receipt of each properly submitted and accurate Application for Payment, but in each case less the total of payments previously made, and less amounts properly withheld under Section 6.3 hereof. 6.2.2 The Application for Payment may request payment for equipment and materials not yet incorporated into the Project, provided that (i) City is satisfied that the equipment and materials are suitably stored at either the Site or another acceptable location, (ii) the equipment and materials are protected by suitable insurance and (iii) upon payment, City will receive the equipment and materials free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. 6.2.3 The Application for Payment shall constitute Design-Builder's representation that the Work has been performed consistent with the Contract Documents, has progressed to the point indicated in the Application for Payment, and that title to all Work will pass to City free and clear of all claims, liens, encumbrances, and security interests upon the incorporation of the Work into the Project, or upon Design-Builder's receipt of payment, whichever occurs earlier. 6.3 Withholding of Payments 6.3.1 On or before the date established in the Agreement, City shall pay Design-Builder all amounts properly due. If City determines that Design-Builder is not entitled to all or part of an Application for Payment, it will notify Design-Builder in writing at least five (5) days prior to the date payment is due. The notice shall indicate the specific amounts City intends to withhold, the reasons and contractual basis for the withholding, and the specific measures Design-Builder must take to rectify City's concerns. Design-Builder and City will attempt to resolve City's concerns prior to the date payment is due. If the Parties cannot resolve such concerns, Design-Builder may pursue its rights under the Contract Documents, including the rights under Article 10 hereof. 6.3.2 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Contract Documents, City shall pay Design- Builder all undisputed amounts in an Application for Payment within the times required by the Agreement. 6.4 Design-Builder's Payment Obligations 6.4.1 Design-Builder will pay Design Consultants and Subcontractors, in accordance with its contractual obligations to such parties, all the amounts Design-Builder has received from City on account of their work. Design-Builder will impose similar requirements on Design Consultants, Subcontractors and Sub-Subcontractors to pay parties with whom they have contracted. 6.5 Substantial Completion 6.5.1 Design-Builder shall notify City when it believes the Work, or to the extent permitted in the Contract Documents, a portion of the Work, is substantially complete. Within five (5) days of City's receipt of Design-Builder's notice, City and Design-Builder will jointly inspect such Work to verify that it is substantially complete in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. If such Work is substantially complete, City shall prepare and issue a Certificate of Substantial Completion that will set forth (i) the date of Substantial Completion of the Work or portion thereof, (ii) the remaining items of Work that have to be completed before final payment, (iii) provisions (to the extent not already provided in the Contract Documents) establishing City's and Design-Builder's responsibility for the Project's security, maintenance, utilities and insurance pending final payment and (iv) an acknowledgment that warranties commence to run on the date of Substantial Completion, except as may otherwise by noted in the Certificate of Substantial Completion. 6.5.2 Upon Substantial Completion of the entire Work or, if applicable, any portion of the Work, City shall release to Design-Builder all retained amounts relating, as applicable, to the entire Work or completed portion of the Work, less an amount equal to the reasonable value of all remaining or incomplete items of Work as noted in the Certificate of Substantial Completion. 6.5.3 City, at its option, may use a portion of the Work which has been determined to be substantially complete, provided, however, that (i) a Certificate of Substantial Completion has been issued for the portion of Work and addressing the items set forth in Section 6.5.1 above, (ii) Design-Builder and City have obtained the consent of their sureties and insurers, and to the extent applicable, the appropriate government authorities having jurisdiction over the Project, and (iii) City and Design- Builder agree that City's use or occupancy will not interfere with Design-Builder's completion of the remaining Work. 6.6 Final Payment 6.6.1 Mter receipt of an Application for Final Payment from Design-Builder, City shall make final payment by the time required in the Agreement, provided that Design-Builder has completed all of the Work in conformance with the Contract Documents. 6.6.2 At the time of submission of its Application for Final Payment, Design-Builder shall provide the following information: .1 an affidavit that there are no claims, obligations, liens or stop notices outstanding or unsatisfied for labor, services, material, equipment, taxes or other items performed, furnished or incurred for or in connection with the Work which will in any way affect City's interests; .2 a general release executed by Design-Builder waiving, upon receipt of final payment by Design-Builder, all claims, except claims previously made in writing to City and remaining unsettled at the time of final payment; .3 consent of Design-Builder's surety, if any, to final payment; .4 all operating manuals, warranties and other deliverables required by the Contract Documents; and .5 certificates of insurance confirming that required coverages will remain In effect consistent with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 6.6.3 Upon making final payment, City waives all claims against Design-Builder except claims relating to (i) Design-Builder's failure to satisfy its payment obligations, if such failure affects City's interests, (ii) Design-Builder's failure to complete the Work consistent with the Contract Documents, including defects appearing both before and after Substantial Completion and (iii) the terms of any special warranties required by the Contract Documents. Article 7 Indemnification 7.1 Patent and Copyright Infringement 7.1.1 Design-Builder shall defend any action or proceeding brought against City based on any claim that the Work, or any part thereof, or the operation or use of the Work or any part thereof, constitutes infringement of any United States patent or copyright, now or hereafter issued. City shall give prompt written notice to Design-Builder of any such action or proceeding and will reasonably provide authority, information and assistance in the defense of same. Design-Builder shall indemnify and hold harmless City from and against all damages and costs, including but not limited to attorneys' fees and expenses awarded against City or Design-Builder in any such action or proceeding. Design-Builder shall keep City informed of all developments in the defense of such actions. 7.1.2 If City is enjoined from the operation or use of the Work, or any part thereof, as the result of any patent or copyright suit, claim, or proceeding, Design-Builder shall at its sole expense take reasonable steps to procure the right to operate or use the Work. If Design-Builder cannot so procure such right within a reasonable time, Design-Builder shall promptly, at Design-Builder's option and at Design-Builder's expense, (i) modify the Work so as to avoid infringement of any such patent or copyright or (ii) replace said Work with Work that does not infringe or violate any such patent or copyright. 7.1.3 Sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 above shall not be applicable to any suit, claim or proceeding based on infringement or violation of a patent or copyright (i) relating solely to a particular process or product of a particular manufacturer specified by City and not offered or recommended by Design-Builder to City or (ii) arising from modifications to the Work by City or its agents after acceptance of the Work. If the suit, claim or proceeding is based upon events set forth in the preceding sentence, City shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Design-Builder to the same extent Design-Builder is obligated to defend, indemnify and hold harmless City in Section 7.1.1 above. 7.1.4 The obligations set forth in this Section 7.1 shall constitute the sole agreement between the Parties relating to liability for infringement of violation of any patent or copyright. 7.2 Design-Builder's Indemnification for Professional Design Services 7.2.1 In connection with its professional design services, and to the fullest extent permitted by law, Design-Builder 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, expert fees, court costs and disbursements ("Claims") that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Design-Builder or any of its officers, employees, subconsultants, agents or contractors in the performance of its professional design services under the Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 7.2.2 If an employee of Design-Builder, Design Consultants, Subcontractors, anyone employed directly or indirectly by any of them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable has a claim against City, its officers, directors, employees, or agents, Design-Builder's indemnity obligation set forth in Section 7.2.1 above shall not be limited by any limitation on the amount of damages, compensation or benefits payable by or for Design-Builder, Design Consultants, Subcontractors, or other entity under any employee benefit acts, including workers' compensation or disability acts. 7.3 Design-Builder's General Indemnification 7.3.1 In connection with all claims not covered by Section 7.2 above, and to the fullest extent permitted by law, Design-Builder 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, expert fees, court costs and disbursements ("Claims") resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by Design-Builder, Design Consultants, Subcontractors, anyone employed directly or indirectly by any of them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party . . 1 Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 7.3 shall be construed to require Design-Builder to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party . . 2 The acceptance of Design-Builder's services and duties by City shall not operate as a waiver of the rights of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 7.3 shall survive the expiration or early termination of the Agreement. 7.4 City's General Indemnification 7.4.1 City, to the fullest extent permitted by law, shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend Design- Builder and any of Design-Builder's officers, directors, employees, or agents from and against claims, losses, damages, liabilities, including attorneys' fees and expenses, for bodily injury, sickness or death, and property damage or destruction (other than to the Work itself) to the extent resulting from the sole negligent acts or omissions of City's separate contractors or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. Article 8 Time 8.1 Obligation to Achieve the Contract Times 8.1.1 Design-Builder will commence performance of the Work and achieve the Contract Time(s) in accordance with Article 5 of the Agreement. 8.2 Delays to the Work 8.2.1 If Design-Builder is delayed in the performance of the Work due to acts, omissions, conditions, events, or circumstances beyond its control and due to no fault of its own or those for whom Design-Builder is responsible, the Contract Time(s) for performance shall be reasonably extended by Change Order. By way of example, events that will entitle Design-Builder to an extension of the Contract Time(s) include acts or commissions of City or anyone under City's control (including separate contractors), changes in the Work, Differing Site Conditions, Hazardous Conditions, wars, floods, labor disputes, unusual delay in transportation, epidemics abroad, earthquakes, adverse weather conditions not reasonably anticipated, and other acts of God. 8.2.2 In addition to Design-Builder's right to a time extension for events set forth in Section 8.2.1 above, Design-Builder shall also be entitled to an appropriate adjustment of the Contract Price provided, however, that the Contract Price shall not be adjusted for events set forth in Section 8.2.1 above that are beyond the control of both Design-Builder and City, including the events of wars, floods, labor disputes, earthquakes, epidemics, adverse weather conditions not reasonably anticipated, and other acts of God. Article 9 Changes to the Contract Price and Time 9.1 Change Orders 9.1.1 A Change Order is a written instrument issued after execution of the Agreement signed by City and Design-Builder, stating their agreement upon all of the following: .1 The scope of a change in the Work; .2 The amount of the adjustment, if any, to the Contract Price; and .3 The extent of the adjustment, if any, to the Contract Time(s). 9.1.2 All changes in the Work authorized by applicable Change Order shall be performed under the applicable conditions of the Contract Documents. City and Design-Builder shall negotiate in good faith and as expeditiously as possible the appropriate adjustment for such changes. 9.1.3 If City requests a proposal for a change in the Work from Design-Builder and subsequently elects not to proceed with the change, a Change Order shall be issued to reimburse Design-Builder for reasonable costs incurred for estimating services, design services and services involved the preparation of proposed revisions to the Contract Documents. 9.2 Work Change Directives 9.2.1 A Work Change Directive is a written order prepared and signed by the City, directing a change in the Work prior to agreement on an adjustment in the Contract Price and/or the Contract Time(s). 9.2.2 City and Design-Builder shall negotiate in good faith and as expeditiously as possible the appropriate adjustments for the Work Change Directive. Upon reaching an agreement, the Parties shall prepare and execute an appropriate Change Order reflecting the terms of the agreement. 9.3 Contract Price Adjustments 9.3.1 The increase or decrease in Contract Price resulting from a change in the Work shall be determined by one or more of the following methods: .1 Unit prices set forth in the Agreement or as subsequently agreed to between the Parties; .2 A mutually accepted, lump sum, properly itemized and supported by sufficient substantiating data to permit evaluation by City; .3 Other costs and fees set forth in the Agreement; and .4 If an increase or decrease cannot be agreed to as set forth in items .1 through .3 above and City issues a Work Change Directive, the cost of the change of the Work shall be determined by the reasonable expense and savings in the performance of the Work resulting from the change. Design-Builder shall maintain a documented, itemized accounting evidencing the expenses and savings associated with such changes. 9.3.2 If unit prices are set forth in the Contract Documents or are subsequently agreed to by the Parties, but application of such unit prices will cause substantial inequity to City or Design-Builder because of differences in the character or quantity of such unit items as originally contemplated, such unit prices shall be equitably adjusted. 9.3.3 If City and Design-Builder disagree upon whether Design-Builder is entitled to be paid for any services required by City, or if there are any other disagreements over the scope of Work or proposed changes to the Work, City and Design-Builder shall resolve the disagreement pursuant to Article 10 hereof. As part of the negotiation process, Design-Builder shall furnish City with a good faith estimate of the costs to perform the disputed services in accordance with City's interpretations. If the Parties are unable to agree and City expects Design-Builder to perform the services in accordance with City's interpretations, Design-Builder shall proceed to perform the disputed services, conditioned upon City issuing a written order to Design-Builder (i) directing Design-Builder to proceed and (ii) specifying City's interpretation of the services that are to be performed. If this occurs, Design-Builder shall be entitled to submit in its Applications for Payment an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of its reasonable estimated direct cost to perform the services, and City shall pay such amounts, with the express understanding that (i) such payment by City does not prejudice City's right to argue that it has no responsibility to pay for such services and (ii) receipt of such payment by Design-Builder does not prejudice Design- Builder's right to seek full payment of the disputed services if City's order is deemed to be a change to the Work. 9.4 Emergencies 9.4.1 In any emergency affecting the safety of persons and/or property, Design-Builder shall act, in its reasonable discretion, to prevent threatened damage, injury or loss to persons or property. Any change in the Contract Price and/or Contract Time(s) on account of emergency work shall be determined as provided in this Article 9. Article 10 Contract Adjustments and Disputes 10.1 Requests for Contract Adjustments and Relief 10.1.1 If either Design-Builder or City believes that it is entitled to relief against the other for any event arising out of or related to the Work or Project, such party shall provide written notice to the other party of the basis for its claim for relief. Such notice shall, if possible, be made prior to incurring any cost or expense and in accordance with any specific notice requirements contained in applicable sections of these General Conditions of Contract. In the absence of any specific notice requirement, written notice shall be given within a reasonable time, not to exceed ten (10) days, after the occurrence giving rise to the claim for relief or after the claiming party reasonably should have recognized the event or condition giving rise to the request, whichever is later. Such notice shall include sufficient information to advise the other party of the circumstances giving rise to the claim for relief, the specific contractual adjustment or relief requested and the basis of such request. 10.2 Dispute Avoidance and Resolution 10.2.1 The Parties are fully committed to working with each other throughout the Project and agree to communicate regularly with each other at all times so as to avoid or minimize disputes or disagreements. If disputes or disagreements do arise, Design-Builder and City each commit to resolving such disputes or disagreements in an amicable, professional and expeditious manner so as to avoid unnecessary losses, delays and disruptions to the Work. 10.2.2 Design-Builder and City will first attempt to resolve disputes or disagreements at the field level through discussions between Design-Builder's Representative and City's Representative. 10.2.3 If a dispute or disagreement cannot be resolved through Design-Builder's Representative and City's Representative, Design-Builder's Senior Representative and City's Senior Representative, upon the request of either party, shall meet as soon as conveniently possible, but in no case later than thirty (30) days after such a request is made, to attempt to resolve such dispute or disagreement. Prior to any meetings between the Senior Representatives, the Parties will exchange relevant information that will assist the Parties in resolving their dispute or disagreement. 10.2.4 If after meeting, the Senior Representatives determine that the dispute or disagreement cannot be resolved on terms satisfactory to both parties, the Parties shall submit the dispute or disagreement to non-binding mediation. The mediation shall be conducted by a mutually agreeable impartial mediator, or if the Parties cannot so agree, a mediator designed by the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") pursuant to its Construction Industry Mediation Rules. The mediation will be governed by and conducted pursuant to a mediation agreement negotiated by the Parties or, if the Parties cannot so agree, by procedures established by the mediator. 10.3 Arbitration 10.3.1 Any claims, disputes or controversies between the Parties arising out of or relating to the Agreement, or the breach thereof, which have not been resolved in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 10.2 above shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the AAA then in effect, unless the Parties mutually agree otherwise. 10.3.2 The award of the arbitrator(s) shall be final and binding upon the Parties without the right of appeal to the courts. Judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with applicable law by any court having jurisdiction thereof. 10.3.3 Design-Builder and City expressly agree that any arbitration pursuant to this Section 10.3 may be joined or consolidated with any arbitration involving any other person or entity (i) necessary to resolve the claim, dispute or controversy, or (ii) substantially involved in or affected by such claim, dispute or controversy. Both Design-Builder and City will include appropriate provisions in all contracts they execute with other parties in connection with the Project to require such joinder or consolidation. 10.3.4 The prevailing party in any arbitration, or any other final, binding dispute proceeding upon which the Parties may agree, shall be entitled to recover from the other party reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by the prevailing party. 10.4 Duty to Continue Performance 10.4.1 Unless provided to the contrary in the Contract Documents, Design-Builder shall continue to perform the Work and City shall continue to satisfy its payment obligations to Design-Builder, pending the final resolution of any dispute or disagreement between Design-Builder and City. Article 11 Stop Work and Termination for Cause 11.1 City's Right to Stop Work 11.1.1 City may, without cause and for its convenience, order Design-Builder in writing to stop and suspend the Work. 11.1.2 Design-Builder is entitled to an adjustment of the Contract Price and/or Contract Time(s) if its cost or time to perform the Work has been adversely impacted by any suspension or stoppage of work by City. 11.2 City's Right to Perform and Terminate for Cause 11.2.1 If Design-Builder persistently fails to (i) provide a sufficient number of skilled workers, Oi) supply the materials required by the Contract Documents, (iii) comply with applicable Legal Requirements, (iv) timely pay, without cause, Design Consultants or Subcontractors, (v) prosecute the Work with promptness and diligence to ensure that the Work is completed by the Contract Time(s), as such times may be adjusted, or (vi) perform material obligations under the Contract Documents, then City, in addition to any other rights and remedies provided in the Contract Documents or by law, shall have the rights set forth in Sections 11.2.2 and 11.2.3 below. 11.2.2 Upon the occurrence of an event set forth in Section 11.2.1 above, City may provide written notice to Design-Builder that it intends to terminate the Agreement unless the problem cited is cured, or commenced to be cured, within seven (7) days of Design-Builder's receipt of such notice. If Design-Builder fails to cure, or reasonably commence to cure, such problem, then City may give a second written notice to Design-Builder of its intent to terminate within an additional seven (7) day period. If Design-Builder, within such second seven (7) day period, fails to cure, or reasonably commence to cure, such problem, then City may declare the Agreement terminated for default by providing written notice to Design-Builder of such declaration. 11.2.3 Upon declaring the Agreement terminated pursuant to Section 11.2.2 above, City may enter upon the premises and take possession, for the purpose of completing the Work, of all materials, equipment, scaffolds, tools, appliances and other items thereon, which have been purchased or provided for the performance of the Work, all of which Design-Builder hereby transfers, assigns and sets over to City for such purpose, and to employ any person or persons to complete the Work and provide all of the required labor, services, materials, equipment and other items. In the event of such termination, Design-Builder shall not be entitled to receive any further payments under the Contract Documents until the Work shall be finally completed in accordance with the Contract Documents. At such time, if the unpaid balance of the Contract Price exceeds the cost and expense incurred by City in completing the Work, such excess shall be paid by City to Design-Builder. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if the Agreement establishes a Guaranteed Maximum Price, Design-Builder will only be entitled to be paid for Work performed prior to its default. Design-Builder is only entitled to be paid for Work performed prior to its default regardless of whether the Agreement establishes a Guaranteed Maximum Price, whether a Guaranteed Maximum Price is established after the Agreement, or whether the Work was performed on a fixed fee basis. If City's cost and expense of completing the Work exceeds the unpaid balance of the Contract Price, then Design-Builder shall be obligated to pay the difference to City. Such costs and expenses shall include not only the costs of completing the Work, but also losses, damages, costs and expense, including attorneys' fees and expenses, incurred by City in connection with the reprocurement and defense of claims ansmg from Design-Builder's default. 11.2.4 If City improperly terminates the Agreement for cause, the termination for cause will be converted to a termination for convenience in accordance with the provisions of Section 11.3 of these General Conditions of Contract. 11.3 City's Right to Terminate for Convenience 11.3.1 Upon ten (10) days written notice to Design-Builder, the City may, for its convenience and without cause, elect to terminate the Agreement without liability to Design-Builder. In such event, the City shall pay Design-Builder for the following: .1 All labor and materials supplied to the Project up to the date of termination, unpaid but earned portions of fees to Design-Builder, Subcontractors and Sub-Subcontractors. 11.3.2 If the City terminates the Agreement pursuant to Section 11.3.1 above and proceeds to design and construct the Project through its employees, agents or third parties, the City's right to use the Work Product shall be as set forth in Section 4.3 of the Agreement. 11.4 Design-Builder's Right to Terminate for Cause 11.4.1 Design-Builder, in addition to any other rights and remedies provided in the Contract Documents or by law, may terminate the Agreement for cause for the following reasons: .1 The Work has been stopped for sixty (60) consecutive days, or more than ninety (90) days during the duration of the Project, because of court order, any government authority having jurisdiction over the Work, or orders by City under Section 11.1.1 hereof, provided that such stoppages are not due to the acts or omissions of Design-Builder or anyone for whose acts Design-Builder may be responsible . . 2 City's failure to provide Design-Builder with any information, permits or approvals that are City's responsibility under the Contract Documents which result in the Work being stopped for sixty (60) consecutive days, or more than ninety (90) days during the duration of the Project, even though City has not ordered Design-Builder in writing to stop and suspend the Work pursuant to Section 11.1.1 hereof. 11.4.2 Upon the occurrence of an event set forth in Section 1104.1 above, Design-Builder may provide written notice to City that it intends to terminate the Agreement unless the problem cited is cured, or commenced to be cured, within thirty (30) days of City's receipt of such notice. If City fails to cure, or reasonably commence to cure, such problem, then Design-Builder may give a second written notice to City of its intent to terminate within an additional thirty (30) day period. If City, within such second thirty (30) day period, fails to cure, or reasonably commence to cure, such problem, then Design-Builder may declare the Agreement terminated for default by providing written notice to City of such declaration. In such case, Design-Builder shall be entitled to recover in the same manner as if City had terminated the Agreement for its convenience under Section 11.3 hereof. 11.5 Bankruptcy of City or Design-Builder 11.5.1 If either City or Design-Builder institutes or has instituted against it a case under the United States Bankruptcy Code (such party being referred to as the "Bankrupt Party"), such event may impair or frustrate the Bankrupt Party's ability to perform its obligations under the Contract Documents. Accordingly, should such event occur: .1 The Bankrupt Party, its trustee or other successor, shall furnish, upon request of the non- Bankrupt Party, adequate assurance of the ability of the Bankrupt Party to perform all future material obligations under the Contract Documents, which assurances shall be provided within ten (10) days after receiving notice of the request; and .2 The Bankrupt Party shall file an appropriate action within the bankruptcy court to seek assumption or rejection of the Agreement within sixty (60) days of the institution of the bankruptcy filing and shall diligently prosecute such action. If the Bankrupt Party fails to comply with its foregoing obligations, the non-Bankrupt Party shall be entitled to request the bankruptcy court to reject the Agreement, declare the Agreement terminated and pursue any other recourse available to the non-Bankrupt Party under this Article 11. 11.5.2 The rights and remedies under Section l1.5.l above shall not be deemed to limit the ability of the non-Bankrupt Party to seek any other rights and remedies provided by the Contract Documents or by law, including its ability to seek relief from any automatic stays under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Article 12 Miscellaneous 12.1 Assignment 12.1.1 Neither Design-Builder nor City shall, without the written consent of the other, assign, transfer or sublet any portion or part of the Work or the obligations required by the Contract Documents. Any attempted assignment, transfer or sublet without such written consent shall be void and confer no rights upon any third person and shall constitute a default under the Contract Documents. 12.2 Successorship 12.2.1 Design-Builder and City acknowledge that the provisions of the Contract Documents are binding upon the Parties, their employees, agents, heirs, successors and assigns. 12.3 Governing Law 12.3.1 The Agreement and all Contract Documents shall be governed by the laws of the state of California. 12.4 Severability 12.4.1 If any provision or any part of a provision of the Contract Documents shall be finally determined to be superseded, invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable pursuant to any applicable Legal Requirements, such determination shall not impair or otherwise affect the validity, legality, or enforceability of the remaining provision or parts of the provision of the Contract Documents, which shall remain in full force and effect as if the unenforceable provision or part were deleted. 12.5 No Waiver 12.5.1 The failure of either Design-Builder or City to insist, in anyone or more instances, on the performance of any of the obligations required by the other under the Contract Documents shall not be a construed as a waiver or relinquishment of such obligation or right with respect to future performance. 12.6 Headings 12.6.1 The headings used in these General Conditions of Contract, or any other Contract Document, are for ease of reference only and shall not in any way be construed to limit or alter the meaning of any provisions. 12.7 Notice 12.7.1 Whenever the Contract Documents require that notice be provided to the other party, notice will be deemed to have been validly given (i) if delivered in person to the individual intended to receive such notice, (ii) four (4) days after being sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid to the address indicated in the Agreement or (iii) if transmitted by facsimile, by the time stated in a machine generated confirmation that notice was received at the facsimile number of the intended recipient. 12.8 Amendments 12.8.1 The Contract Documents may not be changed, altered, or amended in any way except in writing signed by a duly authorized representative of each party. Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. 10 o Tuk Name _=:c·-----"S .. c-n:----"F"lnlJ""h:---·SO"'.:-:,,"'Sc------;OcI='OS;;;;--1'10'."09 0ee'09 Jan '10 .Feb'1D Mar'10 -AQr'10 fJJay'lO I. " 12 13 .. IS I. 17 ,. ,. 20 21 22 23 ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ • M U ~ ~ ~ U U ~ ~ • ~ • a « • • ~ 43 • Emtl'Q'''cy Water Supply pto}Kt Award Nofu;e to Proceed Well Penrits. St.!w.uals, Approvals Prelim Oe4ilill'\" WeIV' Camo city Review Finat o.~n. Weill Ca5lng Oe$~ UnW'~ound Piping CltyR8Vi$W Submill Approve Uodorground Piping Prelim Duigflw eMl Sfte CftyR8Mtoiw Fina' Deltgn" eMI Site Oe$igrJ ViIIU11 RebBt and Deteits City FlfWlew Submit! Approve Vault R.ob.ar & 0e1a1l5 ?lIdir!'lOosign. MeChtnicaf CilyRmw Flnal Dflign -M~fcal Svhmltl ApprOve Maehanical Ptei4'n Deslgn E!eetlic.ul Switcllgeat City RlWiew Submiti' ApptOW!t EtectriCe! SwilChgee( Final DealOn of Switchgear Manllfaetule EleC1tlcal SWildlgear Prelim Onign-$itUC1! AieN landscape CrtyRe...tew Final O&sign-Struetl ArehJ landSCBfl8 Swtlfflftl Appf0V4 Struell Arch! L.at\d6C&pe in,st.lland o.v.top W.llI (2) Pa«seeWd libtl!ltyWtilIl Pard •• C~".tnJctlon DistIibl.ltfOfi Piping COJ\svU(;\>on Con.net Undllfiround v,uil 81 Pardee SlteGredin; Mechanical E*!ticel wei OpetaliOfial Finish Carpantl'y SiloLa~1l$I library Conattuctlon DitbibtAion Piping ConJVuC1ion $trudIJra CoMtnJdIon Mechanical EJaelricei Welt Opetaliona! Finish c.peotty I.and.eaplno At· Built Plana 1.0da,.. MontJl,uog Fr,,'21110 1 da~ Mon 9".108 Mort 9114109 25 day. Tuo 911SJ09 Moo 10119J09 10 days Tue9I1SJ09 Moo 9J2at09 10 4ayS T Ute 9J29J09 Man '10112109 !!I days Tue 10113109 Men 10119109 10da)" Tue9l1${09 Mon~ Soda".. TUt!l9f2$109 Moo fOl5I09 .5 ~ Tue 1015109 Mon 10112109 20 days Toe 10113J09 Moo 1119/09 10 day, Tue1111QJ09 MM11123109 15 day1I Tue 11124109 Mon12114!09 15day11 Tue911!!109 Mon1Ci5lO9 S dsy$ Tue: 10J6J09 Moo 10112IM 20 days TUll!ll0/il109 Men 1119109 30dav. Tue t1/HW9 M{)n ,2121109 50 <HVS Tue 12122109 M<M 12/2lW9 10daY' Tue lm9i09 Moo 1/11/10 1 0 d.ay~ Tue 1112110 MOl'! 1/25110 2{) 4a)'$ Tue 9115109 Man 1011:2H» 5da)'8 Tue 10/13109 MOn10119r09 1500YS TU81012Q10S Moo 1119109 15 day. Tue HI101Q9 Mon 11130109 45 days Tue 12/1/09 Mon2i11l0 lOdayt TU8&115109 Mon1oJ:26109 50a".s Tue1OJ27/Q9 Mon1112109 1O'daY$ Too 1113109 Man 11116109 10 days TuoHI17J09 Monl1J3Of09 ~O' daye Tue 10'20/09 Mon 1'111$109 20cayS Tue 1tU2QI09 Mon ,1f161D9 20 days TUIl 1ll12Qt()9 MoA 1111G109 122 daV* TUB 11/11109 Wtd 815110 20 days TUIli 11/17109 Moo 12114109 <45 daya Tue 11/17/09 Mon 1119110' 1O'do1* Tue1t1911O' Mon 211/10 25 claYI TUI2J1I1O' Moo 318(10 27 da)'s Thu 2/1eJ10 Fn 3{2S!1O' 1 day MI)(I 3129110 Mon 3r.i!9110 200ays Moo 3/29110 Frl4123nO 20 doys TI'tu 418/10' Wed 515110' 114dev. Tua11111108 FdAl231tO 25 day. Tue 11f17109 Moo 12121109 20dlrylr. 1001212210'9 Mon1l18nO 25 ays Tue 1119/10 Mon 2122110' 21 day$. TuG 212110 Wed Y1011O' 1 day Thl.l'3/11/1O' T,",3I1111O' ~O days. Thu 311111 0 Wed <111110' 20 days Man 3j29i10 20 days MC1\ 4r1611O' Fri4l23Jl0 Fri5J21110 CtnlJlgMCy Weier Supply-ElellnOl' Patdets Park and' Llbraryl Community ~8n. ~te: Frt8lt4/09 T,ol>. Cri~(:8IT .. k Progfeas 8/30 Ui 9113 BJ20 91'27 1014 1ot11 1011810125 l1J1 1118 '11/15 11122'11129' 11J6 t~'llZ1:20 12127 113 ,"0 1117 1124 1131 '211 2114 2/21 u.t8 311 311. 3/21 3/28 4M <U11 4118 41'2$ 5/2 519 511& SI23 5 , '~i 3 ! .~!' 1 I -------........ 1 ----·~--l---------i 7 8 8' 5+-------.----.. --I j I "i " ~-_----,. '0 i6 I .... o. " ---bY. .. "I , ; ---·-3 :L .. __ ~ . I .. -........ I .2 43 --I 1 ~ ... I ..' . MitIIs10Mi • RaIled up CRiit..a1 Taak ~t GIOllp s-.,. Summery. • Summery • • AoUed up MlI.-tone 0 &tetrIar Tesks 1-. Deadline A04td Up Task ROlled Up Pl'Ogtll!!ll Project sumrrwy Peg. 1 tr:I :x: ::r: H III H t-3 o EXHIBITE INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST'S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED BELOW-, . MINIMUM LIMITS REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY YES EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY STATUTORY BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $1.000,000 $1,000,000 PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 LIABILITY COMBINED. BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 . EACH PERSON $1,000,000 $1,000,000 . EACH OCCURRENCE $1.000,000 $1.000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED. HIRED. NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1.000,000 $1,000,000 BODIL Y INJURY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 DAMAGE, COMBINED YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000 000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSUL TANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAL INSUREDS" A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY Rev. 11/07 EXHIBIT E INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: Rev. 11/07 PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303. EXHIBIT F PERFORMANCE SURETY BOND Contractor's Performance Surety Bond WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto, State of California ("City") and Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc., ("Principal") have entered into an agreement dated , and identified as "Design-Build of Water Production Wells For Emergency Water Supply at Eleanor Pardee Park and Library/Community Gardens", which is hereby referred to and made a part here of whereby Principal agrees to install and complete certain designated public improvements; and WHEREAS, Principal is required under the terms of said agreement to furnish a surety bond for the faithful performance of said agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, Principal and , as Surety, incorporated under the Laws of the State of , and duly authorized to transact business as an admitted surety, under the Laws of the State of California, are held and firmly bound unto City in the penal sum of Three Million Eight Hundred Seventy Thousand dollars ($3,870,000), for the payment whereof PrinCipal and Surety bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. The condition of this obligation is such that if the Principal, Principal's heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns shall promptly and faithfully keep and perform the covenants, conditions, and provisions of the above-mentioned agreement and any alteration thereof, with or without notice to the Surety, and if Principal shall satisfy all claims and demands incurred under such agreement and shall fully protect, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, its officers, agents, and employees from all claims, demands, or liabilities which may arise by reason of Principal's failure to do so, and shall reimburse and repay City all outlay and expenses which City may incur in making good any default, then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise, it shall remain in full force and effect. As part of the obligations secured hereto, and in addition to the face amount specified therefor, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligations, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. Surety shall be liable for any liquidated damages for which the Principal may be liable under its agreement with the City, and such liquidated damages shall be part of the obligations secured hereto, and in addition to the face amount specified therefor. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same, shall in any way affect its obligations on this bid security, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the agreement or to the work or to the specifications. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the Surety above named on ______ , 2009. SURETY, ______________ _ PHONE NUMBER: ________ _ BY: Its: ---------------------------------------------------- Contractor: ______________________________________________ _ CITY OF PALO ALTO RFP 131390 (Part II) PAGE 1 OF 2 EXHIBIT F PERFORMANCE SURETY BOND 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 ___________________ (Seal) CITY OF PALO ALTO RFP 131390 (Part II) PAGE 2 OF 2 EXHIBIT G PAYMENT SURETY BOND Contractor's Payment (Labor and Materials) SURETY BOND WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto State of California ("City") and Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc., ("Principal"), have entered into an agreement dated , and identified as "Design-Build of Water Production Wells For Emergency Water Supply at Eleanor Pardee Park and Library/Community Gardens", which is hereby referred to and made a part here of, whereby Principal agrees to install and complete certain designated public improvements; and WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, Principal is required before entering upon the performance of the work to file a good and sufficient payment surety bond with the City of Palo Alto to secure the claims to which reference is made in Title 15 (commencing with Section 3082) of Park 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code of the State of California. NOW, THEREFORE, Principal and as Surety, incorporated under the laws of the State , duly authorized to transact business as an admitted surety, under the Laws of the State of California, are held and firmly bound unto City in the penal sum of Three Million Eight Hundred Seventy Thousand dollars ($3,870,000), for the payment whereof Principal and Surety bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. The condition of this obligation is such that if Principal, Principal's subcontractors, heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns shall fail to pay any of the persons, companies, or corporations, referred to in Section 3181 of the California Civil Code, as amended, with respect to any work of labor performed or materials supplied by any such persons, companies, or corporations, which work, labor, or materials are covered by the above-mentioned agreement and any amendments, changes, change order, additions, alterations, or modifications thereof, or any amounts due under the California Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to such work or labor, or for any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Employment Development Department from the wages of employees of the contractor and his subcontractors pursuant to Section 13020 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, as amended, with respect to such work and labor, the Surety will pay for the same, in an amount not exceeding the sum herein above specified, and also, in case suit is brought upon this bid security, the Surety will pay a reasonable attorney's fee to be fixed in court. It is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that this surety bond shall inure to the benefit of any and aU persons, companies, and corporations entitled named in Section 3181 of the California Civil Code, as amended, so as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this surety bond. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no amendment, change, order, addition. alteration, or modification to the terms of the agreement of to the work to be performed thereunder or the speCifications accompanying the same, shall in any way affect its obligations on this surety bond. and it does hereby waive notice of any such amendment, change, change order. addition. alteration, or modification to the terms of the agreement or to the work performed thereunder or to the specifications accompanying the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. this instrument has been duly executed by the Surety above named on ______ .2009. SURETY. __________________________ __ PHON E NUMBER: ______________ _ Contractor: ________________________________ _ CITY OF PALO ALTO -RFP 131390 (Part II) PAGE 1 OF 2 EXHIBIT G PAYMENT SURETY BOND CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT (Civil Code § 1189) STATEOF ________________ __ COUNTYOF ________________ _ 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 ___________________ (Seal) CITY OF PALO ALTO -RFP 131390 (Part II) PAGE 20F2 >-- EXISTING GARDEN PERIMETER TREE GROVE ? f ; j f ~ i . '- '\ ...... ~¢ ::.~f'f..t'0 :I!:-"" e{"GtI ,./'~4 <;, •• ~.~<!'I i>.,"'< ',.. It,.+,. 4,-/. Q'Q'/. <>". $/. 17'1'17 .. - " .~ "\"", .- ~""",. «,+:,"/ 0<:- ",f:iJ y' .. ~" 0" EXISTING MASTER GARDENERS DISPLAY GARDEN VICINITY MAP (I) PROPOSED UNDERGROUND WELL LOCATION AREA EXISTING COMMUNITY GARDENS EXISTING PLAYGROUND AND PARK Al-ELEANOR PARDEE PARK-WELL SITE VICINITY SCALE:NTS EXISTING COMMUNITY GARDENS (I) PREPARED BY; 11.- •• SIEGFRIED 209·943-2021 www.sieafriedeng.com > -3 -3 >' r"J. == ~ ~l' Z -3 = PROPOSED WELL LOCATION AREA WITH 2 SEPARATE BUILDINGS FLANKING BOTH SIDES OF ACCESS PATH EXISTING LIBRARY PARKING LOT AND ACCESS TO GARDENS PERIMETER PATH EXISTING COMMUNITY GARDENS EXISTING LIBRARY PARKING LOT AND ACCESS TO GARDENS PERIMETER PATH EXISTING LIBRARY LIBRARY I CO •.• MMU .. NITY\ .. GARDENS \NELL SITE : , .,.~.. ; Walnut Dr i )"tl 'n:: -; '" Z 4,;i;r. o:t$)/8 "./<r.,.. .atO \>.0/ \:.l""atca" • "'0", "'Q' VICINITY MAP (l) EXISTING LIBRARY PARKING LOT AND OUTLET FOR GARDENS PERIMETER PATH EXISTING 10 FOOT WIDE PERIMETER VEHICULAR PATH (CHIPPED BARK) PROPOSED WELL SITE EXISTING 10 FOOT WIDE PERIMETER VEHICULAR PATH (CHIPPED BARK) EXISTING COMMUNITY GARDENS PREPARED BY: 11.- Bl -LIBRARY/COMMUNITY GARDENS-WELL SITE VICINITY •• SIEGFRIED 209-943-2021 www.sieafriedena.com SCALE: 1 "=60' CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum September 15, 2009 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2009 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT SUBJECT: Adoption of an Uncodified 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 By a motion of the City Council at the September 14, 2009 hearing, this item was continued to the public hearing of September 21,2009. Attached is CMR 363:09 which was previously submitted to you on September 10, 2009 and the cover memo dated September 14, 2009 submitting additional material at places. CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment Attachment I I City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report I~ 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 i EXECUTIVE 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 pennit 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 from 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 recommended 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 Tr~sportation Commission (PTC) recommends that the City Council adopt the propo~ed 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 Community 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 "uncodifieq" (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 regulatiohs 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. Staffis 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 concer:ned that, unless additional extensions are allowed via Council approval of the draft ordinancerbuilding permit extensions approved by Building Division staff after review and approval by the project 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 P AMC 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 pennits approved by the City Council that would be subject to this ordinance include Planned Community (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 pennits expire after two years, unless associated with a Vesting Tentative Map, and there are no extensions oftime available by the Director's approval. Staff recommends 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 pennit 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 pennits that would be considered valid for application ofthis ord~.riance are those pennits still active as of July 1, 2009 and any pennits approved through JUne 30, 2010. The proposed ordinance is intended to address the pennit 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 pennits 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 perfonnance or time requirements imposed or associated with the subject pennit, such as conditions of approval. The projects that would qualify for application of this ordinance (''valid'' pennits) would include active entitlements and entitlement applications that have been both filed ("pending" pennits) and approved before June 30, 2010. The attached table (Attachment B) indicates the proposal for planning entitlement time extensions and overall "pennit life" for each type of pennit. 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 ent!tlements that have been approved to date but have not received a building pennit 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 pickUp a Building Pennit in September 2009. The ordinance would allow the automatic extension of the pennit approval for one year and the potential for one additional year extension by the Director until September 2011. Pending Discretionary Review Projects 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 requesffor 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 pennit 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 pennit 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.orglcivicalfilebanklb 10 bdload.asp?Blo bID= 16640 The PTC voted ul}.animously (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 of project 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 proj ects 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 of2011, 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. AL TERNATIVES 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 proj ects, 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. hnplementation 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, 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. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policies were shared with the PTC and are contained in the PTC staff report 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 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 of major and minor discretionary projects would need to re-apply and go through public hearings allover again. Staffmight 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 proj ects, 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 projects would have undergone environmental review during the initial approval process. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 363:09 CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment J~}SKEENE i CUY.Manager 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 staff report dated July 29,2009 (w/o attachments) PTC staff report dated July 22,2009 (w/o attachments) Excerpt Minutes ofPTC meeting July 29,2009 (Council only) Excerpt Minutes ofPTC meeting July 22, 2009 (Council only) Updated List of Approved and Pending Major Proj ects COURTESY COPIES: Architectural Review Board Larry Perlin, Chief Building Official Page NOT YET APPROVED Ordinance No. ---- An Un«odified 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 ofthe City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Recitals. A. Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) establishes permit types, specific plan districts and general procedures including approval process, life of permit and extensions, and B. P AMC 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. P AMC 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 -Gurrent economic climate caused many construction projects to be deferred until adequate financing can be secured by applicants and property owners. The current timeline 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. r , (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 complete, 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. r (d) All Additional Extensions shall be subject to compliance with the City's Green Building Requirements set forth in P AMC 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 detennine whether it should remain in effect, be repealed or further extended. (g Nothing in this ordinance shall affect other perfonnance or time requirements imposed or associated with the subject pennit (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 ordinanc~ 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 ATTACHMENTB 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 2 years associated with a Vesting Tentative Map Per development schedule o 1 year I year; available only q.jter Allowed Extensions o years o years I-year extension by Director One extension by Council up to two additional years One extension by Council up to 2 additional Up to 4 years unless associated with a Vesting Tentative Ma Up to 4 years unless associated with a Vesting Tentative Map Up to 3 years + timeline in development schedule 1. The proposed ordinance would apply to column one pennit types valid from ordinance adoption through June 30, 2010. 2. Project applicants must apply for any extension prior to the pennit expiration date. 3. Maximum permit life may be acquired through a combination of initial pennit 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 Community 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 entitlements 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" ofPTC members. The consensus vote by PTC members 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 (Attachmc:.:nt 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. City Page 1 of2 The revised ordinance provides for up to two additional one-year extensions by Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) approval, except for Site and Design Review and Plamied 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: Attaclunent A: Attaclunent B: PREPARED BY: Revised Draft Ordinance Extending Valid Planning Entitlements Revised Time Extensions for Valid Planning Entitlements Amy French, AICP, Current Planning Manager DEP ARTMENT 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 Conununity 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 Conunission (PTC) reconunend Council approval of the attached ordinance (Attachment 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 major 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 ~ubmitted 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. City of Palo Alto 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 fu-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 permits 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 adopted in the 1990' s which also extended the life of subdivision maps due to a recession. SB 1185 is an important piece oflegislation 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 pennits 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 ifthe use or construction has not commenced prior to the expiration of the entitlement within one year ofthe 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 projects 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 commenced or unless a request for a one-year, one-time extension has been received by the Director prior to the permit expiration. The Direc~or' 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 fudividual Reviews and Home hnprovement 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 Communityzonings 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 rio extensions oftime 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 entitlements approved on or before June 30, 201 O. 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 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 llermit 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 uricommon in recent years. Pending Discretionary Review Projects 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 jri the case ofthe architectural review approval) to exercise that planning entitlement. i 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 C~)Uncil may wish to require major projects to comply with the City's Green Building regulations in effect at the time ofthe yxtension. Requests for extension beyond the 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. Staffs approach to the proposed extensions is in response to market conditions. Some ofthe projects on the lists (Attachments C and 0) 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-lO 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 STEPSITIMELINE: 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 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. City of Palo Alto Page 50f6 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Draft Ordinance Extending Valid Planning Entitlements Time Extensipns 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. VanDerWilt PREPARED BY: Amy French, AICP, Current Planning Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROV AL: 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 ofthe California Environmental 10 Quality Act (CEQA) requirements pursuant to Title 14 oJ California Code of Regulations, 11 Section 15061(b)(3). (This item was continuedfrom 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 offwas we had taken a straw poll on the items that are identified in this week's Staffmemo. 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 Staffs reppfl. I personally really need it. I have approval for 278 University which is a four 43 story offic~ 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 I 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 all)o. 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 proj ect on University A venue 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 financing 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: Se-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 tenns 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 frOI;n' 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 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 total. So that is A. A is only exhausting all available extensions that would otherwise expire during the year through June 30,2010. B basically says that you get two extensions, either two discretionary or one automatic and one discretionary. With respect to C and D I think that the comments back from Staff indicate something to the effect of would like to have minor and major ARB for multifamily residential but not ARB only mixed use on 195 Page Mill. I actually like that division myself. So I would actually go for D, which is an automatic one-year extension applies only to residential projects, no actually applies to but also there is the issue of historic. So I am wondering what people's thoughts are in tenns of residential or commercial. I certainly agree with Karen Holman's question and the implication of her comment on the back about I-C. So I would like to hear from other people and then maybe I will make a motion. Vice-Chair Tuma: Planning Director, I know we got answers to questions here but did you want to make any comments on the various different options we are looking at here with respect to the automatic extensions in tenns of what is workable? Ms. French: Sure. Well, automatic makes it easy. A one-year automatic that would be great. If we want to exclude from that automatic extension mixed use projects, residential projects that are on the Historic Inventory or Eligible for California or National register that's fine, if you are leaning towards allowing a one-year automatic for certain types of proj ects. It would be not hard to craft that wording to send to Council. ~ As far as the other responses, what about the cost recovery? Right now we don't take in any fee to extend because it is not a lot of effort to extend pennits as long as they have met the timeline. With the Commission's proposal to send it to the Planning Commission and Council for a decision on pennit extensions for Site and Design and Planned Communities that would incur Staff time so we would need to come up with a fee to cover that. So those are my comments. Mr. Curtis Williams, Planning Director: Just to add to that I think we had originally recommended two years automatic extension. So our preference certainly of these options is probably I would think B, which is that if you are not comfortable with two years automatic then -oh, yes C and a variation of -you are saying D. So essentially having a one-year automatic in addition to whatever they are allowed now and then having a discretionary one additional year and that's it kind ofthing. As you mentioned, for PCs and Site and Designs that would be more of a discretionary type of exception where we would come to the Commission and Council. So I think the only difference probably between D and where we would really prefer to be is that for the ARB projects, mixed use or strictly commerci~~ that it seems to us that one-year automatic is appropriate there too but if you are not comfortab1e with that then we would suggest the two one-year discretionary exceptions that Mr. Keller's motion had in last week. So we think those are generallyc1ean projects and those are exactly the kind of situations that Mr. Rapp spoke about, well both speakers spoke about, 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 ifthat 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. Ifthere 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 we are not going to allow 14 it to be extended and we are not going to approve a new project on there that would be 15 something. ill 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 Commissioner 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 may 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 ther~ 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,. 1 am not aware of a case where we have not approved a request for extension. We 43 had talked last time about ifit 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 project, 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 ifthere 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 17 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 Attachment 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 ~d'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 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 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Holman. Commissioner Holman: Thank you. This is probably the easiest one to pick off, to go to the single family residence issue the response is actually given in response to Commissioner Keller's question I-C. It talks about automatic extensions for approvals involving demolition of single family homes except for those listed on the City's Historic Inventory Categories 1 through 4, and Eligible for National or California Register, but allowing automatic extensions for projects involving potentially eligible homes. That is counter to what the new process is in place. Ms. French: It is not counter. I spoke with Julie before this meeting. Eligible for California and Eligible for National Historic are the ones that are subject to the new process. Potentially Eligible for California are not. That is the policy. Commissioner Holman: I don't disagree with that except there is a nuance that definitely does create a difference to this. That is that Potentially Eligible for California or National does require notification. So anybody who has the expertise and thinks that those are actually Eligible and not Potentially Eligible there can be evaluation made as to whether they are Eligible or not. In other words, because the City has never finished that survey there are these properties out there that should be swept up and I thought were being swept up, had been told that they are being swept up in this new process in the Development Center. Mr. Williams: I see the distinction that you are making. So the process is for all those other ones clearly there is a CEQA review that is associated with those. Ifwe have not done that in the past then we would need to do that before any extension could occur. That involves notice as well. So then we have the Potentially Eligible category which what I think Julie and Amy are saying is not assumed to require a CEQA review, but as you are pointing out there is a notice associated with the IR review and during that process and timeframe there is' an opportunity for someone to come forward and essentially document that this Potentially Eligible house should be considered Eligible and historic and that CEQA should be carried out for it. That has not been done previously so we are sort of missing the opportunity to do that again, or get that notice out at least and see if anybody does come forward. Isn't that the crux of it? Commissioner Holman: 1:'hat is exactly what I was saying and thank you for thQt. What is a concern is it seems like if we give automatic extensions to these properties it seems like we would be in violation of CEQA again. Mr. Williams: What I am thinking is maybe in that category we indicate that the extension requires notice in which case someone could come forward and challenge it on that basis. Commissioner Holman: Yes. It needs to be consistent with the new process so that we are not violating CEQA. ,- Ms. French: I would just say then if you are going to want to have notice, you are going to exempt all those other ones from automatic, so it wouldn't be automatic it should be Director's discretion then for those Potentially California Eligible, right? We would be sending a notice out. You wouldn't want to do it automatically. The way I responded to Commissioner Keller's Page 6 1 question l-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 Staff have 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 1 7 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 Holman: 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 time. We should probably have one that is just a 27 Director's determination and another one if it 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 pes 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 fin5iings. 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 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 reviewing an extension then we are just in the dark and flailing and maybe even open to challenge. Mr. Williams: Possibly. What I think might be most appropriate as I look at this, I was playing with this language up here as Commissioner Fineberg was pointing out in terms of findings, and thinking that maybe the last sentence of the section above that could say something like Director may approve, instead of saying may adjust project conditions, etc. It may say the Director may approve the extension if the Director finds that any applicable zoning code and Comprehensive Plan changes that have been adopted by City Council since the original approval do not substantially conflict with the project, and may otherwise adjust project conditions for the extension to address such changes. So it would give the Director in the Director's Review opportunity to look at those changed conditions, if they were substantive we could say no, ifthey were fairly minor it might have some more conditions, if they were not changed at all then they would probably approve it We could put language very similar to that in this next section under B and that would be essentially what you are looking at as welL So that if you feel like it is just a higher level and more discretionary review but if that is what you feel like those Comprehensive Plan and zoning is roughly comparable to what was there before or didn't conflict with it then you would not be bound to approve it but it sort of would direct you that way. If you saw that there were major conflicts then you could deny it If you saw that there were just a few minor things and adjusting some conditions would address those that would give you the purview to do that. So I think some language like that would help. Then also Ijust noticed, back to the previous question about fees, that there is language at the end ofthat paragraph about fees for such extensions shall be collected. I am thinking that maybe we put a new E under here and put a new statement down there to cover everything. That covers all the projects, fees for such extensions. The fees would be different obviously for the ones that come to you, but just say fees for any extension shall be collected to recover Staff costs and processing such extensions. Commissioner Holman: That would be great because as you note here the only one that is collecting fees is the PC review. So as an example, if the PC Ordinance because this Commission has been working on revising the PC Ordinance for some time, so if the PC Ordinance changes for instance if an old project comes to us for extension then the new 'PC Ordinance would apply. Do I interpret that correctly? Mr. Williams: I'm sorry say that again. I was writing down the notes that I just said. Commissioner Holman: If a PC comes to us or a Site and Design comes to the Commission and the Council and there is a new PC Ordinance, which this body has been working on for awhile could it be applied to a project that is coming to us for an extension? Mr. Williams: I don't see why it couldn't be applied. I think there is again discretion if you feel , like it is, ahd I know you have to determine whether this is conflicting. I think it should primarily be sort of the substance of that ordinance as opposed to the process. If the process of PC had changed that probably wouldn't be a very good basis for denying an extension. If there Page 8 I 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 CityAttomey: 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 itselfit is more because iUs 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 £ommission 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 condittohs 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 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 already been approved then those changes may not be applicable to that project. I know it is confusing but I wanted to put that out there. Commissioner Holman: I am trying to get some clarity on something here and I am not getting it. I am sorry. Let's say for instance, I will use an example because it is a topic of conversation' much in the community. Let's say for instance a project comes to us and the public benefit that is offered by a project does not begin to satisfy what the new ordinance is. That is different than Site and Design although I understand the project the way it is laid out the public benefit is included in some location on the Site and Design. That is what I am trying to get at and I am not getting there. Mr. Larkin: Well it is difficult to talk about in the abstract. I think in general if it is not going to impact a condition that could have been imposed on the Tentative Map then it could be done. So for example the public benefit is a park and the City decides that that no longer is going to be accepted a public benefit and they would like that parcel that was going to be a park rezoned as something different then that is something that could be done. If it there was a new condition that now all projects have to have parks that could have been done through the Tentative Map that would probably not be something tha~ could be done. Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Vice-Chair Tuma: I assume it would also make a difference in that some PCs have maps and some don't. So if you have a PC that doesn't have a map then the previous SB 1125 or whatever it was wouldn't apply. So if we are looking at a PC that didn't have a subdivision map then this issue would not be pertinent, is that right? ; Mr. Larkin: That is correct. It is just the state has done this for those projects that are getting extensions on their maps. Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Lippert. Commissioner Lippert: I just basically had a couple of follow-ups on Commissioner Holman's questions. Again regarding the historic, I guess it is the properties that would be Potentially Eligible Historic Homes. Wouldn't the original approval sort of codify or identify these as historic homes and therefore all we are really doing is extending the time period by which the project can be or the approval is implemented? It is not changing anything. Nothing is changed in terms of the potential eligibility of that house and its approval. Is that correct? Mr. Williams: Generally that is correct. I think the point that Commissioner Holman has made is that we have a process when you go through the 1R review now where as part of that public notice period if someone believes that that Potentially Eligible house is actually historic and provides documentation to that effect then we need to do CEQA on it, which we wouldn't otherwise'do, and make a determination. Now, that either didn't happen the first time through its original approval and we didn't do CEQA, and there wasn't any identification of an issue, or it was identified and we sort of cleared it under CEQA and the project. If the latter happened, which is an unusual case, then it would make sense probably to just extend that. In most of these Page 10 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 cases that hasn't happened and I think her point is that two years have gone by and now we are going to extend something that may be recognized or more recognizable as an historic structure at that point in time, or potentially should be looked at least as that, and there may be more documentation or evidence or something like that or somebody is aware of it that wasn't before. We shouldn't just automatically extend that for another year. We should at a minimum provide notice of that and if someone does have that information come forward. You are speaking to sort of the fundamental issue around extensions which is do you essentially assume that it was done right the first time that process happened and the extension should occur at the back end, which is where we started from as well I think. That is just a sort of difference in philosophy of it is, the extension sort of something that should happen because they ran the gauntlet in the first place and now it is just another year or is this another opportunity to at least check in on it arid be sure that we don't have some conflict that has arisen now and take a little more time to check that out before granting the extension which is where I think Commissioner Holman is with that. We are comfortable either way with that and certainly understand the point that is being made. I don't think in 95 percent of the cases it is going to be an issue but there may be one out there that comes up. Commissioner Lippert: Let me just point 'out where I am coming from, which is that we do have a review process for a number of discretic;mary approvals. That process is supposed to be thorough in terms of flushing out what the issues are. I admit that like any process it is not a perfect process, but it is the process that we have. What is distinguishing this from I guess where I would hate to see this go is that why not make the applicant reapply for a new application to begin with if we make this too cumbersome. Then in fact we are just going back to the beginning again. I can understand circumstances changing. When I say circumstances changing I mean the Zoning Ordinance change in terms of our development regulations and having to comply with those, our Sustainability and Green Building code changing and having to comply with those rules. I can understand us making changes to the Comprehensive Plan and again applicants having to comply with those rules. But if everything is status quo and hasn't changed why make an applicant go back through the process again or create other impediments that well, we might as well just go back to the beginning again. I also understand that in terms of developers and applicants wanting to change the scope oftheir projects as well, saying I can't build the whole thing so I will only build a portion of it. Again. that is going back to the beginning and that is not what we are saying here. This is the approval nothing has changed other than the time line. What we are recommending putting in there is automatic extension and then the discretionary additional extension by the Director, which is just simply making sure that things are in compliance with what the approval was. I have ended my comments. Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Fineberg. " Commisslbner Fineberg: Actually one really quick one and one question. Regarding the fee recovery I think it is great to be able to do that so projects are net neutral at worst. I would 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 Councilor 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 th~ 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! 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 most cases that is going to be applicable. 45 Page 12 I 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 Commissioner Fineberg: So in a Tentative Map there would be something that there would be purview. In a Vesting Tentative Map why would we bother to doa discretionary review then? Ms. French: Well, with a Site and Design in particular the Site and Design would not expire. That was in the first Staff Report from last week. So ifit was a Vesting Tentative Map there would be no need to request an extension of Site and Design because the Site and Design would still be active with that Vesting Tentative Map. You would never see it. It is only ifit is a Tentative Map or no Tentative Map that a Site and Design would come to you if they requested an extension. Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. I have a question and then we are going to go to Commissioner Keller and I think he is pretty close to having a motion. The one piece of this that I am still struggling with a little bit is if we look at Commissioner Keller's I-D saying that the automatic extension does not apply to commercial or mixed use. I don't see a rationale for making that distinction. I don't know why we would not allow the automatic extension to apply to commercial and mixed use assuming they are not PC or subject to Site and Design Review. So I guess that is more of a comment than a question. Maybe I would direct that question to Commissioner Keller as to why we would make that distinction. I understand that there may only be a limited number of projects that fall into that category but I still don't see a rationale for that distinction. Commissioner Keller: I guess you are calling on me. Let me address that question by asking the question, if you look at Attachments C and D from last week, the annotated ones. If you basically consider based on my questions say I-A, so if I-A is used in other words only those things which have their final expiration prior to June 30, 2010 how many things would be subject to automatic extension? So I assume that D, none of those would expire during that one-year timeframe, is that right? Ms. French: Are you talking about Attachment D now? Commissioner Keller: Attachment D and Attachment C. Attachment D I am assuming that none of those would have any final expiration date in the one-year period that ends with June 30, 2010 so that wouldn't even apply. In terms of Attachment C there seemed to be very few of those. Ms. French: Yes, Attachment D these would not expire before the end of the year and going with your I-A saying they have to exhaust other possible extensions you can just stop thinking about Attachment D, yes. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Mr. Williams: But aren't we saying that Attachment D if they are approved before July of next year would have this extension provision attached to it. r Ms. French: Yes, but they will still have to exhaust all of their. Mr. Williams: They would still have two years from then before they would be up for an 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 ~o 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 20 1 0 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 permits 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 ifthe CN zone changes and somebody submits a project 40 in the eN 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 abbut. 44 45 Mr. Williams: You mean in terms of the discretion to grant the discretion? 46 Page 14 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 Commissioner Keller: Exactly. Mr. Williams: If the CN ordinance changed in some way and the FAR was decreased for instance in it then at that extension point we may either say if it is a small amount revise it to make it consistent or deny the extension based on that. Ifthe CN ordinance hadn't changed we would just grant the extension as far as a discretionary extension goes . • Commissioner Keller: Okay. So I am not sure if that is explicit in this but if you talk about findings that might be a good way of making that much more clear. Can other conditions be applied by the Director? Can we put a catchall that says that the Director can apply conditions to the discretion? For example, say that it is based on economic conditions of the market that ifthe market has turned around then we are not going to apply extra conditions and if the market is still in bad shape then we will apply extensions. 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 planning related criteria not based on what the market conditions are doing at that point in time. Commissioner Keller: Even if market conditions are the rationale for us doing this? Mr. Williams: I think that is why we have a certain time period. If you felt like that, well you have already taken it down from a two-year automatic extension to something that is more discretionary so that at least if conditions change we have an opportunity to make those changes. I am a little leery of where some of this discussion heads towards creating a complexity ofthis extension process that gets back to what I think Commissioner Lippert was saying about it almost gets to where you are applying for a new project whenever you ask for an extension, and it kind of defeats the purpose of an extension, at least an automatic extension. That was one of the reasons why we were supportive of that is trying to keep away from getting into a discretionary mode of making those judgment calls, and why it sounds to us like maybe a one- year automatic and then a one-year discretionary thing is a good balance of trying to not extend it out too long automatically and giving us a little more flexibility. I think the language we have talked here about changes in zoning conditions and changes in Comprehensive Plan are the kinds of things that we really need to be able to factor into that decision. Very planning related but not trying to base it on economics or something sort of outside the realm of what we would normally be reviewing it for. Commissioner Keller: So we couldn't use economics even for Site and Design or PC kind of thing? Mr. Williams: Well, I don't know. I wi11leave that to Don to maybe comment on. I certainly wouldn't ~dvise using it that way. Commissioner Keller: Okay. Commissioner Fineberg has two quick things. Commissioner Fineberg had a comment about whether it is cost effective to collect the $50.00. Wouldn't the Page 15 I $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 ofis 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 vie 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 ofthe reviews thatwe 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 ofland 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 fmdings 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 great if you can do it on the long-tenn it is not so great if it 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 I-B to a new paragraph l-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 zohing 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 ifitis 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 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 under the following four conditions all of which are applied. One, it applies only after all other available extensions have been exhausted and the project would otherwise expire between enactment of the ordinance through June 30,2010. Two, if the automatic one-year extension is used then only one additional one-year discretionary extension applies. Three, the automatic extension is not available for historic or Potentially Eligible properties. Four, it applies only to residential projects, not mixed use, commercial, office, or whatever. That is the end of my motion. I will entertain a friendly amendment from Commissioner Holman about how to handle this issue of potentially eligible and such because I don't really understand that. Vice-Chair Tuma: You need a second first. Commissioner Holman: Could you repeat your last point, please? Commissioner Keller: My last point is I would entertain a friendly ..... Commissioner Holman: I'm sorry I was not clear .. You gave four conditions under which the one-year automatic extension would apply, or only if those four conditions were met. I didn't catch your fourth point. Commissioner Keller: The fourth one is it applies only to residential properties, not mixed use, not commercial, not office projects. Vice-Chair Tuma: And also not to PCs and Site and Design Review? Commissioner Keller: That is right not PCs and not Site and Design Review, correct. Vice-Chair Tuma: So is there a second for the motion? SECOND Commissioner Fineberg: -I will second. Mr. Williams: Could I make one clarification? The findings part I am assuming belongs for both B and C? Is it B and C, or A and B? Commissioner Keller: The findings apply to both I-A and I-B. Mr. Williams: So both the Director's discretionary determination as well as the Commission and Council's. " Commissibner Keller: That is correct. Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, would the maker like to speak to the motion or have you spoken enough? Page 18 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 3i 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Keller: I think I have spoken enough. I think this affects the market conditions and we are making it more flexible in terms of automatic extensions I think in an area that I think is relatively non-controversial. Vice-Chair Tuma: Seconder? Commissioner Fineberg: Can I propose a friendly amendment on the first one? I will speak to the motion first and then propose a friendly amendment on the first one. I think these amendments will strengthen the force of the ability to give automatic extensions when it is a straightforward project with fewer complications, with fewer things in the environment changing, and yet retain a little bit more control on the more complex projects that are going to probably have more changes in Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. I think that it will go towards not making a complicated review process that subjects developers to a capricious review process. Contrary to what Commissioner Lippert said right now if there is no automatic review everyproject, orifthere are shorter automatic extensions, would then expire and every project would have to start over, and all would be subject to whatever changing minds of the new ARB Members or new PTC or Council Members. So any extension whether it is narrowly defined or broader removes whatever projects get the automatic extension from that changing environment. Now that I have spoken to it would it be a time to? Okay. On the first one I think there is a little bit of a stumbling on the language of just how -I am sorry the second one that the required -I am sorry. It is the third point but the first of the four where he is saying that it would apply only after all other extensions have been exhausted. Staffhad an issue understanding what that meant and I think that continues to exist. Would it be possible to word it that all available extensions will expire without the ability to apply for another extension? Something so that when the project let's say has two years left they can't apply for an extension with two years left on it. Commissioner Keller: Let me suggest this wording, which is the first point, is if the project would otherwise expire and no other extensions are available between the enactment of the ordinance and June 30,2010. Is that much clearer? Commissioner Fineberg: -To me, yes. Mr. Williams: Say it again. Commissioner Keller: Ifno other extensions are available and the project permit or whatever would otherwise expire between the enactment ofthe ordinance and June 30, 2010 then that is one of the conditions for having an automatic extension. In other words, we are dealing with the things that are about to expire and we need to renew them. Those are the things that are most in need of extension and those are the ones for which automatic extensions make the most sense. r Vice-Chair Tuma: I have a question and a comment related to this motion. On this first item, if there is a project that is in the pipeline but has not been approved yet but gets approved prior to 2010 are they still subject to this first component of this? 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. They would 7 be back under the provision that would allow them 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 project 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, 20 10. 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 of2010. 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 turn 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 fi:qish 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 I and there is more money involved that doesn't mean that we should be somehow 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 cumbersome, 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, 201O? 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 ofprojects 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 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 possible at that time t.o day sorry we are going to remove the discretionary extensions because we don't think they are needed any more, or does the discretionary extension vest in some sense? Mr. Larkin: The ordinance could be repealed or amended at any time ifthe circumstances change. Commissioner Keller: Would that be the case even for automatic extensions? Mr. Larkin: As long as the automatic extension wasn't already approved. You couldn't approve an automatic extension and then repeal the ordinance and say sorry you are out of luck. If a year from now all of a sudden a miraCle happened and the economy completely turned around and there were all kinds of construction financing available and we said this is no longer necessary and we repealed it, if somebody came in a week later and wanted an extension we would say no, there is no mechanism for that Commissioner Keller: So let me try to put this out as an idea to see whether it would bring some fellow Commissioners on board. Suppose we allowed an automatic extension in more cases, I am not going to define exactly what those more cases are, but let's assume some definition of more cases, but aU of the extensions under this ordinance had to follow all of the other extensions that were currently available to them, in which case that repeal is still possible. Would that make sense? Vice-Chair Tuma: I for one am not sure exactly what you are referring to. Commissioner Keller: Well, their current ordinance allows for a certain amount of extensions. Doesn't the current ordinance allow for some kind of extensions? Mr. Williams: Right, except Site and Design is a two-year period to start with. Most of the rest of them are one-year plus one Director extension. Commissioner Keller: Right So what I am basically saying is that after you can apply for the automatic or the one-year discretionary extension but only after you have exhausted whatever else is available. Therefore if the economy were to tum around we can retract those based on what the attorney said if they have not yet been issued. Vice-Chair Tuma: That helps. Let me ask you one other clarifying question about that What about projects that are in the pipeline but have not yet approved? Commissioner Keller: Well, let me put it this way, I have not yet said what exactly what set of projects this applies to. I am just trying to work our way toward something that might make sense. { AMENDMENT Page 22 I 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 So let me suggest this. This is kind of editing online if you will. Firstly, in terms of the number three, one-year automatic extension applies only if, it is after all other available extensions. Then delete the termination date of June 30, 20 10. Does the seconder agree with that Amendment? SECOND Commissioner Fineberg: Yes. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. The third thing is I am trying to understand which projects it should apply to. I am wondering what people thillk about simply saying it doesn't apply to Site and Design Review and PCs and that is the only restriction. I am wondering what other Commissioners think of that potential. Vice-Chair Tuma: I would be in favor of it for one. Commissioner Keller: We already have the restriction of not historic potentially eligible. That is a separate restriction. Commissioner Holman: Is your change tllen saying that you are removing your fourth point, which said it applied only to residential projects? Commissioner Keller: That is right. I am thinking about removing the fourth condition and keeping Site and Design and PC as not applied condition. Commissioner Holman: I understand. Thank you. Vice-Chair Tuma: Hold on a second. Do you have a question? Ms. French: It is maybe more of point. Your point number three was automatic not available for historic. I think the context that we had talked about earlier was with residential ones, if it had gone through Architectural Review it would have been subject to CEQA. SO maybe that is particularly related to residential, that point three. Commissioner Keller: Yes, that is for residential. It is for historic and potentially eligible for historic, is point three. So I am going to make the amendment of deleting the "applies only to residential" and retaining the "automatic doesn't apply to Site and Design and Pc." Commissioner Fineberg: Isn't that already in another part of the ordinance as Staff has stated it? Commissipner Keller: Yes, I am just being clear. So I am deleting the fourth bullet which is , applies on1y to residential. Commissioner Fineberg: Right, so the whole fourth point is gone because there is nothing extra 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 201O? 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 Difector 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 ifthere 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 finished. 7 8 Commissioner Holman: On B if Commissioners and Staff would 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 Commissioner 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 conditions 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 ifthere were changes to the Uniform 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 sigllificantly. 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 I 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 StafIhas 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 any more than the existing one-year extension is and ifit 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 dreamed 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 projects 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· multifamily 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 comment with 32 regard to the notification. I think there is some latitude or some 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 Stafflevel 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 them 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 an'.! in the public domain on the internet. So there is a venue or way by which the 43 communify 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 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 The second point that I wanted to make and I guess this is more of a question for my colleague, Commissioner Keller. Along El Camino Real many, many, many years ago the City Council rezoned properties along El Camino Real making them multifamily residential properties. One of the sites is the Palo Alto Bowl. That untilrecently has been a legally existing nonconforming use. Recently we saw that property again and we made a recommendation on rezoning that property along with reviewing the potential development along there. Two separate things, the rezone of the property and the potential development on that property. What I am little concerned about is where that rezone falls in relationship to the approval of the hotel and the housing that would be going there. If the applicant were not able to find the financing by the time this comes into play to build those then again the Palo Alto Bowl is a legally existing nonconforming use once again. Anything that would be built there would have to follow the approval or the recommendation we made on that property. So what I am concerned about is that we have a rezone, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on that property, a nonconforming use, and then another proposal that ifit did not receive its extensions would then become another, you know it is a nonconforming use .. So I am just trying to understand how this would all fit into that approval-extension timeline. Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Holman you had a clarifying question about Commissioner Lippert's first point? Pass it? Okay. Did'you hear the second of Commissioner Lippert's issues? Mr. Williams: Sorry I didn't get that. I apologize. Did you? Ms. French: Yes, kind of. Mr. Williams: Is there a question from it? Commissioner Lippert: There was a question. Mr. Williams: Can I just get the question part? Commissioner Lippert: Okay. The question is along EI Camino Real there are a number of legally existing nonconfonning uses. An example is the Palo Alto Bowl site. Recently-we saw the Palo Alto Bowl site and we made a recommendation of rezoning the property to something else. It is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, correct? Mr. Williams: Well, we rezoned it back to commercial. So it is not nonconforming now except for the back part of it. Commissioner Lippert: So you have answered the question. Basically there would be no conflict there. !' Mr. Williams: Right. Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg. Page 28 I 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 project 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 fashioll 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 if it was happening between now and June 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 ifthere 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 amendment? 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 cpi:mges 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 of 20 II? The reason is if you really want to apply some period extension it takes a few 3 months 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 ofthe motion as made and amended by 39 Commissioner Keller say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That passes five to zero. Thank you. r Page 30 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes July 22,2009 EXCERPT ATTACHMENT F 1 Review and Recommendation of an Uncodified Ordinance relating to Time Extensions for active 2 permits 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 Staffhas begun to get 8 an increasing number of requests for extensions of planning entitlements, along with requests for 9 extensions of Building Permit 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 projects and would streamline the extension process. 20 21 fu 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 201 0 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 oflast year, SB 1185. 28 29 Chair Tuma had asked Staff to identify the potential effects on resources both positive and 30 negative. Firs!ofall 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 offees to be paid 33 for proj ects. 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 Permit submittal and issuance. 35 36 Then appljcants for Building Permits 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 Permits that have been issued but yet received their inspection with 39 the six-month interval would still have to pay to extend the permit for inspection purposes. Ifthe 40 Building Permit 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 Pennit and pay the fees again in 2 effect at that time. 3 4 This ordinance could'reduce the amount of penn it 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 pennit. However, Staff could then focus on 9 pending entitlement projects, preliminary reviews, and other work on our plate such as 10 Coriunission and Council assigned special projects if we just simply extended them. 11 12 Commissioner Keller emailed questions to Stafftoday 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 Pennits 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 Staffis 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 Pennit. At this point our tenant has backed out 35 given the current situation. I work every day trying to talking to retail tenant!), 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 s.ome 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 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 Roxy Rapp was going to be here tonight but unfortunately he is flying back from Utah. So he wanted me to convey the message. He has a big project he is working on too. So thank you and I appreciate your time. I am very impressed with your knowledge. You are doing a great job. Thank you. Vice-Chair Tuma: Thanks, thanks for sticking with us. Bob Moss followed by Herb Borock. Mr. Robert Moss. Palo Alto: Thank you Vice-Chair Tuma and Commissioners. I think the basic concept of we have an economic problem we should do something about it is correct but the timing is wrong. The recession started 19 months ago and is showing signs of coming out of it. My prediction is it will actually be back in a growth mode probably by November or December, and by this time next year I wouldn't be surprised if the growth is over three percent. So we have gone through this and we are on our way out. Ofthe 20 projects that are listed on Attachment C that are pending and may have to come in for extensions one of them already has an extension to 2014, three of them Building Permits should be issued within the next month. So there are 16 that are at issue and a number of them are good until2011. So I think it come to something like six or eight that really might be what we would call at risk. One of the things that bothers me about this extension is it takes all the pressure offto have somebody really build something. There have been a number of developments in Palo Alto over the years where somebody has come in and gotten an approval and then for various reasons stopped work. You have this site that just sits there unused, vacant, and getting increasingly ugly. There are two housing projects in Barron Park a few blocks from me that have been sitting for months with nobody doing any work. There is one right next to Briones School that has been underway for almost three years, and that is kind of bad. So my suggestion is a compromise. Don't give the automatic two-year extension. Allow a second one-year Director's extension so that you can get three years total. If we still find at the end of another year that we have a down economy, we have a problem, then we could have yet another Director's extension. When the Director does the extension he is talking about going with Green Building he should also make sure that if there are changes in the code, Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan that the extension also imposes whatever those changes are so that we have something that is modern and consistent with current practice rather than something that was approved four or five years ago and you wouldn't want done exactly the same way today. So I think leaving it to the Director and allowing a one-year additional extension is a good compromise. What really bothers me is the idea of something sitting there undeveloped for many, many years. That would be unpleasant. !" Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. Our last speaker ofthe evening, Herb Borock. Mr. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Thank you Vice-Chair Tuma and Commissioners. I guess the 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 Staffhas given, Staff workload for example I don't pelieve it. The real reason they 7 are concerned is the community standards change, diff~rent people are elected to the City 8 Council and if projects laps, as they do under the current code, the same project might not be 9 approved based on who gets elected. Ijust 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 Councilor 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 Staff until 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 ifthis 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 Develop~eht Agreements certainly exists in that and that we avail ourselves of Development 43 Agreemerlts 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 Communities 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 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 approvals. So it looks like the process of Development Agreements already exists for a Planned Community and already exists for Site and Design Review, and it seems to me that that process should be followed. So in particular PCs involve Site and Design Review so I would want this not to apply to Site and Design Review. If the Chair will allow me I will make that motion but if the Chair prefers I can defer that. Vice-Chair Tuma: I think it may be helpful just to hear comments from others as well and then we will come back to you for a motion. Commissioner Keller: Sure. Mr. Williams: Chair, can I make one clarification? , ,- Vice-Chair Tuma: Absolutely. Mr. Williams: The reference is to Site and Design Reviews and you said that PCs require Site and Design Review and that is not true. PCs have a process that is similar to Site and Design Review with the exception of Alma Plaza PCs do not have separate Site and Design Review. So you might want to focus more on the PC than a Site and Design Review or both if you feel it necessary to do both. But you can have Site and Design with out a PC. The PC process has embodied within it review by all three bodies which is essentially what Site and Design Review _ is but it is not called Site and Design Review. So if you just said Site and Design Review that I .,. . . . doesn't necessarily attach to all PCs. Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: In that case I would want to use the Development Agreement process for both PCs andSite and Design Review. Thank you for that clarification. Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Holman. Commissioner Holman: I have a couple of questions. How many properties are really prompting this? If you go down the list there are 2455 EI Camino Real, it says the Building Permit is issued. 278 University there is already a one-year extension available. There is an . extension available for 695 Atastradero it appears. I am just looking at the ones that expire in 2009. 49 Wells, 653 Homer one year extensions are available for those. 317-323 University no Building Permit so is there a one-year extension available for that one? Mr. Williams: No, that is the one the speaker was talking about before that expires in early 2010. Commissioner Holman: Okay. Then the Building Permits are issued for the recently issued ones the 2805 EI Camino and 3750 Fabian. They don't have to commence work for another many months. So I guess I am a little bit interested in what is really prompting this. Is it the concern for how long the downturn will last? Why are we looking at this now? Page 5 I 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 family 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 commercial 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 probably 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 u1ake a determination whether 38 to continue the extensions or not that would be something 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 abput the status of the commercial real estate market and everything that I read says that 43 when you 100k 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 market 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 the 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 refinance 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 projects or single family homes, the commercial 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 fmitely 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 pes? Could we carve out affordable housing projects? 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 ifthat 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 dispretion 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! 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 time of issuance. So if 2 somebody comes along and they don't get their Building Pennit for two years then they pay the 3 fees applicable at that time. 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 yo"\! 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 example, 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 uricodified 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 pennits 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 ofthe 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. Ifit 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. Ifthey 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 oftime 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 met? 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 ifthere 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 OCC:ur 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 abWty for the Building Official and Planning Director to determine that it could be 43 demolish~d 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 ofa 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 make 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 tenn, 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 certajnty in that situation, more opportunity to retain those retail tenants. On the home side 43 I think it i~ 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 comment on what the impact ofthis 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 some of the extensions that 19 we might be granting within let's say a year would carry these projects pas the 2012 date versus 20 if the current entitlements expire when they would come back would begovemed 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 Commissioner 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 som~thing 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 mean 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 compound all ofthat 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 *3.t 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 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 Tuma: So is this another one ofthose 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 rigqt? 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 comply 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 ofthe 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 manner 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 might 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 requireme:rts. 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 sometimes these temporary 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. Ifmy 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 Commissioner 39 Fineberg's question earlier, are already demolished and how many IR projects or how many 40 single family home projects 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 many 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 cQme 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 thil) over to next week to finish it but I don't want to do a rehash of all the things that we 43 have talketl 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 thatfar 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 ofthe 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 ifI might, that member ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe-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 incorporat~d into the motion as per Commissioner Fineberg's comments. Then after that straw 43 poll I wou1d 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Vice-Chair Tuma: I think that given that this is an ordinance. We are only going to see it once, well sort of. It is not going to come back to us another time after it is drafted. I do think there is some wisdom in seeing -my sense is that this Commission wants to see a significantly different ordinance than what it is there. So I think it may make sense to just spend a couple more minutes, hear what is said, do a straw poll because that could give significant guidance so that when we come next week we have an ordinance that is much closer to something that we would potentially be comfortable with. Believe me, Commissioner Lippert I was bound and determmed to get out of here by eleven o'clock. It didn't happen but I do think this will make next week's meeting on this topic much more productive. We will have something much closer to what we might actually be willing to recommend approval on. So I think it is worth an extra two minutes here. Go ahead. 13 Q9mmissioner 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 ofthe 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 1 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 28 29 30 31 32 33 Vice-Chair Tuma: A point of clarification, currently there is for certain of these there is an initial is there any automatic extension ofthese? Ms. French: There is a one-year extension by Director for everything except Site and Design. Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Are you proposing to eliminate that? 34 Commissioner 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 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Keller: This is up to two additional one-year extensions beyond what is going on now. On~,.ofthe interesting things is I want to make sure that we don't have a rush to finish before June 30, 2010 when suddenly if you get your approval on June 29,2010 you get a whole bunch oftime to finish your stuff, and if you get your approval on July 2,2010 you are suddenly foreshortened. So there are anomalies going on there. That is part of the reason for having it be discretionary. Thank you. Page 17 1 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Holman. 2 3 Commissioner Holman: 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 ofthat. 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 ani just going to go along with it. I wi11listen 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, if possible 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 AIq3 '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 married to one of these 2 other process. 3 4 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, that is what I wanted to make sure. S 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 Page 20 ATTACHMENT G: MAJOR PROJECTS THAT MAY NEED EXTENSIONS Approved Major Pr'ojects Needing Building Permits (Dp) Addresses 488 West Charleston 420 Cambridge Expiration* Notes 4249 EI Camino Real (Elks Lodge) 3445 Alma (Alma Plaza PC/S&D) 1129 San Antonio (Google childcare) 2455 ECR (Coronet Motel) 3/30/10 515110 2/12110 1/26/11 10/6110 9/9/09 7117110 9115/10 9/15/09 10/8111 12/27/09 4126110 6110110 2/4/10 4128110 7121110 BP submittal e;xpected 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 lyr extension available 1 yr extension available 1 yr extension available no extension (Site & Design) 1 yr extension available * Unless BP issued and construction commences Pendin~ Major Discretionary Review Projects Addresses 1700 Embarcadero 385 Shennan 687 Cowper 265 Lytton 2995 Middlefield 801 Alma 4301 ECR (P A Bowl) 3800 Middlefield 2650 Birch PTOD 195 Page Mill Road 805 Los Trancos 350 Forest 2180 ECR City of Palo Alto Notes Hearing Dates Site and Design app submitted 7/29/09 not scheduled (PTC) Formal ARB submitted 6/23/2009 10115/09 tent. (ARB) Prelim ARB held 6/18/09 formal app not in not scheduled (ARB) First formal ARB 7/2109; 2nd tentatively on 9/24/09 (ARB) Prelim ARB held 7/16/09; formal app not in not scheduled (ARB) Prelim ARB held 8/6109; Formal scheduled 9/24/09 (ARB) Site and Design, 2nd Formal ARB on 1011109 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 ,. CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager DATE: September 14, 2009 16 September 14,2009 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment SUBJECT: Adoption of an Uncodified 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 Attached are Planning and Transportation Commission's questions, with staff responses, that were emailed to staff just prior to the P&TC meetings of July 22 and 29, 2009 on the Uncodified Ordinance for Permit Extensions item, which were provided to Commissioners at places. CURTIS W LIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment Attachment A: PTC questions and responses Responses to Questions from Commissioner Keller regarding Uncodified Ordinance for Time Extensions: t. Please annotate Attachments C and D with the zone district (e.g., PC, CS, etc). To be provided at places. 2. Can the ordinance exempt specific properties or classes of properties? If the PTC is interested in a particular property that had a particular type of entitlement, such as the Council approved Planned Community, the most defensible way to modify the draft ordinance would be to modify the extension parameters for that type of entitlement -which would then affect all other properties with similar entitlements. The ordinance as proposed includes Site and Design Reviews and Planned Communities, both approved byCouncil. The PTC may wish to revise the proposed automatic extension for one or both of these entitlements and/or revise the number of allowable proposed additional year Director's extension. Currently, the Director may extend Planned Communities one year; beyond that, a Development Agreement would be the method to request an extension. Development Agreements submitted prior to expiration are currently the only method available to extend Site and Design Review approvals. 3. What is the effect of the proposed ordinance on 200 San Antonio Road? The City Council approved via Ordinance a Development Agreement for 200 San Antonio Road, extending the 2009 approvals out to 2014 to match those of Mountain View" which is farther into the future than the combination of the existing one year extension by request plus proposed two year automatic extension plus proposed one year extension by request. 4. What is stairs position on a t-year automatic extension and up to two t-year discretionary extensions? Staff would agree that a one year automatic is better than no automatic extension. There would be only minimal additional effort on the Director's part to consider and potentially approve (via letter) an extra one-year extension. s. What time constraints and extensions apply once (or if) a building permit has been issued? After issuance of Building Permits, the applicant has up to six months to call for an inspection. The proposed extension does not change this. PTC MEETING ITEM I: PERMIT EXTENSIONS COMMISSIONER KELLER QUESTIONS I. What is staff's position on conditioning a I-year automatic extension on one or more of the following conditions: a. Only those projects that would exhaust other extensions (other than those under this ordinance) during the period from ordinance enactment to June 30,2010. OKAY. b. If automatic I-year extension, then a maximum of one I-year discretionary extension. OKA Y, if in addition to current code-allowed one year extension. c. Automatic I-year extension applies only to single family residential projects. OKA Y but not ideal, given that minor ARB projects for changes to multi-family and commercial facades, etc. may expire. In light of Commissioner Holman's question below regarding historic home replacements, the PTC may wish to not allow automatic extensions for approvals involving demolition of single family homes listed on the City's Historic Inventory (categories 1 -4) and "Eligible" for National or California Registers (but allowing automatic extensions for projects involving "Potentially Eligible" homes). d. Automatic I-year extension applies only to residential projects (not commercial, not mixed use). BEITER because this could capture minor and major ARB projects for multifamily residential (but not ARB-only mixed use ala 195 Page Mill), but assuming NOT PCs or S&D's. Still not allowing extension of minor ARB projects, which is not ideal as in (c) above. Stlll may want to not allow automatic for historic as in (c) above. 2. Do (cost-recovery) fees apply to all applications for extensions, or only to extensions regarding PC and Site and Design review projects? Applications for extensions have consisted only of a letter to the Director requesting the extension. Staff have not charged fees for these to date, nor entered them into the Accela tracking system as a separate application. If Council takes approves PTC recommendation for PC and Site and Design extensions going to PTC and Council for review and approval, staff would suggest a fee to cover processing costs, likely go back to Council mid-year with a change to the fee schedule. COMMISSIONER HOLMAN QUESTION 1. For the single family home permit extensions: How many of those projects would replace historic' homes? Can we say we will extend the permits but subject to new laws? I presume we could. The ordinance could specifically address extensions for project approvals involving properties having historic resources, as noted in response to Keller's lc above. TO: FROM: DATE: REPORT TYPE: SUBJECT: City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER SEPTElVffiER 21, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 379:09 Zoning Ordinance Update: Approval of a Negative Declaration and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 18.28 Related to Development Standards in the Open Space (OS) Zone District. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the fall of 2007, the last significant revisions were completed for the Zoning Ordinance Update. At that time, staff was directed to follow-up with revisions to the Open Space (OS) zone district, with particular attention to the calculations of impervious coverage and the relationship to floor area and house size. In a working group, staff, two Planning and Transportation Commissioners, and OS stakeholders met five times over a period of eight months to discuss these issues along with other stakeholder-raised concerns. After the completion of the working group meetings, a Study Session was conducted with the full Planning and Transportation Commission to update and receive feedback on staff's recommendations on the issues raised. Attachment A represents the Planning and Transportation Commission and staff's recommendations for the revisions to the Open Space zone district, the most significant changes include a) calculation of impervious coverage based on the actual permeability of materials used; b) a sliding scale of impervious coverage limits based on lot size; c) establishment of a maximum floor area ratio based on lot size; and d) bonus impervious coverage and floor area allowances if a substantial part of the lot is retained as natural vegetation or agricultural crops. RECOMMENDA TIONS Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that Council approve the draft Negative Declaration (Attachment K) and the proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 18.28 (Attachment A). BACKGROUND On June 13,2007, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommended approval of Chapter 18.28, Special Purpose Districts: PF, OS, and AC, with focused discussion on the Open Space (OS) district. One of the key revisions that was made to the OS zone was the addition of section 18.28.070(1) to clarify that, with respect to impervious cover limitations in the OS zone, all paved surfaces (including semi-pervious paving) count as impervious surface, except 1) gravel driveways and 2) portions of driveways across scenic setbacks (e.g., along Page· Mill Road). The PTC included this requirement so that excess impervious cover gained by using CMR: 379:09 Page 1 of 4 semi..,pervious surfaces could not be added to the residence to increase house size. The PTC directed staff to assemble a working group to evaluate potential approaches to credit semi- permeable materials against impervious cover in conjunction with maximum house size, floor area ratio, or other new regulations to assure that house size retains an appropriate scale. DISCUSSION The working group discussed an extensive number of issues, including those identitifed by the PTC plus several others at the suggestion of the residents. Attachment A is the proposed ordinance which includes the following substantive changes: 1. Impervious CoveragelFloor Area Ratio for residential development establishes floor area ratio limitations and revises impervious coverage, based on a sliding scale and provides for a FAR incentive to maintain or restore native vegetation. (18.28.050(b» 2. Impervious Cover Calculation would include all paved surfaces, with some exceptions noted, and classified as 100%, 75%, 50%, or 25% impervious, based upon the material and construction method to be used. (18.28.070(m» 3. Review Process is simplified to define a Minor project in the OS zone and creating two levels of Major project review based on the scope of work proposed. (18.28.070(b» 4. Second Dwelling Units would be permitted if the minimum lot size is five (5) acres and would follow the Residential Estate (R-E) District standards for second dwelling units (18.10.070 (b)). 5. Additional Parking in 200' Special Setback would be allowed if located at least 50' from the affected property line; required (4) spaces would not be allowed in the setback. (18.28.090(b» COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION An OS working group comprised of OS district residents, open space advocates, two members of the PTC (Garber and Tuma) and staff was assembled and met five times since October 2007 to discuss the above mentioned issues and provided a forum for the residents to share their concerns as they related to other sections of the OS regulations. The neighborhood association, Palo Altans Protecting Open Space (PAPOS), provided a position paper on its concerns that the working group worked from as the base document for the on-going group discussions. Attachment D provides the initial PAPOS position paper and staff's initial response. On September 24, 2008, the PTC conducted a Study Session on the proposed revisions to the Open Space district. Staff incorporated the comments received at the Study Session and returned to the PTC on April 15,2009, for formal recommendation on the revisions. At this April meeting, the PTC raised the issue of including a maximum house size, which had not been previously discussed with the OS stakeholders. Direction was then given to provide notice to the OS residents that the PTC will consider maximum house size standards and the hearing was continued. Throughout the working group meetings and public hearings, the residents generally have not supported increased regulations for the OS zone. The residents are opposed to the FAR limit and maximum house size. The residents do support less restrictive development standards and a CMR: 379:09 Page 2 of 4 faster review process. Attachments D and I summarizes the views of the majority of the OS residents. On July 8,2009 the PTC voted to add a maximum house size to the development standards, but that failed with a 3-3-0-1 vote (Commissioners Holman, Fineberg, and Keller for; Commissioners Garber, Tuma, and Lippert against; and Commissioner Rosati absent). Aside from the maximum house size issue, the PTC unanimously supported the proposed changes to the OS regulations. On July 8, 2009, with a vote of, the PTC then recommended approval (6-0-0-1) of the revisions to the Open Space district with the exclusion of an added maximum house size limitation. There were eight members of the community that spoke on this item, with the majority opposed to maximum house size FAR limitations on the OS development standards. The staff report and meeting minutes are attached for the last two PTC meetings. RESOURCE IMPACTS The proposed revisions are not expected to have impacts on City revenue or expenses. Project applications would require Site and Design review and staff costs would be reimbursed by the applicant. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Zoning Ordinance Update is intended to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that the proposed amendments reflect the intent and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to minimize impacts of new development on views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides. Attachment J provides a list of related Comprehensive Plan policies. ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQA requirements. The 20-day public comment period for this document ran from April 8, 2009 through April 27, 2009. No comments were received. PREPARED BY: CLARE CAMPBELL DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: City Manager CMR: 379:09 Page 3 of4 ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Ordinance B. Maps of the OS Zone District C. Summary Table of OS Parcels D. PAPOS Position Paper on Open Space Zoning Regulations with Staff Responses and PAPOS Response, 0111412008 E. ,PTC Staff Report, July 8, 2009 F. PTC Excerpt Minutes, July 8, 2009 G. PTC Staff Report, April 15, 2009 H. PTC Excerpt Minutes, April 15,2009 L Correspondence J. Comprehensive Plan Policies Regarding Open Space K. Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study COURTESY COPIES Palo Altans Protecting Open Space (PAPOS) Brian Schmidt, Committee for Green Foothills CMR: 379:09 Page 4 of4 NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A Ordinance No. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.28 Special Purpose Districts (PF, OS, AC) of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Amending Sections 18.28.050 (Site Development Standards), 18.28.060 (Additional PF District Regulations), 18.28.070 (Additional OS District Regulations), 18.28.080 (Additional AC District Regulations), and 18.28.090 (Parking and Loading) The Council of the city of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares as follows: (a) The last update of the Open Space regulations took place in July 2007 with the approval of the new P AMC Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose Districts) that consolidated the Public Facilities (PF), Open Space (OS), and Agricultural Conservation (AC) districts into one chapter, and at which time further direction was given by Council and Commission to make additional revisions; (b) The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes several programs and policies related to open space protection. The proposed revisions assist the City in accomplishing these programs and policies; ( c) The proposed revisions to the Open Space district would enhance the health, safety and welfare of the community. Sections: 18.28.010 18.28.020 18.28.030 18.28.040 18.28.050 18.28.060 18.28.070 18.28.080 18.28.090 18.28.100 090917 syn 0120368 Chapter 18.28 SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS (PF, OS, AC) Purposes Definitions Applicable Regulations Land Uses Site Development Standards Additional PF District Regulations Additional OS District Regulations Additional AC District Regulations Parking and Loading Grandfathered Uses 1 NOT YET APPROVED 28.010 Purposes (a) Public Facilities District [PF] The PF public facilities district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities. (b) Open Space District [OS] The purpose and intent ofthis district is to: (1) protect the public health, safety, and welfare; (2) . protect and preserve open space land as a limited and valuable resource; (3) permit the reasonable use of open space land, while at the same time preserving and protecting its inherent open space characteristics to assure its continued availability for the following: as agricultural land, scenic land, recreation land, conservation or natural resource land; for the containment of urban sprawl and the structuring of urban development; and for the retention of land in its natural or near-natural state, and to protect life and property in the community from the hazards of fire, flood, and seismic activity; and (4) coordinate with and carry out federal, state, regional, county, and city open space plans. (c) Agricultural Conservation (AC] The AC agricultural conservation district is intended to permit agricultural and compatible uses on property intended for preservation and retention essentially in its natural, farmed, or landscaped state. 18.28.020 Definitions As used in this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, the following definitions shall apply: (a) "Conservation or natural resource land" means land which possesses or encompasses conservation or natural resources. (b) "Conservation or natural resource" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, streams, watersheds, groundwater recharge, soils, wildlife habitat, as defined in this section, special land forms, and natural vegetation. (c) "Open space land" means any parcel or area of land essentially unimproved or in its natural state, and devoted to an open space use as defined in this section, and which is designated in the open space element for an open space use. (d) "Open space district" means any area of land or water designated "OS" and subject to all of the terms and regulations of this chapter. ' 2 090917 syn 0120368 NOT YET APPROVED ( e) "Open space use" means the use of land for: (l) Public recreation; (2) Enjoyment of scenic beauty; (3) Conservation or use of natural resources; (4) Production of food or fiber; (5) Protection of persons and their artifacts (buildings, property, etc.); (6) Containment and structuring of urban development. (f) "Recreation land" means any area of land or water susceptible to recreational uses. (g) "Scenic land" means any area of land or water that possesses scenic qualities worthy of preservation. (h) The "Stanford Hoover Pavilion" site is defined as that property designated as Assessor's Parcel numbers 142-04-011 and 142-04-012. (i) IIWildlife habitat" means any area of land or water valuable or necessary to the preservation or enhancement of wildlife resources. 18.28.030 Applicable Regulations The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and procedures established by this Title shall apply to all Special Purpose Districts. 18.28.040 Land Uses Table 1 shows the permitted (P) and conditionally permitted (CUP) land uses for the Special Purpose Districts. Table 1: Land Uses Retail services as an accessory use to the administrative offices of a non-profit organization, CUp(l) provided that such retail services do not exceed CUp(l) 25% of the gross floor area of the combined administrative office services and retail service uses 3 090917 syn 0120368 Current Code Section 18.88 NOT YET APPROVED Second dwelling units, subject to regulations in Section 18.28.070 Agricultural Uses, including animal husbandry, crops, dairying, horticulture, nurseries, livestock farming, tree farming, viticulture, and similar uses not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of this Administrative office services for non-profit Other uses which, in the opinion ofthe zoning administrator, are similar to those listed as ""r'1'n111T,,£J or conditi All facilities owned or leased, and operated or used, by the City of Palo Alto, the County of Santa Clara, the State of California, the government of the United States, the Palo Alto Unified School District, or any other 090917 syn 0120368 P P P 4 P 18.28.070 P NOT YET APPROVED Residential use, and accessory buildings and uses customarily incidental to permitted dwellings; provided, however, that such permitted dwellings shall be for the exclusive use of the owner or owners, or lessee or lessor of land upon which the permitted agricultural use is conducted, and the residence of other members of the same family and bona fide of the aforementioned -- CUp(1) Outpatient medical facilities with associated medical research CUP Temporary parking facilities, provided that such facilities shall remain no more than five CUP P CUP 18.40. p (I) provided such use is conducted on property owned by the City of Palo Alto, the County of Santa Clara, the State of Cali fomi a, the government of the United States, the Palo Alto Unified School Distri other and leased for said uses. 5 090917 syn 0120368 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 2. Section 18.28.050 (Site Development Standards) of Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts) the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.28.050 Site Development Standards (a) Development Standards The development standards for the special purpose districts are specified in Table 2, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the Architectural Review Board, pursuant to Chapter 18.76.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Table 2: Minimum Site Specifications Site Area (acres) Site Width (ft) Site Minimum Setbacks (ft) Front Setback Rear Setback Interior Side Setback Street Side Setback Site Coverage and Impervious Coverage Maximum Site Coverage Additional Site Area permitted covered by impervious ground surfaces Maximum Impervious Coverage Height Restrictions Maximum Height (ft) Maximum Height within 150 feet of a residential district (ft) Maximum Number of Stories Daylight Plane for site lines abutting a residential district Initial height (ft) 090917 syn 0120368 Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 35 6 code shall See Table lB%(4) 20.08 18.28.050(b) 18.28.070(ml 18.28.060( a) NOT YET APPROVED impervious area under this requirement. (2) The minimum front, side, and rear yards in the PF public facilities district shall be equal to the respective front, side, and rear yards required in the most restrictive abutting district; provided, that no yard adjoining a street shall be less than 20 feet and that no interior yard shall be less than 10 feet. (3) Provided that, for parking facilities the maximum floor area ratio and site coverage shall be equal to the floor area ratio and site coverage established by the most restrictive adjacent district, and provided, further, that the maximum floor area ratio for the Stanford Hoover Pavilion site shall be .25: 1. (4) Including buildings and all impervious ground surfaces, calculated pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.28.070(m). and provided that where a portion ofa sabdivision with clastered lots ofless than ten aeres in siL!El eontains an area rendered I:mdevelopaele by afl opefl spaee restrietion, the impervioas eoverage whieh woald otherwise be allotted to tRis Hnde-velopable area sRall be traflsferred to those lots within the sHbeivisiofl 01'1 whieh eevelopment will ee permittee in a proportional mafmer based on lot size 5 (b) Open Space Impervious Coverage and Floor Area (1) Residential Use The impervious coverage and floor area ratios shall be determined based on a sliding scale calculation. Table 3 provides the range of allowable percentages for the calculation. Allowable development for other site sizes between 1 and 10 acres shall be calculated on a prorated basis between the acreages shown in Table 3. < (A) Bonus FAR 1f>80% of site remains undisturbed and/or is restored with native 1f>85% of site remains undisturbed and/or is restored with native 1f>90% of site remains undisturbed and/or is restored with native· 1f>95% of site remains undisturbed and/or is restored with native (i) The bonus FAR incentive is intended to encourage property owners to preserve and enhance the natural environment and agricultural uses in the OS district. For those property owners who agree to maintain or restore the vegetative conditions on their property to a natural state with appropriate native plantings or with certain agricultural crops, the designated floor area bonus for the development of the property shall be permitted. The minimum area that must be maintained in a natural or restored state is described in Section 18.28.050(b). 7 090917 syn 0120368 NOT YET APPROVED (ii) Areas to be set aside as "undisturbed" or "restored" shall include, but not be limited to: a) vegetation that has not been disturbed by development (construction, ornamental landscaping, farming, orchards, etc.); b) plantings with vegetation that is now considered native to the area, especially including drought- resistant;and fire-resistant plantings; and c) retention or planting of edible crops or orchards with negligible grading and involving no removal of native vegetation. For restoration projects, the proposed landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. The Director of Planning shall develop and maintain a list of native plantings and acceptable restoration vegetation. (iii) As a requirement of receiving bonus FAR, the property owner shall enter into a covenant that is recorded with the property and would apply to all future property owners assuring that the designated areas will remain in the approved vegetative condition; enforcement provisions acceptable to the City Attorney will be outlihed in the covenant. To remove the landscape restrictions related to the bonus FAR, the site development shall be modified to reduce the FAR to meet the standard requirements. These modifications are subject to design review. (iv) For projects approved with bonus FAR, the property owner shall be required to submit a follow-up landscape/arborist report verifying the site is in compliance with the approved plans, five years after the project's final sign-off, as outlined in 18.28.070(d). (B) Calculation of Floor Area Ratio (i) Gross floor area shall be calculated based upon the same criteria as Low Density Residential zone districts, as specified in Definitions Section 18.04.030(65)(C) and (D), except as below. (ii) Basements shall follow the same standards as the R-l Single Family Residential district, except that in addition basement area shall count if any portion is constructed on a slope in excess often percent (10%). (2) Non-Residential Use Where non-residential uses are proposed on a site, the impervious coverage shall be limited to 3.5% and the floor area ratio shall be limited to 5.0% ofthe site area. However, the City Council may, after recommendation from the Planning and Transportation Commission, allow increased impervious coverage and/or floor area through the Site and Design Review process, where Council fmds that the use furthers the open space objectives of this chapter. In no case shall impervious cover or floor area ratio be allowed to exceed 10.0%. 8 090917 syn 0120368 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. Section 18.28.060 (Additional PF District Regulations) of Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts) the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.28.060 Additional PF District Design Requirements The following additional regulations shall apply in the PF district: (a) 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 accessibility 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 16.48.070. (b) Employee Shower Facilities 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 3. Table 3: All government or special district facilities designed for employee occupancy, colleges and universities, private educational facilities, business and trade schools and similar uses (c) Landscaping of Yards 10,000-19,999 20,000-49,999 2 50,000 and 4 (1) All required interior yards (setbacks) abutting or opposite a residential district shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen. (2) For sites abutting a residential district, a solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 ft in height shall be shall be constructed and maintained along the common site line. (d) Transfer of Development Rights (1) The city council by resolution may, from time to time, designate one or more city- owned buildings that are Category 1 or Category 2 on the city's historic inventory and/or Category I, II, or IlIon the city's seismic hazards identification list as eligible to participate as "sender sites" in the Transfer of Development Rights program as provided in Chapters 18.18 and 18.64. 9 090917 syn 0120368 NOT YET APPROVED (2) Before any transferable development rights are offered for sale, the city manager shall establish, in writing, a public process using the city's formal bidding procedures to sell bonus floor area development rights from any sites so designated by the city council. (3) Before formally soliciting the participation of other organizations or agencies in the rehabilitation of a city-owned historic building, the city should have a historic structures report prepared by a qualified expert in accordance with the standards and guidelines of the California State Office of Historic Preservation. (4) Before concluding a sale of transferable development rights for any city building, the city shall comply with Section 18.18.080. (5) The city manager shall establish and maintain a special fund into which all proceeds of the sale of transferable rights, and any interest thereon, shall be deposited. Upon receipt and entry into the accounting records for the fund such monies shall be considered committed to the rehabilitation of the city-owned building from which the development rights were sold, or to the rehabilitation of other city-owned buildings in the Historic Category 1 or 2 or Seismic Hazard Categories I, II, or III . • Editor's Note: Subsection (d) derives from fonner Section 18.32.090, as adopted by § 2 ofOrd. 4862. SECTION 4. Section 18.28.070 (Additional OS District Regulations) of Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts) the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows 18.28.070 Additional OS District Regulations The following additional regulations shall apply in the OS district: (a) Second Dwelling Units Not more than one attached or detached second dwelling units shall be allowed on a lot in the OS district, and shall be subject to the following regulations: (1) Second (hvelliag units shall be subject to the follo,tVing development requirements: QA) Second dwelling units shall only be permitted on sites with a minimum actual site area of -l-(}-2.. acres.;, (2) Attached second dwelling units shall comply with the OS district height limitation of25 feet; and (3) Second dwelling units shall follow the standards set forth in the Residential Estate (R-E) District for second dwelling units (18.10.070 (b)). with the exceptions outlined in subsections 1 and 2 above. 10 090917 syn 0120368 NOT YET APPROVED (b) Site and Design Approval All sites in the OS district shall be subject to the Site Design and Review Combining District (D) as provided in Chapter 18.~ of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the following modifications: (1) Minor Site and Design Review: For minor proj ects (e.g. fences, landscape changes to an approved project, trash enclosures, accessory buildings 200 square feet or less, etc.), the review process shall follow the Minor Architectural Review (staff level) procedures as outlined in Section 18.77.070. To qualifY as a minor project, the project shall have less than 10 cubic yards of excavation and or grading and be Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (2) Major Site and Design Review: For all other projects not reviewed as Minor Site and Design Review, the project will be forwarded to the Planning and Transportation Commission for review and recommendation and then placed on the Council Consent agenda for final action, as prescribed for staff actions outlined in Section 18.76.060 (Standard Staff Review Process). Provided. however, that the following projects may be forwarded directly to the City Council Consent agenda by staff, without review by the Planning and Transportation Commission. where all of the following conditions mmlY;. a. The project is not a second dwelling unit; and b. The project would comprise less than 1,000 square feet of floor area, less than 1,000 square feet of impervious cover. and less than 100 cubic yards of excavation and or grading; and c. The proposed floor area or impervious cover would not exceed 50% of the allowable for the site; and d. The project and any prior projects within the prior five years would not cumulatively exceed these thresholds. (c) Geological Soils Investigation and Report (1) All applications for site and design approval shall be accompanied by a combined in- depth geologic and soils investigation and report prepared by a registered geologist certified by the state of California as an engineering geologist, and by a licensed civil engineer qualified in soil mechanics. Such report shall be based on surface, subsurface, and laboratory investigations and examinations and shall fully and clearly present: (A) All pertinent data, interpretations, and evaluations; (B) The significance of the data, interpretations, and evaluations with respect to the actual development or implementation of the intended land uses, and with respect to the effect upon future geological processes both on and offthe site; (C) Recommendations for any additional investigations that should be made. All 090917 syn 0120368 costs and expenses incurred as a result of the requirements of this section, including the costs and expense of an independent review of the material 11 NOT YET APPROVED submitted under this chapter by qualified persons retained by the city, shall be borne by the applicant. (2) The requirement of subsection (1) may be waived by the city engineer for accessory facilities and landscaping where such improvements, in his opinion, would pose no potential hazard to life or property on the subject or surrounding properties. (d) Landscaping The existing natural vegetation and land formations shall remain in a natural state unless modification is found to be necessary for a specific use allowed in this chapter through the site and design approval procedure. Reduction or elimination of fire hazards will be required where heavy concentrations of flammable vegetation occur. Landscaping as may be necessary and required shall be consistent with the purpose of this chapter. (1) Landscaping shall be designed and installed consistent with the requirements and guidelines of Section 18.40.130 (Landscaping) of the Zoning Ordinance, and in particular with subsection 18.40.130(c) regarding landsca,ping in Natural Areas, as well as with the relevant Comprehensive Plan policies outlined in subsection (0) below. Exceptions to tree removal restrictions may be made for invasive species such as eucalyptus trees. (2) A follow-up arborist and/or landscape report shall be required five years after the final sign-off of the project completion. This report shall evaluate the health of trees and significant landscape that were required for screen planting or and/or were designated as protected plantings on the approved plans for the project. The specifications of the report shall be provided in the conditions of approval of the project. This requirement also applies to sites that receive bonus floor area ratio (FAR) for maintaining specific percentages of the site as undisturbed native or restored The property owner shall ensure the survi¥lll of tree plantings for a period of a minimum of five years. The OVffler shall install any replacement trees and monitor their survival. A certified amorist shall prepare a report at the end of the five year period documenting the condition of the trees and said report shall be fol'Vtr.arded to the Department ofPlarLRing and Community Environment for revie'.v. Any subsequent owner(s) shall also be obligated to replace any trees that die with trees of the same size and species stated on the approved planning and building permit plans. (e) Fencing Restriction No barbed wire, or similar fencing having a cutting edge, may be installed except: (1) To protect a vegetative community or wildlife habitat until it is fully established, subject to the imposition of reasonable time limits through site and design review pursuant to Chapter 18.30; and (2) To enclose utility facilities, including, but not limited to, water or sewage pumps, storage tanks, and wells. 12 090917 syn 0120368 NOT YET APPROVED (0 Trash Enclosures Trash/recycle enclosures shall be permitted, with staff-level design review, within the front setback, including Special Setbacks, providing the enclosure is not more than six (6) feet tall, is covered, is fitted with self closing gates, and is screened. The access to the enclosure shall not be located on the side facing the street. The design of the enclosure shall be the minimum size needed to accomplish the purpose of enclosing and screening the containers. (fg) Tree Removal Removal of live trees shall be permitted only as provided in Title 8. (hg) Access to Remote Areas Roads, tracks, driveways, trails, or runways for automobiles, trucks, buses, or motorcycles or other wheeled vehicles shall not be developed except upon the securing of site and design approval. No such approval shall be granted except upon finding that the purpose for which the roads, tracks, driveways, trails, or runways are proposed is essential for the establishment or maintenance of a use which is expressly permitted in this chapter and that the design and location of the proposed roads, tracks, driveways, trails, or runways will be compatible with the terrain. The use of all roads, tracks, driveways, trails, or runways existing at the time of the adoption of this chapter which are nonconforming or have been established without proper approvals shall be terminated and shall be returned to natural terrain unless given approval in accordance with the regulations set forth in this chapter. (iii) Grading No grading for which a grading permit is required shall be authorized except upon the securing of site and design approvaL No such approval shall be granted except upon a finding that the purpose for which the grading is proposed is essential for the establishment or maintenance of a use which is expressly permitted in this chapter and that the design, scope, and location of the grading proposed will be compatible with adjacent areas and will result in the least disturbance of the terrain and natural land features. All grading for which no permits or approvals are required shall be subject to the provisions set forth in this chapter. Oi) Soil Erosion and Land Management No site and design plan shall be approved unless it includes soil erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with any adopted procedures, technical standards, and specifications of the planning commission. No approval will be granted unless all needed erosion control measures have been completed or substantially provided for in accordance with said standards and specifications. The applicant shall bear the final responsibility for the installation and construction of all required erosion control measures according to the provisions of said standards and specifications. 13 090917 syn 0120368 NOT YET APPROVED (ID) Subdivision All divisions of land into four or more parcels shall be designed on the cluster principle and shall be designed to minimize roads; to minimize cut, fill, and grading operations; to locate development in less rather than more conspicuous areas; and to achieve the purpose of this chapter. Ok) Substandard Lots Any parcel of land not meeting the area or dimension requirements of this chapter is a lawful building site if such parcel was a lawful building site on July 5, 1972. All other requirements of this chapter shall apply to any such parcel. (ml) Impervious Coverage The intent of limiting impervious cover is to minimize runoff, enhance infiltration to the soil, and provide a semi-rural appearance compatible with the OS district. Impervious coverage allowances are prescribed in Section 18.28.050(b) and shall be calculated..M. outlined below to include all building coverage, plus paved surfaces including but not limited to driveways, parking areas, sports or tennis courts, swimming pools, patios or decks, subject to exceptions and provisions as follows: (1) All paved surfaces shall be classified as 100%, 75%, 50%, or 25% impervious, based upon the material that is to be used and the proposed design and installation. Determinations shall be made by the Planning Director based on permeability information provided by the applicant, and the Director may consult with the Public Works Department when necessary to determine the extent of the permeability. The applicant may provide information in the soils report to outline the baseline permeability of the specific areas proposed for coverage, and the baseline may be considered in determining the permeability of the material. (2) A primary driveway composed of gravel or decomposed granite shall not be counted as impervious up to a width of 20 feet, where approved for use by the Public Works and Fire Departments. fl-j(3) The pportion~ of a primary drivewaysJocated in the 200' scenic setbacks shall be designed to have a natural appearance and shall not be counted as impervious up to a width of 20 feet (assuming the primary residence is located beyond the 200' setback). e1(4) A pp-rimary driveways are those is one that extend~.Jrom the nearest access road to the garage or carport providing the required parking for the main residence!. (41(5) The proposed pervious paving materials for the primary driveways shall only be permitted if acceptable to the Palo Alto Fire Department. (6) The water surface area for in-ground pools and hot tubs shall not be counted as impervious. The Fire Department may require additional specifications for the pool in order to utilize the water more effectively for emergency response. W(7) The aAreas excluded from impervious coverage pursuant to approvals granted prior to July 1,2007 shall remain excluded from impervious coverage calculations, unless the surfacing material is altered to a less permeable material. 14 090917 syn 0120368 NOT YET APPROVED (ym) Light and Glare Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible from off-site. The light emitted from skylights shall be minimal during the night hours .. Utilizing treatments such as translucent glass, shading systems, and interior light placement can reduce the night glare. Skylights shall not use clear or white glass.:. and shall not be illuminated from directly belo'.\' the skylight, to avoid glare at night. All ne>.v \vindows and glass doors shall be of a non reflective material. <!!.ft) Story Poles and Other Visual Review Aids Story poles (with associated taping or flagging) shall be erected for projects involving new residences or other structures, or for substantial additions to new residences, for the purpose of providing a better understanding of the visual impacts of a proposal in the OS district. Story poles shall accurately outline the perimeter and key and highest rooflines of the proposed structure(s) and shall be durable and sturdy enough to be visible from distant views. Story poles shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the director prior to notice of a hearing and shall remain in place through the public hearing date. Erection of story poles prior to public hearing notice may be required by the director to allow for staff and neighbors to view the project. Other aids, such as taping the perimeter of other development (structures, pools, sport courts, etc.) on the site and identifying trees to be removed, may also be required by the director. Story poles shall be removed upon final action on a project or upon the direction of the director." m&) Open Space Review Criteria In addition to the above provisions and development standards in Table 2, the following criteria shall be considered in the Site and Design review of all development of land in the OS district, as outlined in the Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan: (1) The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from VIew. (2) Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend above the nearest ridge line. (3) Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring property. (4) Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats. (5) Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance .. (6) Existing trees with a circumference of37.5 inches, measured 4.5 feet above the ground level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation should be retained as much as possible. 15 090917 syn 0120368 NOT YET APPROVED (7) Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should never be distributed within the drip lines of existing trees. Locate development to minimize the need for grading. (8) To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. (9) Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. (l0) Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention technique. (11) Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible from off-site. (12) Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment.) (gp) Standard Conditions of Approval The director shall maintain a list of standard project conditions for projects in the OS district that reflect the intent of the OS criteria. Conditions may address, but are not limited to, landscaping, tree protection, planting, and maintenance, lighting, roofing materials, grading, construction staging, and fire protection. . (r) Development Standards Exception Pursuant to a 1978 Settlement Agreement, nine designated lots less than 10 acres in size, located on page 54, book 182 of the Assessor's Parcel Maps C182-54-xxx) are entitled to be developed as if they complied with the 10 acre minimum lot size for the OS zone. Owners of these nine lots may choose to comply with the parameters of the 1978 Agreement or the standard development regulations as described in this Chapter. A site shall utilize either the 1978 Agreement standards or the regulations described in this Chapter, but cannot use both. SECTION 5. Section 18.28.080 (Additional AC District Design Regulations) of Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts) the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.28.080 Additional AC District Design Requirements The following additional regulations shall apply in the AC district: (a) Site and Design Approval All sites in the AC district shall be subject to the Site Design and Review Combining District (D) as provided in Chapter 18.30(G). 16 090917 syn 0120368 NOT YET APPROVED (b) Location of Agricultural Facilities Barns, stables, sheds, chicken houses, and other similar facilities for the shelter and feeding of animals, exclusive of domestic household pets, shall be located a minimum of 40 feet from any site line. SECTION 6. Section 18.28.090 (Parking and Loading) of Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts) the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.28.090 Parking and Loading Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for all permitted and conditional uses in accord with Chapter 18.40. All parking and loading facilities on any site, whether required as minimums or optionally provided in addition to minimum requirements, shall comply with the regulations and the design standards established by Chapter 18.42. In addition, parking facilities shall be subject to the following regulations: (a) PF District In the PF district, no required parking space shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (b) OS District aLIn the OS district, no required parking space shall be located in a required front or side yard or in a special setback. (2) Vehicle parking. other than the four required spaces, may be allowed in the 200' Special Setback if located at least 100' from the affected property line. as approved through the Site and Design review process. A lesser setback. with a minimum of 50' , may be considered if the 100' setback is determined by the Planning Director as infeasible based on the site constraints. These additional spaces shall be screened from public views. (c) A<: District In the AC district, no required parking space shall be located in a required front yard or required street side yard. 18.28.100 Grandfathered Uses In the OS district, accessory dwellings and guest cottages existing on April 28, 1986, and which prior to that date were lawful, conforming permitted uses may remain as legal nonconforming uses. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve or replace site improvements on the same site, without necessity to comply with site development regulations for continual use and occupancy by the same use;provided that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not add a kitchen nor result in increased floor area, number of dwelling units, height, length 17 090917 syn 0120368 NOT YET APPROVED or any other increase in the size of the improvement without complying with the standards set forth in Section 18.28.070(a) and without applying for and receiving a conditional use permit. SECTION. The City Council finds that the changes effected by this ordinance are categorically exempt (per section 15305 (Class 5) of the CEQA Guidelines) from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as they comprise minor alterations to land use limitations and will have no significant environmental impacts. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be effective on the 31st day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney 090917 syn 0120368 18 APPROVED: City Manager Director of Planning & Community The City of Palo Alto ~,2OI)9.{J4...0811:14:56 -""""""_\admh~~) Open Space (OS) Zone District ATTACHMENT B This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS -. 0' 461T document Is 8 graphic ~sentalOn The City of Palo AlIO 35SUmB5 no MSp:lflslbJily for any Bfn)f'$ 01969!O 2009 City of Palo /lJ1O The City of Palo Alto PF Foothills Park Open Space (OS) Zone District Northern Section This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS -. .. 2300' Legend _ Open Space (OS) I: i.e;:! City Boundary The City of Palo Alto ccampbe,2()()9..Q4.oa 11:28:32 ~_oS'<ll"."""'h ... _.mdb) Open Space (OS) Zone District Southern Section This map is a product of the City of Palo Allo GIS -. 0' 2300' Thlsdoameolll a bf'8PhIc ropt'9GOOtatioo onI'IcfbulaVl!lllabl'o&OUfoos. The ClIyOfPaIo AlID assurnaa no responsltMHIy for MY MtlI8 01989 to 2009 City of Palo AIIo ATTACHMENT C OS Parcel Summary with Proposed Sliding Scale FAR Calculated Total # of OS parcels: 114 Total # of developable parcels: 79-these do not include City owned parcels, Golf Course, and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Number of developable lots 0-5 acres: 31 (39%) Number of developable lots 5-10 acres: 30 (38%) Number of developable lots 10+ acres: 18 (23%) Number of developable lots subject to the 200' special setback: 22 (28%) APN AREA ACRES FAR% FAR sf Max House Size 351-09-003 13,718,086.5 314.9239 3.500% 480,133.03 12,000 351-12-001 7,169,248.1 164.5833 3.500% 250,923.68 12,000 351-12-006 6,080,626.0 139.5920 3.500% 212,821.91 12,000 182-38-021 1,959,067.0 44.9740 3.500% 68,567.35 12,000 1351-05-043 tlll,tI;.!O.O ;'!0.014;'! 3.500% 30,513.70 fT,UU(l 351-05-006 614,273.0 14.1018 3.500% 21,499.56 10,000 182-38-002 599,955.3 13.7731 3.500% 20,998.44 10,000 182-38-030 581,614.0 13.3520 3.500% 20,356.49 10,000 351-12-063 537,764.0 12.3454 3.500% 18,821.74 10,000 351-05-030 532,934.0 12.2345 3.500% 18,652.69 10,000 182-36-010 506,458.8 11.6267 3.500% 17,726.06 10,000 351-25-015 492,510.2 11.3065 3.500% 17,237.86 10,000 182-38-013 478,811.0 10.9920 3.500% 16,758.39 10,000 351-12-062 452,392.0 10.3855 3.500% 15,833.72 10,000 182-36-030 444,095.0 10.1950 3.500% 15,543.33 10,000 351-05-048 435,619.0 10.0004 3.500% 15,246.67 10,000 351-05-042 435,603.0 10.0001 3.500% 15,246.11 10,000 351-0b-04{ 435,602.0 10.0000 3.500% 15,246.07 10,000 351-05-049 435,593.0 9.9998 3.500% 15,245.82 8,000 351-05-045 435,581.0 9.9996 3.500% 15,245.52 8,000 351-05-050 435,579.0 9.9995 3.500% 15,245.47 8,000 182-46-019 420,196.3 9.6464 3.535% 14,855.46 8,000 182-38-015 417,474.1 9.5839 3.542% 14,785.31 8,000 182-46-014 415,587.4 9.5406 3.546% 14,736.49 8,000 182-36-029 413,194.5 9.4856 3.551% 14,674.34 8,000 182-36-031 411,079.5 9.4371 3.556% 14,619.18 8,000 351-05-010 384,001.0 8.8154 3.618% 13,894.90 8,000 182-46-013 383,907.6 8.8133 3.619% 13,892.35 8,000 351-12-043 380,584.0 8.7370 3.626% 13,801.12 8,000 351-05-024 379,636.0 8.7152 3.628% 13,775.00 8,000 351-05-046 367,936.0 8.4466 3.655% 13,449.29 8,000 351-05-009 338,736.0 7.7763 3.722% 12,609.00 8,000 182-46-020 337,867.1 7.7564 3.724% 12,583.40 8,000 182-46-015 335,846.7 7.7100 3.729% 12,523.73 8,000 182-38-028 322,217.4 7.3971 3.760% 12,116.31 8,000 351-05-044 279,948.0 6.4267 3.857% 10,798.51 8,000 182-56-006 269,521.1 6.1874 3.881% 10,460.83 8,000 351-05-037 264,162.0 6.0643 3.894% 10,285.33 8,000 182-56-010 262,163.7 6.0185 3.898% 10,219.55 8,000 182-46-017 235,946.5 5.4166 3.958% 9,339.57 8,000 182-56-001 235,925.3 5.4161 3.958% 9,338.84 8,000 Page 1 of2 FAR>Max SPECIAL FEET House Size SETBACK 468,133.03 238,923.68 200,821.91 Skyline Blvd 200 56,567.35 'r8;0137O Fage lVllll Rd 1200 11,499.56 Page Mill Rd 200 10,998.44 10,356.49 8,821.74 8,652.69 Page Mill Rd 200 7,726.06 7,237.86 Page Mill Rd 200 6,758.39 5,833.72 Skyline Blvd 200 5,543.33 5,246.67 Page Mill Rd 200 5,246.11 ·5,246:07 1 P-age ~ill Rd 1200 7,245.82 7,245.52 Page Mill Rd 200 7,245.47 6,855.46 6,785.31 6,736.49 6,674.34 6,619.18 5,894.90 Page Mill Rd 200 5,892.35 5,801.12 Skyline Blvd 200 5;775.00 5,449.29 Page Mill Rd 200 4,609.00 Page Mill Rd 200 4,583.40 4,523.73 4,116.31 2,798.51 Page Mill Rd 200 2,460.83 2,285.33 Page Mill Rd 200 2,219.55 1,339.57 1,338.84 APN AREA ACRES FAR%. FAR sf Max House FAR>Max SPECIAL FEET Size House Size SETBACK 182-38-026 232,197.6 5.3305 3.967% 9,211.16 8,000 1,211.16 182-56-003 229,874.7 5.2772 3.972% 9,13U 8,000 1,131.27 182-46-018 228,950.0 5.2560 3.974% 9,099.41 8,000 1,099.40 351-12-054 224,678.0 5.1579 3.984% 8,951.€ 8,000 951.64 Skyline Blvd 200 182-56-002 223,629.8 5.1338 3.987% 8,915.26 8,000 915.26 182-56-013 222,670.9 5.1118 3:= 8,881.94 8,000 881.94 182-46-016 220,313.1 5.0577 3. 8,799.81 , 8,000 799.81 182-56-007 214,012.4 4.9130 .. · .. ···.4.043% 8,653.54 .. 8,000 653.54 182-56-009 198,475.7 4.5564 ." ·.··4,222% 8;379.27 8,000 379.27 182-54-012 196,822.0 4.5184 "4.241% 8,346.82 8,000 346.82 182-38-029 187,667.5 4.3083 4.346% ..•...... 8,155.79 8,000 155.79 182-54-013 184,203.0 4.2287 4.386% . 8,078.48 8,000 78.48 182-38-027 184,027.8 4.2247 4.388% 8,074.50 8,000 74.50 .... . ' ..... ... " . 182-56-012 178,615.8 4.1005 4.450% . 7,948.00 8,000 182-56-008 172,226.4 3.9538 ······.4.641 ....... 7,789.99 .8,900 '. 182-46-002 161,231.0 3.7014 7,496.15 8;000 '. 351-05-038 155,741.9 3.5753 . 4,71~% 1(·, 7,339.07 .... 8,000 ' .. ...... ....... . 182-38-025 153,651.7 3.5274 " 4.736%1. .7,277.44 . ' 8,000 . 35H2-065 151,139.0 3.4697 ...... 4,765% .> 7,202.02 8;000 182-54-006 114,501.0 2.6286 ...... 5.186% I"; 5,937.69 8,000 182-54-004 113,039.0 2.5950 5.202% 5;880.84. 8,000 182-36-022 111,328.0 2.5557 5;222% 5,813.69 8;000 182-54-005 106,852.0 2.4530 5.274% .i 5,634;85 8,000 182-54-014 106,! 2.4513 5.274% I ...•• 5,631.81 8,000 .... '.' 351-05-056 93,9 2.1566 '. 5.422% ..... 5,093.29 ... 8,000 Page Mill Rd 200 182-38-014 87,117. 1.9999 5.500% ". 4,791.50 8,000 351-12-060 84,835.0 1.9475 <~<4,688.18 8,OPO 182-54-015 83,043.0 1.9064 • ...• 5. 4,606.23 8,000 351-12-064 79,669.0 1.8289 •·••• .• ··5.586% ". '.' .' 4,449.93 8,000 182-54-016 69,128.0 1.5870 ,,'. 5.707% .. 3,944.80 8,000 182-54-008 68,348.0 1.5691 ': ... 5.715% i. 3,906.41 8,000 .... 351-25-012 61,187.1 1.4047' 5.798% I' 3,547.43 8,000 Page Mill Rd 1200 351-05-057 55,882.0 1.2829 5.859% • 3,273.88 8,000 ..... . .•..... 351-05-029 50,127.9 1.1508 5.925% 2,969.$8 8,000 Page Mill Rd 200 351-05-058 44,821.0 la 5 .. 986% 2,682.77 8,000 351-05-054 43,378.0 O. 6.000% 2,602.68 8,000 Page Mill Rd 200 351-05-053 41,615.0 O. • 6.000% '" 2,496.90 .. 8,000 Page Mill Rd 200 ~ol-Uo-U:,!o ;J\:J,OU4.!l U. ..... p,l,IUU'1o . :.!,;jru.:.!\:i . tsiUUU Il"'age Mill Rd 200 *Bold text higlights parcels included in the 1978 Settlement Agreement. These parcels are currently allowed to calculate Impervious Coverage (3.5%) based on a 10 acre lot size. Page 2 of2 ATTACHMENT 0 PAPOS Position Paper on Open Space Zoning Regulations Staff Responses November 13, 2007 PAPOS Response, January 14,2008 Who we are: Palo Altans Protecting Open Space (PAPOS) is a neighborhood association of property owners living in the Open Space District on private property. Our property is private land, not public land or parkland~ By living in the Open Space District we have a unique knowledge of its special nature and we should be heard on any decisions made affecting the Open Space District. PAPOS was organized to provide a united voice to government and private entities involved with changes to Open Space District rules and regulations affecting the rights of private property owners within the Open Space District. PAPOS is a non-profit, non-partisan, non- religious qssociation. This Position Paper While PAPOS members may have positions on many topics related to Open Space, this particular paper is focused on zoning regulations. This is largely due to a number of recent changes, many of which we consider to be ill-considered. Had the residents of the Open Space been consulted, we would have been able to point out these problems. This paper will outline our concerns, and we hope that the city will work with us to correct these deficiencies. For example, we do not understand and do not approve of changes which lessen fire control abilities, are anti-environmental, and which will contribute to a degradation of the visible corridor. Lot Sizes: The rules don't match actual property sizes To the best of our knowledge, in the Palo Alto Open Space there are about 80 individual lots with 59 unique owner/entities. Zoning rules appear to have been written with the assumption that lots are all 10 acres or larger, and located on entirely flat surfaces. New lots are restricted to be 10 acres in size, which we presume was done to prohibit property owners from sub- dividing their properties. Unfortunately these assumptions don't match the actual properties. Of the 80 lots, only 6 are larger than 20 acres, only 22 (27.5%) meet the 10 acre requirement, and the majority, 58 (72.5%) of the lots are less than 10 acres. Of these 58 approximately 9 have a development deal with the city which gives them the development rights of 10 acres. What this means is that regulations that might seem reasonable for lots of 10 acres or more impose undue hardships on the 61 % of the lots. Furthermore, nearly all of the properties are in rugged terrain, where issues of parking driveway paving, and the 200 ft setback need to be considered. Response: A map and summary of lot sizes is provided at the meeting; a comparison of standards with other cities (Woodside, Los Altos Hills, Portola Valley) may be useful; staff does not believe that zoning to RE or other district is appropriate, but could consider standards that are "graduated" for lot size. PAPOS Response: Graduated Impervious Coverage is an appropriate way to deal with the nonconforming lot size (under 10 acres) of the majority of parcels in the OS District. Pools: Used for Fire Control and Disaster Preparedness Prior to the recent changes, zoning regulations sometimes required homeowners to have on- site water storage facilities in the form of swimming pools, water reservoir, etc. In case of a fire, earthquake, or other catastrophic emergency these storage facilities provide extra water reservoirs for fire control and emergency water storage. For example, in the case of an earthquake, city supplied water pipes may become broken, and hence there would be no water for fighting fires or human consumption. The City of Palo Alto is currently planning to build a reservoir just for such purposes. The recent changes to the zoning regulations no longer count pools as permeable surface area making the installation of pools infeasible for many properties thus, losing this emergency management tool. Response: Staff believes that any pool that the Fire Department agrees is beneficial to fire protection should be exempted from impervious cover, plus some minimum amount of decking around the pool, but preliminary response from Fire Marshal indicates that pools are generally not acceptable for fire protection purposes (staff will pursue this further), in which case they should not be exempted from impervious cover; also, any pool area previously exempted should not subsequently count as impervious. PAPOS Response: We believe swimming pools should be encouraged in the OS District not discouraged. Swimming pools or any water storage have a role in fire suppression as an immediate and existing water source, for immediate responders along with the first responders. A pool or any water storage is also a source of emergency water Ifthere is an earthquake which disrupts the water supply we would like to have access to emergency water. A swimming pool serves both of these functions. Skylights: The rule changes are anti-environmental Designing to reduce electrical usage should be encouraged. One way to reduce electrical usage is to provide for natural light and ventilation through the use of skylights. Skylights are an environmental strategy not only providing natural light but also used for passive solar designs. Recent rule changes seek to restrict the use of clear skylights. Response: Staff suggests the language be revised to encourage the placement and design of skylights to avoid emitting light at night, such as using translucent glass or not locating lighting directly below a skylight, etc. PAPOS Response: We want to encourage a logical approach to skylights because they are useful tools to reduce lighting demand. Arborist Report: One of the recent rule changes would call for an arborist report on every tree planted 5 years after construction is finished. This is an unreasonable request. Not only are properties allowed agricultural use but, many of the lots in the Open Space District already have hundreds trees. Besides, trees are already protected by the Heritage Tree Ordinance. If the City believes this is a good idea it should be included in the Tree Ordinance and apply to all properties in Palo Alto. Response: Staff suggests that the language only apply to trees required for screen planting or mitigation for removal of trees. In most cases, development in the OS requires tree removal. To mitigate the removal of trees, and to address existing trees that may be impacted (e.g. due to grading or root disturbance), the City requires regular assessments as part of an approved project's conditions of approval. This mitigation monitoring isa standard requirement applied to projects in similar circumstances throughout the city. The timeline of five years correlates to the establishment time for the new tree to get well rooted and grow strong. The "report" is a letter prepared by a qualified certified arborist to help the property owner and City identify any health issues that may impact the newly planted trees and to provide a treatment plan. PAPaS Response: This is a burden requiring action 5 years later. We would like the rules to be fair. If this is a good idea for the as District it must be a good idea for all zoning district Parking rules: Imposes Undue Hardship Until the most recent revisions, parking was allowed in front yards in the as district. The new rules call for prohibiting parking within the front yard setback. For many properties the front yard setback is 200 feet. The majority of properties are less than 10 acres and the existing geography would not allow any parking that fits these rules. The effect of this new rule is to require longer driveways, more opportunity for erosion, more tree removal, and more cut and fill to create a 'flat parking area and may force other poor choices: making homes odd shapes, or taller than they otherwise could be. This provision may solve one visual problem but, creates other visual problems and may increase negative environmental impact. There are other ways to solve this problem, visual screening is all that is necessary. Response: Required parking spaces have never been allowed in the front setback; staff suggests consideration of some limited exceptions within a 200' special setback, where not visible from off site, substantially screened and of semi-permeable materials. If the concern is that the prior code only specified that "required" parking spaces are prohibited from the setback, that did not mean that spaces "not required" could be located in the setback. PAPaS Response: Because in some locations there is no available on street parking all automobiles visiting a home need to be accommodated on site. Parking can be screened. Second Dwelling Units: Should be allowed on more properties Currently, second dwellings are only allowed on properties 10 acres or larger in the as District. The majority of properties are less than 10 acres. Second dwelling units should be allowed on smaller parcels. Currently RE zoning allows 1 acre parcels a second dwelling unit and the City of Palo Alto has recently allowed more R-1 properties to have a second dwelling unit. This is inconsistent and creates an inequity. Also, allowing a second dwelling unit on more properties would contribute to the City's housing stock imbalance. Response: Staff suggests allowing a second dwelling pursuant to RE rules, but with a minimum lot size of 3 acres; note, however, that a second dwelling counts as impervious cover and requires 2 additional parking spaces (one covered). PAPaS Response: We appreciate the reduction from the requirement of 10 acres to 3 acres. However, this rule would exclude only 10 properties from having second dwellings. (There are approximately 18 properties under 3 acres in the as District. Of the 18, 7 have a special deal which allows a guest house and one other property has a grandfathered guest house, leaving 10 properties.) Anywhere else in the City of Palo Alto these properties would be able to have a second dwelling unit. We urge the City to consider allowing all as District properties second dwelling units. Reasonable Home Sizes: Impervious Surface Rules are overly restrictive The current ordinance is already overly restrictive. 3.5% impervious coverage is too strict for the majority of lots which are less than 10 acres. Any further restriction is unnecessary and onerous. While a 10 acre lot restriction will prevent further subdivision. applying these impervious surface rules for the 74 properties (of 80) less than 20 acres is not reasonable. The rules should be reasonable. For example, there are many one acre lots. A one acre property with a 3.5% impervious surface coverage allows only 1524 square feet of impervious surface. A 200 ft by 14-foot wide driveway would take 2800 square feet of impervious surface. Hence, the driveway itself is already over the limit, and leaving no square footage for a house or parking! The rules should be changed to allow for reasonable size homes, perhaps similar to RE zoning restrictions for the smaller properties. Response: Staff suggests evaluating two approaches or a combination thereof: 1) excluding driveway impervious cover in excess of 50 feet from the primaryparking area for the house; or 2) a sliding scale for impervious cover with percentages higher than 3.5% for lots less than 10 acres. The first approach would not penalize someone whose home is placed far from the roadway. The second would provide somewhat greater percentage development on smaller lots than larger lots, such as 10% impervious cover (4,356 square feet) for lots of one acre, 7.5% impervious cover (9,801 sf) for lots of 3 acres, and 5% (10,890 sf) for lots of 5 acres. Coverage for other lot sizes could be interpolated from those limitations, but coverage would never be below 3.5% or above 10% (for example). It would be necessary, however, to limit house sizes if such a system were adopted to avoid considerably larger homes on small lots (see below). PAPOS Response: A sliding scale for impervious coverage is a good idea. This would give the smaller properties reasonable rules. However, the sliding scale is unrelated to house size limits. F ARiSlope DenSity Members of the Planning Commission have suggested (but not yet implemented) Floor Area Ratio limits, and Slope Density limits, for homes in the as district. This will has the affect of downzoning. We believe that impervious cover is an adequate measure of environmental impact. The Planning Commission has mentioned no evidence that alternative limits would more accurately measure environmental impact. If the Planning Commission wishes to adopt Floor Area Ratio limits or Slope Density limits as a principled and fair choice, they should adopt limits similar to Los Altos Hills, and they should remove the impervious coverage limit. Response: Staff does not recommend slope density limits, as they introduce a complex new approach to an area that is largely built out. A maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and/or maximum house size should be considered, however, especially if the impervious coverage Jimits are relaxed; for example: 1) FAR of 5.0% of lot size and/or 2) a maximum house size of 8,000 sf (excluding basement) except where exception approved by Council up to 12,000 sf (excluding basement) where home is not highly visible and site is greater than 10 acres? More research as to maximum home sizes and FAR in other cities may be appropriate. Also, staff needs clarification on the treatment of basements to delete the 2-story limit and just use a height limit, and/or to only exclude basements that are not exposed on any side. If a basement is exposed, then it should be counted in FAR and house size. PAPOS Response: 3.5% Impervious Coverage Jimits are already the most restrictive zoning in the City of Palo Alto. The sliding scale does not relax impervious coverage, it just reduces the need for variances. We are strongly against any further restrictions such as FAR or maximum house size .. Overhead Power and Phone lines: Unsightly The City of Palo Alto designated Page Mill Rd and Skyline Blvd. Scenic corridors. The most. unsightly thing along these corridors are overhead power and phone lines. The undergrounding of these utilities should be a priority for the City. Response: Staff suggests that this issue is outside the scope of a zoning study. PAPOS Response: Alright. But given the City's concerns about the open space and scenic corridors, the City of Palo Alto should do everything it can do to improve the public domain first. It should include the Overhead lines in its areas of interest in the Open Space District. Approval Process: Cumbersome The requirement for houses in the OS District to progress from the Planning Commission to the City Council for Approval is cumbersome. The City Council does not have the time to thoroughly review residential projects and subsequently sometimes makes unreasonable demands on homeowners. The Planning Staff should represent the views of the Commission and the City Council. The rules should be clear and not subjective. Each project should not remake policy. RespOnse: Staff suggests that thresholds could be provided to aI/ow for staff level review with PTC and CC Consent approval for small and moderate projects; for example, provide for staff review with Consent (at CC) for projects of less than 2,500 sf FA, less than 5,000 sf impervious cover. PTC review with Consent at CC for 5,000 sf FA, less than 10,000 sf impervious cover. PTC and CC review required for others. PAPOS Response: We believe relieving the burden on smaller projects is a great idea. Impervious Cover What counts and doesn't. Add "Intent" statement. Response: Staff suggests that Intent should include permeability and open space/rural appearance. Staff suggests presentation from staff engineer regarding impervious materials; likely to count surfaces as percentage permeable, based on material and site conditions (slope, subsurface, etc.); exclude pools (if supported by Fire), gravel or decomposed granite driveways, driveways through designated scenic setbacks (if impermeability is minimized). PAPOS Response: We agree with the exclusions above Revise name of zone district Change to something other than "open space." Response: Staff suggests that deletion of "open space" is not likely to be politically acceptable -high priority on identifying these areas as part of the city's open space network, with residential use permitted but restricted; it might, however, be reasonable to consider "open space residential" to provide both concepts in the district name. PAPaS Response: We would appreciate an 'open space residential' or 'rural residential' designation. Summary: Talk to PAP OS Many of the new rules don't make sense for the small and constant number of lots in the Open Space. We encourage a dialog with PAPOS to work on making changes, which are reasonable for the actual properties. We look forward to the working group process. ATTACHMENT E PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION DIVISION TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT PLANNING & TRANSPORT A nON COMMISSION Clare Campbell, Planner July 8, 2009 DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Environment Zoning Ordinance Update: Review and Recommendation of Draft Revisions to Chapter 18.28 related to Development Standards in the Open Space (OS) District; Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and a 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) review and recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed revisions to Chapter 18.28 (Attachment A) and the associated draft Negative Declaration (Attachment G). BACKGROUND On April 15,2009, the PTC reviewed the proposed changes to the Open Space District. Other than a few recommended clarifications, summarized in Attachment B, the PTC was generally supportive of the proposed revisions. Towards the end of discussions one specific item was raised by the PTC, maximum house size, which had not been previously discussed in any great detail with the OS stakeholders. Direction was then given to provide notice to the OS residents that the PTC will consider adding maximum house size to the OS development standards and the action was continued (staff report and meeting minutes are attached). DISCUSSION Attachment A, the draft OS chapter, has been revised to incorporate revisions recommended at the April 15 PTC meeting. Maximum House Size Maximum house size requirements are a development tool imposed in some hillside communities in the Bay Area, such as Woodside (8,000 square feet), Portola Valley (85% of total floor area allowed), and Saratoga (8,000 square feet). Staff has not recommended such a City of Palo Alto Page 1 limitation due to the use of the Site and Design Review process to address the visual impacts of the home. However, there is no significant burden on staff to implement a maximum house size limitation, such as exists with the slope-density approach, so a maximum house size restriction remains a policy determination for the Commission and Council. A maximum house size limit would affect larger properties. The following proposed breakdown was briefly discussed at the last PTC meeting: Table 1 Lot Size (acres) Maximum House Size (s.f.) < 10 8,000 ~ 10 and < 15 10,000 ~ 15 12,000 The proposed house size limitations above affects 54 (68%) of the 79 developable OS lots. There are 25 lots that fall into the "less than 10 acres" category that are not large enough to have a floor area ratio equal to or greater than 8,000 sf. Attachment E provides detailed calculations for the proposed standard floor area ratio (FAR) for the developable OS lots. The developable lots do not include parcels owned by the City, the Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Table 2 Lot Size (acres) Max House Size (s.f.) # Lots Affected Lot Size Range (acres) < 10 8,000 36* 4.2-9.9 > 10 and < 15 10,000 13 10-14 ~ 15 12,000 5 20-315 *Of the 61 OS lots <10 acres, 36 lots are large enough to have a FAR equal or greater than 8,000 sf. Stakeholder Feedback After the April 15 PTC meeting, staff sent notice cards to all the OS property owners/interested parties to inform them that Maximum House Size will be considered by the PTC. Three comment letters, submitted by individual OS residents, were received and were not supportive of this added regulation (Attachment F). POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Zoning Ordinance Update is intended to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that the proposed amendments reflect the intent and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to minimize impacts new development on views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides. Attachment F provides a list of related Comprehensive Plan policies. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project is subject to environmental review' under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQ A requirements. The 20-day public comment period for this document ran from April 8, 2009 through April 27, 2009; no comments were received. City of Palo Alto Page 2 NEXT STEPS Upon direction from the Commission, staffwill revise the ordinance and forward it to the Council for final review and recommendation or return to the Commission, if that is preferred. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Red-line Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose Districts) B.Summary of Code Modifications Resulting From the April 15, 2009 PTC Meeting C. PTC Staff Report, April 15, 2009 D. PTC Excerpt Minutes, April 15, 2009 E. Summary Table of OS Parcels F. Correspondence G. Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study COURTESY COPIES PAPOS Prepared by: Clare Campbell, Planner DEP ARTMENTIDIVISION HEAD APPROV AL:_~~",--=_W%.-~-",-~ .... ...."fltv'n"-L'LL-JoL..A--,----__ _ Curtis Williams, Interim Director City of Palo Alto Page 3 ATTACHMENT F 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Verbatim Minutes 3 July 8, 2009 4 5 EXCERPT 6 7 Zoning Ordinance Update: Review and Recommendation of Draft Revisions to Chapter 18.28 8 related to Development Standards in the Open Space (OS) District; Environmental Assessment: 9 An Initial Study has been completed and a Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance 10 with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ A) requirements. 11 12 Ms. Clare Campbell, Planner: Good evening Commissioners I have a very brief presentation for 13 you tonight. As you may recall Staff brought the revised Open Space Chapter for your review on 14 April 15. At that meeting the Commission discussed the proposed revisions and provided some 15 corrections and clarifications for the Chapter. These modifications, which have been 16 summarized in Attached B of the Staff Report, have been incorporated into the current draft 17 Chapter. 18 19 At the April 15 meeting Staff was asked to return to the Planning Commissioner for discussion 20 of maximum house size after the OS stakeholders have been notified of this added discussion 21 item. Other than the subject of maximum house size all of the other proposed revisions to the 22 OS Chapter were discussed, vetted, and agreed upon. Staff is asking the Commission to focus 23 discussions tonight on maximum house size. 24 25 As a starting point for the discussion the proposed maximum house size falls into the following 26 categories. For lot sizes, for lots less than ten acres it is a maximum size of 8,000 square feet. 27 For lots greater than or equal to ten acres and less than 15 acres a maximum house size of 10,000 28 square feet. For lots greater than or equal to 15 acres 12,000 square feet would be the maximum 29 house size. 30 31 In addition to the comment letters received from the stakeholders attached in the Staff Report, 32 Staff has also received additional letters that have been put at places tonight. The neighborhood 33 association as well as individual homeowners have not been supportive of adding maximum 34 house size to the Open Space District regulations. Thank you. 35 36 Chair Garber: Thank you. Could you just review the Staff's recommendation on this item? 37 38 Mr. Williams: Yes. Two comments. First of all Staff has in previous discussions not 39 recommended maximum house size and continues to support that position. Primarily because we 40 believe that the Site and Design Review process gives you an opportunity to look at each house 41 individually. There may be homes that are 10,000 square feet and they are on a valley or flat 42 land and nobody sees them and then there may be houses that are 6,000 square feet that are on a 43 highly visible hillside and that is maybe too much. So we have tended to think that it is specific 44 to the site and that it is very hard to come up with just a house size limitation per se. 45 Page 1 1 I also then wanted to just note that the motion that you had last time specifically enumerated that 2 what was coming back tonight was the house size issue and that the other issues the Commission 3 had come to closure on, which of course legally doesn't bind you that way but that was your 4 intent to just focus on this provision on the maximum house size before forwarding a 5 recommendation to the Council. 6 7 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, I would like to have a robust question period and 8 then we will go to the public comments. We have five cards. If there members of the public that 9 would like to speak on this item please come forward and fill out a card. At the completion of . 10 the public speaking period we will enter into discussion of this item with a start of a straw poll as 11 to whether the Commissioners will support the Staff's recommendation or if we will need 12 additional discussion on it. With that I have a light from Commissioner Fineberg and then 13 Keller. 14 15 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. Question about Staff's, and I will read it from the Staff 16 Report. "Staff has not recommended such a limitation due to the use of Site and Design Review 17 process to address the visual impacts of the home." So my first question about that 18 recommendation is, and Mr. Williams just sort of answered part of it a few moments ago, is it 19 that Staff has not recommended a maximum size, or is it Staff recommends we not have a 20 maximum size? One is kind of a passive silence and the other is it is a bad idea. Can we get 21 some clarification as to what the 'not recommended' in the past means? 22 23 Mr. Williams: Yes, thank you. I think we have recommended not to adopt a maximum house 24 size for those reasons that there is another mechanism available to look at that issue. I see the 25 distinction there as well. 26 27 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so it is an active recommend we not. Then you gave me a 28 perfect segue. When we talk about the Site and Design Review in the Staff Report it says that it 29 addresses the visual impacts of the home. What about the other impacts of larger homes? 30 Things like the use of construction materials with the general assumption that the bigger it is 31 beyond a certain point the less green it is. What about things like the displacement of wild1ife or 32 natural vegetation? Will the Site and Design Review capture those other items? 33 34 Mr. Williams: Site and Design review won't capture what materials are used or the amount of 35 materials. It would to some extent capture the wildlife because you would be able to look at the 36 site and see where the house is sited relative to a wildlife corridor or something like that. 37 However, the floor area ratio and impervious cover govern the total amount of development on 38 . the site. So that stays the same. Whether there is a maximum house size or not the same amount 39 of development, so the same amount of materials, and same potential level of disturbance, is 40 irrespective of the house size. So you may have a maximum house size that limits the house to 41 8,000 square feet but there is a 12,000 square foot limitation on floor area for that site, so there 42 can be another 4,000 square feet that is in a barn and a guesthouse or something like that on that 43 site. So the total amount of development on the site doesn't change whether you adopt a 44 maximum house size or not. 45 Page 2 1 Now last time you did adopt floor area ratios that are more restrictive at least in some of the 2 circumstances than what just the impervious cover. So you already to some extent have 3 addressed that particularly on the larger sites that might have had larger homes in other 4 circumstances. 5 6 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you that's it. 7 8 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Holman. 9 10 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. the first question in follow up to what Commissioner 11 Fineberg asked, has a Site and Design Review to the best of your recollection ever told 12 somebody "Your house is too big, reduce FAR"? Has that ever happened in a Site and Design 13 Review that the Site and Design was used and said it was just too big and needs to be smaller? 14 15 Mr. Williams: I don't recall it. We get not very many of these out there but not that I know of. 16 It certainly is a possibility. I think the more realistic possibility is that the house is shifted in 17 some way or something is done to minimize the visibility of it. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: So do you envision that the Planning Commission might in a Site and 20 Design Review say it is just too big for that particular lot no matter where you put it it has to be 21 smaller? 22 23 Mr. Williams: I think that could be done. I think again what might be more likely is that it be 24 shifted in some way that it is not as prominent on a hillside or something like that. 25 26 Chair Garber: If I may offer, in the last four years we have had two items corne through since I 27 have been on the Commission. The first one was turned down not because it was too large but 28 because its position and the way it was massed was inappropriate. 29 30 Commissioner Keller: Thank you Chair. I think basically the reason for this line of questioning 31 . is to understand the degree to which Site and Design review deals with the FAR issue or doesn't 32 deal with the FAR issue. I think the answer is if it deals with it it is in a very indirect way or not 33 at all. 34 35 The second point is that with respect to page 7 of Attachment A, Section 18.28.050, paragraph 36 (b) (1). There is example text and I had suggested not that it be deleted per se but that you use 37 something other than two acres in order to clarify things, like two and a half or one and a half 38 acres so that the interpellation would be clear. It looks like the example was deleted rather than 39 the number of two acres being changed. 40 41 Ms. Campbell: That is correct. The decision was made to remove that because we think it 42 creates more confusion than it does help. Then in the Summary on Attachment B what we are 43 planning to do is have a separate attachment that will provide very detailed explanations or show 44 the formula and how the calculation is done instead of trying to put a brief example in the actual 45 text of the code. 46 Page 3 1 Commissioner Keller: So I am still confused. I am not sure how that is handled. I don't see a 2 summary description. I see Attachment B but I am not sure where your language is ;going to be. 3 4 Chair Garber: Is there a table that is not a part of this? 5 6 Commissioner Keller: I think the example of one and a half or two and a half acres would 7 illustrate the intent quite clear without being confusing to people with knowledge of high school 8 mathematics. Different things can be read into this example because it is ambiguous. 9 10 Mr. Williams: What we anticipated doing and I don't know if we have it or not. Clare has done 11 sort of a formula but we are going to have a table of every lot in the Open Space District. We are 12 just going to create a table that has every lot and how much the square footages are that are 13 allowed on each one. 14 15 Commissioner Keller: Okay. 16 17 Mr. Williams: There aren't so many lots that we can't basically do that. Somebody can look up 18 what the allowance is on their particular parcel. 19 20 Vice-Chair Tuma: Pardon me. I believe Attachment E has that among other bits of data. 21 22 Mr. Williams: Right, yes. 23 24 Commissioner Keller: Where is that? I don't see it. 25 26 Ms. Campbell: On Attachment E I have provided examples of the maximum floor area. 27 28 Commissioner Keller: Thank you, thank you so I guess there are not a lot of lots. Thank you. 29 30 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman, and then Tuma, and myself. 31 32 Commissioner Holman: Yes just two things. One is I am sorry that it appears to some that this 33 was a last minute thought about maximum house size because way back when, way, way back 34 when, two years ago or more when we first started talking about Open Space we talked about 35 potential consideration of maximum house size. I guess it was not a part of the discussions that 36 happened with Commission Representatives and Staff with the neighborhood but it was one of 37 the items that we had put on the table way back when. So I am sorry that some people feel like it 38 was a late minute consideration because it truly was not. 39 40 My other question actually Commissioner Keller has asked. It is good to know that if we really 41 thought the only way to satisfy good Site and Design criteria was to reduce the size of a house or 42 the size of a structure that Staff would support that. 43 44 Chair Garber: Is that it? Okay. Commissioner Tuma and then Garber. 45 Page 4 I Vice-Chair Tuma: Just two quick questions. The thresholds in Table 1 on page 2 of the Staff 2 Report, how were those thresholds arrived at? 3 4 Mr. Williams: Those were thresholds that we just use because there are a couple of cities that 5 use 8,000 square feet. They generally are not lots that are more than ten acres or so. So we sort 6 of started with the 8,000 square feet for up to ten-acre lots. Then we thought there should be 7 some allowance above that as you get larger lots. 8 9 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, but you didn't run this against our lots that are in the Open Space and 10 see whether these cuts make sense? 11 12 Mr. Williams: We did, yes. I think Clare did that and generally wanted to see where that line 13 was. You can kind of see that from that table on Attachment E also as to where the break is, 14 where the 8,000 square feet intersects with the FAR that is allowed on the lot. 15 16 Vice-Chair Tuma: That is fine. One other question. Do you recall how many full Commission 17 meetings we have had on this topic? 18 19 Mr. Williams: I think we have had at least three since the subcommittee met. We had probably 20 at least three before the subcommittee met. So we are probably looking at six or thereabout over 21 a couple of years. 22 23 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Thank you. 24 25 Chair Garber: So we have a maximum building size in the'R-l District. Could you describe 26 why it is appropriate there but not in the OS District? 27 28 Mr. Williams: We think it is appropriate there because there is a certain uniformity and 29 character to lots in the R-l patterns that doesn't exist in the Open Space District, which is an 30 amalgam of all different sizes and shapes of lots. So it seems to us that there is a very distinct 31 difference in those two cases. 32 33 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Fineberg. 34 35 Commissioner Fineberg: A follow up question on Commissioner Keller's question about the 36 maximum size related to Site and Design Review. If a property owner is entitled to build, I will 37 call it a superstructure, and they have the legal entitlement to do so will the Site and Design 38 Review legally be able to limit that size? Specifically are the design criteria things like visual 39 impacts so subjective that they would not be able to withstand a court challenge? Has it ever 40 been tested? Can there be subjective reasons given for why a homeowner would not get what 41 they would be legally be entitled to? 42 43 Mr. Williams: I think from a legal standpoint as long as you enumerate the findings of why that 44 would be I believe that legally that would be fine. I worked in Los Altos Hills for five years and 45 they have a maximum floor area ratio for a site but they don't have a maximum house size. As 46 you probably know they have lots of very large houses. I will tell you that the Planning Page 5 1 Commission reviewed virtually every house that came through there. There were quite a number 2 of circumstances where based on those kind of subjective criteria that you have in Site and 3 Design Review they limited the size or the height or other components of the house, but size and 4 height were both things that were reduced and there was never any legal issue with doing that. 5 6. Ms. Tronguet: That is precisely the reason we ask you to make findings. Without the findings it 7 could appear arbitrary but when you make findings we assume that you generally have a 8 rationale and legitimate basis for doing that. That is why we ask you when you do review those 9 types of projects to articulate the reasons you are doing it and sort of your thinking behind the 10 requirements that you are imposing when you review those projects. 11 12 Commissioner Fineberg: So for an example, and I will exaggerate slightly. Let's say there is a 13 large parcel that is several hundred acres and because of the impervious surface limitations they 14 can build a 25,000 square foot home. Would the Site and Design Review be able to say no, 15 25,000 square feet is too big because it is too visible? How does one define what too visible 16 means? So could that finding be made or would we be told no that is too subjective it won't 17 stand a court test? 18 19 Ms. Tronguet: Well, what we would probably ask you to explain is why you think it is too 20 visible, and what components of it are too visible, and sort of the things that are wrong with it 21 that are leading to your conclusion that it doesn't quite fit where they want to build it. 22 23 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. I am asking that keeping in mind a specific project that went 24 through Site and Design Review that when you are standing at the peak in Foothills Park in my 25 personal opinion it is incredibly visible. Yet, somehow the process didn't keep that in the gate. 26 So how can a process be managed that we know in one of the most visible areas that should have 27 been maintained the most pristine, if it didn't work will that process continue to fail or what 28 would be different that process would work without a maximum size? 29 30 Mr. Williams: I appreciate your line of questioning. There is definitely some validity to it. The 31 reality is that when you get a large house in front of you a lot of work goes into that. There are 32 changes. I have certainly seen the Commission make changes to the way the house looks, and 33 rooflines and those kinds of things that help mitigate, additional landscaping, and that kind of 34 thing. But it is very difficult sometimes from a political standpoint to sit up there and say you 35 need to reduce the size of your house. If you had a maximum house size they would have that 36 expectation coming in. They would know that we didn't want to see houses over a certain 37 limitation. So I understand the sort of practical difficulty. There are issues with that. 38 39 On the other hand I would sort of ask you is it fair to those property owners that don't have those 40 constraints and those issues to be limiting· them in the same way? They wouldn't be eligible for 41 Variances. It is not a hardship situation. So the Site and Design does give you the legal ability 42 to do that, whether practically or not you feel - I am sure there are different opinions up there as 43 far as how far you might take that or your ability to take that to a point where you are actually 44 limiting the square footage of a house based on the Site and Design criteria, but you do have the 45 legal ability to do that. 46 Page 6 1 Chair Garber: Are there any other questions? With that let's take a quick five-minute break. 2 We have been at this for two hours. We will be back promptly and then we will take comments 3 from the public. 4 5 I will open the public comment period. Each speaker will have three minutes. We have eight 6 speakers. The first is Brian Schmidt followed by Aaron Lehmann. 7 8 Mr. Brian Schmidt, Committee for Green Foothills: Good evening I am here for Committee for 9 Green Foothills. I was the lone open space advocate that was on the working group that was 10 working on this issue. I should mention that I brought up the idea of maximum house size limits 11 during the discussion. Staff obviously didn't support it but again it is not like this idea has only 12 come up at the last minute. It has been around for awhile. 13 14 We do support the idea of a maximum house size limit. I think Commissioner Fineberg might 15 have thought she was giving an exaggeration when she discussed the 25,000 square foot house. 16 We, the Committee for Green Foothills opposed a 25,000 square foot house in Santa Clara 17 County, later reduced to a 17,000 square foot house. Staff supported it. Planning Commission 18 supported it. Board of Supervisors overrode both and denied the application, and then the 19 applicant litigated. I don't know what the status of the litigation is but if there were a bright line 20 rule saying what house size limits there were that would have addressed that issue. 21 22 Regarding Mr. Williams' discussion of the floor area ratios I think the way to handle that issue is 23 that house size limit should be an overall structural limit. It should be additional cap in addition 24 to floor area ratio. So on top of an 8,000 square foot cap you cannot put 4,000 additional square 25 feet in other structures. That might have even been the original intent of the idea, I don't know. 26 27 In general, house size limit is an environmental proxy that can handle things Site and Design 28 Review cannot. One example that was given was construction materials and environmental 29 impacts of construction. I will give another, which are defensible perimeters from wildfire. The 30 larger the house the larger the defensible perimeter you are going to have to go around a much 31 bigger house. The defensible perimeters usually mean a lot of restriction on what can be allowed 32 to have there in tenns of landscaping either natural or planted. So that is another example of an 33 environmental impact that can occur. 34 35 Finally, and most important the reason I would say is over a certain level you are not really 36 looking at a single-family residence anymore. When you have I would guess anywhere over 37 4,000 square feet you are starting to have a significant amount of household staff time involved 38 in the operation and maintenance of the house. When you are getting to big houses like these 39 8,000 and above we are talking about large amounts of staff. It isn't really a place for single 40 family anymore. It is more of an, I don't know, some large staff operated and primarily 41 something for that and it doesn't fit the original understanding of what a single family residence 42 would be. The current 8,000, 10,000, or 12,000 feet limits should actually be lower. Maybe you 43 could go up to those levels if they did some type of green bonus to get to those levels. Thank 44 you. Thank you. 45 46 Chair Garber: Thank you. Aaron Lehmann followed by Deborah Lehmann. Page 7 1 2 Mr. Aaron Lehmann, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live in the Open Space District and I am 3 speaking to oppose the inclusion of a maximum house size rule in the Open Space District 4 zoning. One of my concerns about this rule is that it is not clear what problem it is trying to 5 solve. 6 7 The rule was broadly opposed by the residents of the Open Space District so it seems only fair 8 that the Commission should present a case for it that shows some public benefit. Unfortunately 9 the Commission has not made its motivations clear. So I am unsure what the ultimate goal of 10 this policy is and whether there might be better ways to accomplish it. 11 12 A maximum house rule would be a third restriction oh structure size in addition to restrictions 13 based on impervious coverage and floor area ratio. In addition, the City has considerable 14 discretion to approve or deny development on a case-by-case basis through the Site and Design 15 Review process. It is not clear why the other restrictions and this broad discretion are not 16 sufficient to accomplish the Commission's unclear goal. 17 18 I also don't understand why this rule should only apply to houses in the Open Space District 19 rather than uniformly throughout the City. If the Commission is concerned about the appearance 20 or resource consumption of large homes then surely these issues apply just as much in the more 21 urban areas of the city. Even the current rules in the Open Space District limit development 22 more than surrounding areas like Portola Valley, Los Altos Hills, and unincorporated areas of 23 Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. The proposed change would further reduce the allowable 24 development intensity by up to 65 percent for a ten-acre property. This could significantly 25 reduce property values because residents of the Open Space District may be very much impacted 26 by the proposed change. It is disappointing that the Commission has not yet engaged in any 27 meaningful way with the residents regarding a maximum house size. 28 29 I think possibly the most unfortunate effect of the maximum house size rule and other proposed 30 changes to zoning rules would be to promote a monoculture of similarly sized houses at the 31 expense of other types of use. The Open Space District has a huge diversity of lot sizes, 32 topography and types of use and it would be a shame to ignore this when formulating policy 33 concerning the district. Many of the zoning regulations, however well meaning, have unintended 34 consequences that limit what the district can offer the Palo Alto residents. For example, 35 regulations against selling and serving alcohol make it essentially nonviable to operate a winery 36 in the Open Space District. This is just one more example of how the residents of Palo Alto 37 would be better served by the City leaving leeway open to issue development permits on a case- 38 by-case basis rather than coding broad and harsh regulations into the law. Thank you. 39 40 Chair Garber: Thank you. Deborah Lehmann followed by Cathy Cartmell. 41 42 Ms. Deborah Lehmann, Palo Alto: Good evening. I also reside in the Open Space District. I 43 just wanted to call your attention tonight to some unintended consequences of the current Open 44 Space zoning rules. The Open Space District is meant to preserve the open space land while 45 encouraging public recreation and the enjoyment of scenic beauty in the area. However, the land 46 use regulations for the district are so strict they are actually driving diversity out of the area and Page 8 1 promoting lot after lot of residential homes. A number of the zoning rules seem sensible but they 2 actually prohibit land uses that are perfectly well suited to open space and would actually 3 enhance the area. A personal example, my family owns a small vineyard, which is allowed 4 under the as restrictions, and we would like to operate a winery on the property. This is 5 consistent with the City's vision for the as District and gets you out of their homes into the open 6 space where they could walk through the fields and support the local agriculture. But a 7 successful winery requires a tasting room as well the retail sale of wine both of which are 8 prohibited under the current zoning laws. There is a restriction on eating and drinking services 9 in conjunction with permitted use. While certainly well intentioned it is understandable that the 10 City doesn't want restaurant and bars in the as District. Same with the restriction on retail 11 services, Open Space shouldn't be full of shops and stores. But these restrictions crowd out 12 things like wineries that really enhance the as District and encourage city residents to enjoy the 13 area. 14 15 A number of other regulations do the same thing. For example agricultural land use is allowed 16 and encouraged but the sale of agricultural products on the premises is prohibited. So that means 17 you can't operate a farm stand or have city residents come and pick their own berries. Palo Alto 18 has a thriving farmer's market and an interest in local food and farm stands and you-pick 19 operations encourage residents to celebrate the open space and take part in local agriculture but 20 both of those are prohibited under the current zoning guideline, which frankly just does not make 21 sense. 22 23 Dozens of other open space friendly activities are also prohibited. You are not allowed to hold a 24 watercolor class for example in the open space, allowing residents to paint the beautiful 25 surroundings. If you wanted to hold a yoga teacher training under the oak trees in the open space 26 you wouldn't be able to do that either. 27 28 There are so many possible uses for land in the open space that it doesn't make sense to issue 29 strict one size fits all guidelines for land use. If somebody wants to open a bar or a shopping 30 center the City can deny the permit that's fine and consistent with the vision for the as District. 31 But if somebody wants to open up a winery or a farm stand or a painting studio the City should 32 have the opportunity to consider the contribution of those operations to the as District. So 33 giving more discretion on matters of land use to the Planning Commission will give Palo Alto 34 and Open Space District that really promotes the enjoyment of the area's scenic beauty and not 35 one that is just lot after lot of residential homes. Thank you. 36 37 Chair Garber: Excuse me Commissioner Keller would like to ask a question. 38 39 Commissioner Keller: Thank you for your comments. I am wondering if anything that the 40 Commission is proposing to change is affected by the comments that you have and the things 41 you would like to see happen or whether those restrictions are of long standing. 42 43 Ms. Lehmann: Many of them are just in the current regulations but I think also the new plans 44 call for taking out I think it is either business and trade schools or some sort of educational 45 entity. So for example if you wanted to have like a yoga teacher training on a lot in the open Page 9 1 space you wouldn't be able to do that if it is under a trade school or professional development. 2 So I think that was one of the things that was in the new regulations. 3 4 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 5 6 Chair Garber: Cathy Cartmell followed by David Hopkins. 7 8 Ms. Cathy Cartmell, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. I would like to first note that 9 many neighbors were unable to be here but several of them have sent correspondence, which I 10 am sure you have received. Though I have noted I have at least three different letters that I did 11 not see posted on the back table so you might not have received everything. 12 13 From what I see the huge majority of correspondence vigorously objects to the addition of these 14 regulations to which I add my voice. I would love to read them into the record but I have only 15 three minutes. 16 17 I would like to mention again the basis of all laws in California, the California Constitution, 18 which the very first thing, Article I, Section 1 says, all people are by nature free and independent 19 and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, 20 possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. 21 22 I did notice on the Staff Report under Discussion Maximum House Size, missing is the mention 23 of other communities such as Los Altos Hills and Santa Clara County which are closer to Palo 24 Alto and in Santa Clara County that differ dramatically on the topic of FAR and house size from 25 the numbers presented here for Portola Valley and Woodside. The current 3.5 impervious 26 coverage is quite adequate and very efficient in that it already quite sufficiently regulates FAR, 27 maximum house size, lot coverage, and impervious coverage all with one simple regulation. 28 29 I stand before you a full five foot, four inches high. Three and a half percent of five foot, four 30 inches is two and one-quarter inches. This paper right here is also five foot, four inches high. 31 You can see what 3.5 percent of five foot, four inches is and if I show that if I was my property 32 and I was only allowed to use 3.5 percent of it this is what I would be allowed to use -this much. 33 I say the City of Palo Alto has taken enough from us. 34 35 In closing, I would like to see no additional FAR, no additional maximum house size, no 200- 36 foot special setback, second dwelling units for all properties, and an even friendlier approval 37 process. Thank you. 38 39 Chair Garber: Thank you. David Hopkins followed by Richard Geiger. 40 41 Mr. David Hopkins, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live in the Open Space District and we have 42 been there since 1971. I am here to speak in support of the Staff recommendation not to adopt a 43 maximum house size. 44 45 I would just ask Commissioners to please think of two questions as you deliberate and decide 46 this matter. Number one, what problem are you trying to solve? It seems like as best we Open Page 10 1 Space residents can tell it all has to do with visual impact. If that is the problem you have many 2 ways of solving it, addressing it that are appropriate and seem fair. In particular, we would 3 certainly suggest, and those of us who have been through it have experienced it that your 4 mandatory Site and Design Review process covers it well. It is un-arbitrary. It gives you the 5 ability to consider the circumstances of the particular property and whether it is in fact visible. 6 Please recognize that this district is very diverse. Yes, there are properties that are adjoining 7 Palo Alto City parklands that are very sensitive in terms of visual impact but there are plenty of 8 properties that are not even visible from any Palo Alto public properties. That is what you are 9 dealing with here. 10 11 The second question. How much is enough? We started with impervious coverage ratios. 12 Those have been there since we built our house in 1979. Then came FAR in the last year or two, 13 and now you are proposing a maximum house size. Everyone of these is a takeaway from 14 current homeowners. You know that as well as we do, and future property owners. So I leave 15 you with that question, how much is enough? 16 17 Finally, just to sort of note, we are citizens of Palo Alto too. We ask that that Planning 18 Commission balance the interests of those who don't live in the Open Space District with those 19 who do, and therefore not impose an arbitrary maximum house size on all lots in the district 20 regardless of their particular circumstances. Thank you. 21 22 Chair Garber: Thank you. Richard Geiger followed by Herb Borock. 23 24 Mr. Richard Geiger, Palo Alto: I own property and a house up on Page Mill Road. I have 25 owned it since 1957. I am opposed to more restrictions. I want to be on the record as opposing 26 this house size. I am opposed to even ten-acre zoning. I think if you want smaller houses how 27 about two or three acre zoning and then you can more easily through the impervious or FAR 28 limit the house size. The problem with these ten-acre parcels is there is no real community 29 because everybody is spread out. I know you are not going to up-zone right away but it is 30 something to think about. 31 32 I think the FAR cut the house size by 50 percent already, having a FAR that is the same as the 33 impervious. The FAR had been -I don't think there was a FAR. There was just an impervious 34 coverage that limited the house size and all the building size and all the concrete and all of this 35 and all of that. 36 37 On my particular property the ideal site for a house that is away from the road over 200 feet, is 38 probably 300 or 400 or 500 feet even is down in the woods. It is not visible. It wouldn't be. It 39 is surrounded by large oak trees and other madrones and so forth. So it is not a visible site and 40 that should be taken into account not just arbitrary house size numbers. Okay, thank you. 41 42 Chair Garber: Thank you. Herb Borock followed by our last speaker Christina Losq. 43 44 Mr. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Thank you Chair Garber. I support placing a maximum house size 45 in the OS District just as there are maximum floor area limits in other general zone districts. I 46 also support retaining the current impervious coverage formula of 3.5 percent of lot size Page 11 1 including the share of lot in the common open space area for clustered lot subdivisions. You 2 have been given one example in the Staff Report of the Mullin subdivision of this settlement of a 3 lawsuit from 30 years ago, but there is also the ten lot Hewlett subdivision, the eight lot Arillaga 4 subdivision, the five lot Lee subdivision and all of these have a 3.5 percent impervious coverage 5 calculated on a total lot area that includes its portion of common open space. I see no reason to 6 create new formulas for impervious coverage for lots. 7 8 In terms of house size I believe you should have a simple formula. The next zone district in the 9 hierarchy is the RE zone which is a one-acre zone, which has a house size limit of 6,000 square 10 feet. It would seem to be reasonable if you have a one-acre site here it should also have 6,000 11 square foot. I believe Staff has done the right thing by looking only at the portion of the lot that 12 is developable. For impervious coverage you want to look at the entire ten acres for the 13 entitlement but for the house size you just want to look at the portion of the lot that has been 14 carved off without the common open space. I would say if you had two acres that could be 15 12,000 but there should be some limit, which I think would be 15,000 square feet. 16 The formula say on 40,000 square feet a formula of 0.15 would give you 6,000 square foot. 17 18 As far as the idea that Site and Design Review would substitute for house size, I don't know 19 what the current zoning code requires but I recall mixed use developments requiring Site and 20 Design Review. Can you imagine Staff coming to you and saying you should have no floor area 21 limits in mixed use developments because Site and Design Review would take care of it? Or you 22 can have no floor area limits for a single-family home because they have a good architect and 23 you won't be able to see the house? That doesn't make sense to me at all. Thank you. 24 25 Chair Garber: Thank you. Our last speaker of the evening Christine Losq. 26 27 Ms. Christine Losg, Palo Alto: Good evening. I have been following this. I live in the Open 28 Space District. We have been of course following these discussions for the last two years. As 29 Commissioner Holman pointed out the idea of a maximum house size is not a new idea and it has 30 been in discussion for awhile. As Commissioner Fineberg pointed out it appears that this whole 31 discussion was triggered by that notorious property which is so blatantly in view from Foothills 32 Park. I am somewhat curious. I do support Staff's recommendation that there not be a 33 maximum house size limit for the following reason. On page 17 in Attachment A there is an 34 exemption. This exemption means that those properties, which are the most visible from public 35 lands, are exempt from maximum house size. One of those properties triggered this whole 36 discussion. It seems quite unfair to the rest of us in the Open Space that while nothing can be 37 done about the lots that are highly visible from open space that the rest of us should be extremely 38 restricted in the use of our property where our homes are not visible from any public lands. 39 Thank you. 40 41 Chair Garber: Excuse me. Is the text that you are speaking about on page 17 is that the 42 development standards exception? 43 44 Ms. Losq: Yes. 45 Page 12 1 Chair Garber: Which reads, based on a 1978 Settlement Agreement nine designated lots less 2 than ten acres in size are entitled to be developed as if they complied with the ten-acre minimum 3 lot size for the OS. 4 5 Ms. Losg: Yes and those are all adjacent to Foothills Park. The property that I think precipitated 6 this heated discussion of the past two years happens to be one of them. 7 8 Chair Garber: Thank you. We will keep the public comment period open should there be a 9 question by any of the Commissioners. Before we start our discussion here let me query the 10 Commission in a straw poll format. How many of the Commissioners would support Staff's 11 recommendation as we start right now? You can give me a nod of your head .. We have three 12 yes, two nos, and a maybe. Should we attempt a motion and then discuss? Commissioner Tuma. 13 14 MOTION 15 16 Vice-Chair Tuma: I am going to attempt a motion. My motion is for the Planning and 17 Transportation Commission to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed revisions to 18 Chapter 18.28, Attachment A, and the associated draft Negative Declaration, Attachment G. 19 20 SECOND 21 22 Chair Garber: I will second the motion. Would the maker like to speak their motion? 23 24 Vice-Chair Tuma: I would. So a number of things. One is this whole issue about when did this 25 topic come up. I wouldn't disagree that it has been mentioned but in my view it has never really 26 been on the table. We have had opportunity in a series of meetings prior to the subcommittee 27 meeting with the members of the community and in several meeting subsequent to those 28 meetings for this to be raised and vetted. I do think sort of from the perspective of working and 29 negotiating with the community in good faith I find it difficult to envision that we would come 30 up with a proposal after those discussions are closed and that this proposal never really be vetted. 31 Like I said, we have had a series of meetings as a Commission in which this could have been 32 truly put on the table and discussed. That is a fairness question. 33 34 Substantively a number of things come to mind. One is that I agree with the members of the 35 public who have stated that when it comes to this particular item it is not clear that there is a 36 problem that we are trying to solve. Absent hearing a very clear problem that this specifically 37 solves it is difficult for me to support. 38 39 Secondly, I can envision a nine-acre lot on which a 10,000 square foot house could sit and be just 40 fine, tucked back in a valley, hidden away under trees, built with the right materials. At the same 41 time I can envision a larger lot where a smaller house would not be appropriate because it is 42 sitting up on a hill, or it is sitting in such a way that it is visible, and the materials that it is made 43 out of, etc. So I think having these hard and fast rules about a certain number of square feet as a 44 function of the size of the lot doesn't necessarily do it justice. I say this having now not only 45 spent time there on my own time but through the process as part of the subcommittee when we 46 went up there. These lots are unique. There is nothing uniform about them. So it depends on Page 13 1 what side of Page Mill you are on, and where you are, and how far away from Page Mill you 2 might be. There are just a whole variety of factors that the size of the lot doesn't necessarily 3 dictate. 4 5 With respect to there being a maximum house size in the flat lands if you will of 6,000 square 6 feet I think one of the speakers wasn't really intending to say well they ought to have that same 7 parameter up there because you would run up with a 6,000 square foot in the hills. They are two 8 very, very different environments. I think to avoid sort of the monster house that has a great 9 impact on everybody else that is around having a maximum house size in the flats makes sense. 10 To me it doesn't necessarily make sense it is more of the context in which it sits that is the siting 11 issue for me. So I would agree with the Planning Director's assessment that Site and Design is 12 the opportunity to address that. 13 14 The one other thing that I struggle with is it almost seems more like imposing and absolute house 15 size it is more of imposing one's morals. What is right and what is wrong in a particular setting. 16 In this environment I think there are people who are opposed to large houses and I get that. I 17 understand that but I am not supportive of that sort of notion. If people have their property and 18 they have their rights, and there are reasons to curtail those that is fine. We have done a fair 19 amount of that here. I agree that this is just one other thing loaded further on top and I just 20 cannot support a maximum house size in this district, certainly not the way that it is framed right 21 now. 22 23 Chair Garber: Thank you. I as the seconder have a few comments. First of all I strongly support 24 the Vice-Chair's motion foraH of his reasons, and I would like to iterate and emphasize some of 25 those. 26 27 It is hard to recognize how different this particular zone is relative to what we on this 28 Commission typically deal with. The R-l world and the commercial world are flat, but when 29 you look at the amount of acreage that the as District has it nearly equals the R-l District but 30 with only 100-some odd properties or parcels in it. The drivers in terms of houses in the R-l 31 District do have a lot to do with mass, scale, visual connections, etc. You simply don'thave 32 those issues in the as District. The drivers have to do with the visual impacts of these properties 33 as was pointed out by one of the members of the public. There are some technical issues, which 34 I think are also drivers but those are details relative to the overall purpose and intent I think of 35 this particular district. 36 37 I do believe that one of the drivers of this question has been the one aberrant project that was 38 accepted by the City and then built and then languished for many years. That has been a very 39 difficult problem for members of this Commission and members of Council and others to look 40 around, but I think it is bad policy to try and develop a policy around that one aberrant project. 41 42 When Commissioner Tuma and myself were assigned to the subcommittee to look into this we 43 spend some time with the members and owners of property in this particular district. We spent 44 some time on the properties there. To give the Commissioners a reminder and you have 45 probably heard this in some of our previous meetings. In the four or five parcels that we visited 46 in one visit if memory serves one of the parcels was five acres, but the amount property that they Page 14 1 actually had, the amount of area that they had that they could actually build on was probably 2 only a couple of thousand square feet. The house that was being built was only a couple 3 thousand square feet. The amount of topography is tremendously limiting on the amount of area 4 that can actually be built upon. That one house that I just described was not the exception that 5 was the rule. We visited another house that had as much, or I should say as little property or 6 even less to actually build on given the rest of the property that they had, which was much too 7 steep to build on. Again, those sorts of circumstances do not occur in other parts of the city and ' 8 it is very difficult to change one's mindset to understand that the visual impacts and the other 9 criteria that limits the building have a significant impact and have worked well, I believe, in 10 years past to serve the purpose of both the zone and the City's intent in the Comprehensive Plan. 11 12 I will leave that there. Commissioner Keller had a light and then Commissioner Lippert. 13 14 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So firstly I have a few questions of Staff. My first question 15 is it is my understanding that in the last ten years that various pervious or semi-pervious material 16 has been developed. That because of the development of semi-pervious building materials such 17 as for grading and for driveways and such that that made the 3.5 percent impervious limitation 18 no longer as effective as it had been for limiting house sizes. Is that a reasonable assessment? 19 20 Mr. Williams: I would say it is no longer as restrictive or as limiting as it had been. I think that 21 is what you are saying. It provided more flexibility to increase house size indirectly because not 22 as much of the driveway or patio area, etc. gets counted as impervious. 23 24 Commissioner Keller: So effectively what is happening is that the nature of building materials 25 has been such that that caused the potential for increased developable area if you will. In some 26 sense we are going back and making changes that reduce that to compensate for the unexpected 27 increase in developable area from when the code was originally implemented. 28 29 With respect to page 17 of Attachment A that was mentioned. With respect to these nine lots 30 which can use the 1978 Agreement or the current standards would the semi-pervious or pervious 31 materials for driveways be considered -how would they be considered under the 1978 rules? 32 Would they be counted as impervious cover or if somebody were to use semi-pervious material 33 would they be counted as pervious? How would that be treated? That really wasn't envisioned 34 back in 1978. 35 36 Mr. Williams: We would treat it the way the new ordinance language is treated because the 37 language wasn't that clear then either. It would go back to the practice at the time, which is what 38 kind of evolved. So I think we would do that. The agreement really talks about treating it as a 39 ten-acre parcel. It isn't as specific as to say that it is treated under all of the rules that were in 40 effect at that point in time. It just means that we can use the ten acre limitation here so you have 41 the ten acres and the impervious coverage applies, but it is not as specific as to say how the 42 impervious coverage is calculated, what is considered impervious and what is pervious 43 depending on the material. So if that came through today we would use it based on the language 44 in here, which dictates that we look at the specific material that is being used and ascribe some 45 kind of percentage permeability to that material. 46 Page 15 1 Commissioner Keller: Since the last sentence of this paragraph says that a site shall utilize either 2 1978 Agreement standards or the current standard development standards, but cannot use both. I 3 am sort of wondering whether either it is entirely considered impervious which is what it was 4 back in 1978 or the development uses the new standards entirely including the new whatever 5 those limitations are. Does that make sense? 6 7 Ms. Campbell: It does make sense what you are saying. I believe the way the Agreement is 8 understood is that these lots can either choose to be considered a ten-acre size lot based on this 9 1978 Agreement or they can choose their actual real life size. Based on those two sizes, or one 10 of these sizes, you would then apply all of the standard regulations that we have in this revised 11 chapter to that lot. 12 13 Commissioner Keller: So let me see if I get this straight. So these lots would be considered lots, 14 assuming that is bigger than whatever their lot size is, and they would have to satisfy the current 15 requirements of the Zoning Ordinance based on a deemed ten acre size. 16 17 Ms, Campbell: That is correct if they chose to go with that Settlement Agreement, the 18 parameters of the Settlement Agreement. 19 20 Commissioner Keller: Okay. Thank you. The next question is with respect to the comment that 21 was made by the person from the Committee for Green Foothills, with respect to defensible 22 space. To what extent does the amount of defensible space around a dwelling, or a building any 23 building, to what extent does that put limitations on the kind of vegetative screening that can be 24 planted around that building so as to screen it from public view? 25 26 Mr. Williams: I don't know specifically what that does. I know the Fire Department will look at 27 each house to determine that the defensible space is adequate. It depends a lot on the type of 28 vegetation that is used. So it may be that to the extent that the screening is vegetation that is fire 29 resistant then there may be more flexibility than if it is not fire resistant and it has to have a full 30 100 feet distance from the house. But I don't think we know all the specifics of that. That is 31 something that has been considered. Generally we are talking about lots that are big enough to 32 accommodate a defensible space and still have a lot of screening as well even if it has to be a 33 little distance from the house. We have not run into that specific problem at this point. 34 35 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 36 37 Chair Garber: In that particular case part of the application would include the amount of area 38 that would have to be cleared, presumably to support the defensible space, at which point that 39 would become part of the review. Is that correct? 40 41 Mr. Williams: That is correct. 42 43 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. There was a comment made that wasn't really related to the 44 changes we are making here today as was demonstrated by a question from my follow up to 45 questions from the Lehmann family. I am wondering what Staff's position is with respect to 46 their comments about wineries or farm stands. I realize that this is sort of the eleventh hour and Page 16 1 30 minutes, pretty close to the end, if you will, but I am wondering whether it makes sense to do 2 something on that. I would assume that if we were to make changes it would be to Attachment 3 A, page 3, putting a CUP under eating and drinking services in conjunction with a pennitted use 4 and a CUP under retail services in conjunction with a permitted use. I don't know whether it 5 makes sense to do that since I guess we really weren't noticed to do that. I don't know if Staff 6 thinks that is a good idea or bad idea but I just figured I would bring that up. 7 8 Mr. Williams: A couple things. One is you are com~ct it was not noticed that way and the 9 Negative Declaration didn't consider the potential impacts of a winery or something for sale 10 where people would actually be traveling to these site for that purpose only. So it couldn't be 11 done tonight if that were the desire to include something like that. 12 13 Secondly, while I understand the interest in doing that there are major potential issues to address 14 in terms of traffic impacts and those kinds of things. Every community that currently allows 15 particularly wineries has battles over those kinds of use pennits particularly and mostly in terms 16 of the amount traffic that is associated with the activity. So I think it doesn't mean that it is not a 17 good idea maybe in some instances but I think it is a lengthy discussion and a number of 18 meetings to get there to try to address those issues. 19 20 Commissioner Keller: Thank you I appreciate that. I think that since the members of the public 21 brought that up in their comments and even though it wasn't really part of our discussion it 22 seemed at least to me worthwhile to respond to it so that they could understand why we are able 23 to or are not able to address it tonight. Thank you. 24 25 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert, and then Fineberg, and Holman. 26 27 Commissioner Lippert: I support the motion as presented by Vice-Chair Tuma and Chair 28 Garber. First of all I want to thank them for their work with the subcommittee and the neighbors. 29 I think that you have done a great job in terms of flushing out what the issues are and amending 30 the regulations here so far. 31 32 If you go back many years to how the Open Space development came about the subdivision out 33 there really is based on all the open space. Each of those sites not only has their own acreage but 34 the acreage in the Open Space that we use as our parks and the preserves in Palo Alto were split 35 off from those properties. So those sites really represent a much larger piece of land than each of 36 those property owners hold. With that what I see is the existing development that is out there 37 supports the Open Space. It is not in spite of the development that is currently there. The open 38 space that I enjoy when I go out as a cyclist or I see people hiking through Arastradero Preserve 39 or going through Foothills Park they are in those environments and being able to use them 40 because the subdivision was built up and carved out of those spaces and those were deeded. 41 42 Where I have difficulty is that the house sizes here seem awful arbitrary. I look at the difference 43 between even ten acres and 11 acres or 15 acres as a limit and the next number, which would be 44 16 acres. That is a huge amount of area. If we were to apply simply one acre, the difference 45 between the upper and lower limits of the next house size, you can build an extraordinary 46 amount of building if it was located in the Downtown or any other zone for that one-acre site. In Page 17 1 the Open Space that one acre for the amount of housing that would be added really is a drop in 2 the bucket compared to the size of the overall site. 3 4 So in some ways I feel as though the house limit here is punitive and maybe it is our reaction to 5 everything that has gone on with regard to corporate greed and people wanting more, more, 6 more, but I don't see any harm as to what is coming about in terms of being able to develop in 7 the Open Space. I think it would be better suited if we were to limit house size for it to be based 8 on a realistic percentage of the lot size or as I have alluded to in the past something along the 9 lines of maybe slope density. Because, it is really geography and topography that govern out 10 there and make houses either work or not work on a site. 11 12 So I am going to support the motion. I think it is well conceived. I believe our current rules in 13 terms of how we do things with Site and Design Review pick up most of the bad designs. It is 14 unfortunate that one, I won't even call it bad, but one eyesore is really driving the house size 15 limitation here. 16 17 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Holman. 18 19 Commissioner Fineberg: There have been several mentions tonight about whether particular 20 properties would qualify for a Variance if the maximum house size were implemented. Mr. 21 Williams, you had said that people could not say there is a hardship and get a Variance if this 22 was implemented. I amjust curious, in the example Chair Garber gave where let's say there is a 23 relatively small parcel that most of it is a huge hillside that was very steep and a small portion of 24 it was buildable why would they not be able to apply for a hardship? Ijust can't imagine why a 25· Variance wouldn't be a possible outcome. 26 27 Mr. Williams: Because for a small parcel this 8,000 square foot wouldn't even come into play. 28 The FAR would be limited to under that to begin with. You don't even get to the 8,000 square 29 feet until 4.3 acres or 4.5 acres or something like that. So a small parcel wouldn't. If it is a large 30 parcel that just had a small area of flat land on it or something then you would look at it and sort 31 of determine what fit on that small portion of the land. I assume that is the size of the house. 32 The shape and all that wouldn't be a hardship to tell them they could build a 10,000 square foot 33 house on this large parcel and they wanted to build a 15,000 square foot house. The shape of the 34 lot isn't what is limiting them it is our maximum house size that is limiting them. I am not 35 seeing where or what circumstat;1ce maybe you can explain it more. 36 37 Commissioner Fineberg: I guess what I am thinking of is in our commercial zones Downtown 38 we would consider a parcel that maybe was half as wide as several adjoining parcels or it has an 39 extra five-foot special setback requirement. If those conditions are such that it is a hardship that 40 you can apply for height exemptions or possibly get increased FAR to build a larger structure, 41 then why let's say if you are sitting on a ten acre lot with very steep hillsides and a small flat 42 area, why wouldn't you justify that it is a hardship? If it is not for us to judge that 10,000 square 43 feet is enough if the homeowner wants 12,000 and they are entitled but it wouldn't qualify 44 because of the smallness of the buildable area, I just don't see why they couldn't apply for a 45 Variance. 46 Page 18 1 Mr. Williams: It seems to me that in that instance you would be wanting to limit them to the 2 smaller house. If they have a limited area to build on why would that somehow justify a larger 3 house, which is what the Variance would be for is to have a larger house than somebody who has 4 a flat ten-acre lot. That wouldn't be equitable. 5 6 Commissioner Fineberg: I would agree with your logic but I am not sure that is how we apply 7 the same rationale on commercial structures Downtown. 8 9 Mr. Williams: Well commercial structures Downtown are a very different situation with the lot 10 patterns and the building allowances, and a lot of times what has been there versus what is 11 proposed, and all that. It is very restrictive it can be very restrictive there. In this case I am not 12 seeing that that's restrictive. It seems to me that it is the opposite and maybe I am just not 13 gettingit. 14 15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg. 16 17 Commissioner Fineberg: I appreciate that information because it really goes to inform how I 18 understand your thinking. 19 20 Okay, a couple of members of the public and I would say on the Commission have asked what 21 problem is this maximum house size trying to solve? I want to try a crack at what I think it is 22 trying to solve. The crux of it is in the Staff Report Attachment A, page 1, down under (b) Open 23 Space, Section iii. It says, "The purpose and intent of this district is to: (1) protect the health, 24 safety, and welfare; (2) protect and preserve open space land as a limited and valuable resource; 25 (3) permit the reasonable use of open space land while at the same time preserving and 26 protecting its inherent open space characteristics to assure its continued availability for the 27 following: as agricultural land, scenic land, recreation land, conservation and natural resource 28 land, for the containment of urban sprawl, and the structuring of urban development, and for the 29 retention of land in its natural or near natural state, to protect life and property in the community 30 from the hazards of fire, flood, and seismic activity; and (4) coordinate with and carry out 31 federal, state, regional, county, and city open space plans." 32 33 So that third section I think is the crux of the matter. If the open space is to permit reasonable 34 use of the land and it never says encourage housing development, encourage large houses, there 35 is nothing in it that gives me guidance that the codes are to make developable tracts for larger 36 homes. It in fact if I read it leads to me to think the opposite that it is for the containment of 37 urban sprawl and structuring the urban development, and for the retention ofland in its natural or 38 near natural state. There is nothing about a 15 or 25 or 30,000 square foot house that is the 39 natural state of open space. By the time you have a property that large it is a powerful argument 40 for me that it is no longer a single-family home with the traffic that you get with a single-family 41 residence. When you have $10,000 and $15,000 and $20,000 properties there is staff, there is 42 multiple car trips, there is property managers, there is mUltiple service staff living at the 43 residence. There is office use even if it is just private office with assistants. I understand there 44 are restrictions on the conduct of trade like the tasting room for the winery but the City's 45 enforcement doesn't pry into people's private spaces and see if there is three or four, or six, or 46 ten private staff conducting business on a large property. So I don't see where a 20,000 or a Page 19 1 15,000 square foot home contributes to the purpose of the Open Space and I see where it detracts 2 from the purposes and the uses of the Open Space. That is to me the rationale that makes the 3 maximum house size not a capricious limit, and not an imposition of morals. It is the 4 implementation of the purpose of the Open Space District. 5 6 One other area, we talked about the one property that was this poster child of how the process 7 shouldn't work. Page 17 in the Development Standards leads me to believe, and if Staff could 8 correct me that having a maximum house size would indeed provide limits that would prevent us 9 from making that same mistake. Those properties that are covered by that 1978 accord they 10 would get the benefit of being treated as ten-acre sites and then they would have a maximum 11 house size of 10,000 square feet as opposed to whatever the calculation would be with just the 12 impervious area. That makes a limit that sets expectations, it is firmer, and it requires a change 13 to be something that is done through Commission and Council action. It is not something that 14 exceptions could be granted on a case-by-case basis. It is something frankly that would 15 minimize the decision-making changes that would happen project-by-project at Council 16 depending on who is sitting on Council in a particular term. So I see that as another benefit of 17 having the limit that it is part of the statute rather than just a project decision that a particular 18 Council could make given the climate and the feelings of a particular Council. 19 20 One of the members of the public had suggested that these limits apply citywide. I have a 21 question. If there are any lots within the city that are ten acres that are not in Open Space 22 because in a sense if there are not then by default these standards would apply because there isn't 23 anything that would be ten acres or larger. 24 25 Mr. Williams: I am really not sure. There are sites like in the Research Park and that that are 26 large sites, and then in some of our industrial and office type zones. In R-l zones if there are I 27 am not aware of them. In RE, Residential-Estate, zone where we have a one acre minimum there 28 may be a few parcels that are that large, I am not sure, but I think most of them are pretty much 29 one acre. They are pretty uniform in size. As far as residential zones other than here I don't 30 think we have any ten acre. It would be a real anomaly to find anything over three or five acres. 31 32 Commissioner Fineberg: Would the lots in the Research Park that you referenced allow 33 housing? 34 35 Mr. Williams: They would not allow single-family standalone housing, no. 36 37 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so-in a sense it applies by default unless there is a very limited 38 number of exceptions. So the only other comment I have on this is we are seeing a bit of a 39 phenomenon that often happens in public process. Most of the people, members of the public, 40 who have spoken to us tonight care greatly about this matter because it impacts them potentially 41 in a negative way. So they would have the most to lose by the imposition of a maximum house 42 size. That brings about an imbalance in who is speaking tonight because the people who don't 43 stand something to lose, the 58,000 other residents of Palo Alto, are not impacted by this and are 44 not necessarily motivated to take time and come speak to us. But those 58,000 are the people 45 who gain the protections of the limits of the uses in the Open Space District because the land is 46 then preserved as open space for their enjoyment. That would frankly be true for the residents of Page 20 1 other nearby cities. So I appreciate the members of the public who have spoken to us tonight. It 2 gives all of us the opportunity to hear your thoughts and learn from you but I don't think we 3 should discount that the silent public isn't here because this is not a personal threat to them. We 4 have had a couple of members of the public who have spoken out about the benefits of 5 maintaining the character and the quality in the Open Space. So that is it for my comments. 6 7 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Holman. 8 9 Commissioner Holman: I have been smiling a fair amount during this because I have found this 10 whole process, from the very beginning, go back to the first meeting we ever had about this. The 11 genesis of looking at the Open Space District was because of the impervious surface issue. We 12 were getting developments that were not anticipated due to the result of development of 13 materials that are more permeable than when the code was instituted. For whatever reason, and I 14 can only express my perspective here, but for whatever reason it has never seemed to me that 15 there has been a clear understanding on the part of the property owners that in updating the code 16 we have not been taking anything away. We have been restoring the code to where it was 17 previously. I don't think, and with actually more allowances than were previously in place. I 18 have never gotten the understanding that that has been understood. So that has been really 19 interesting to me. 20 21 This evening, I don't remember who said it first so I am certainly not going to point a finger 22 anyway even if I did, but somehow or other this evening all of a sudden the genesis for 23 maximum house size has been the house that sits on the ridge top that you can see from Foothills 24 Park. From my perspective that is so not true, but yet it has just picked up a head of steam and 25 all of a sudden that is the genesis for maximum house size. It is sort of like losing sight of the 26 3.5 impervious surface. It is just not true but it has generated a life of its own. 27 28 Maximum house size, this is such a baby step, it is such a baby step. Maximum house size does 29 not limit the amount of development on a parcel it only says how big the house can be. The 30 reason for that is because -I wouldn't mind seeing it go further, actually I would appreciate it 31 going further. The reason for that is because homes generate the most usage of utilities, services, 32 and such. So at least it takes one baby step in the right direction. I am not sure people are 33 understanding that because the reaction has been that people feel like their development right is 34 taken away. All it does is just shifts it so that there is maximum house size but all of the 35 development potential is still there in terms of out buildings. 36 37 One of the other reasons for doing this is because it is how I feel about when we teardown 38 cottages and then we replace a house and cottage with a bigger house. It so curtails what the 39 future utility of that parcel is because once the cottage is gone and all of the allowable FAR is in 40 the main house there is no potential. Unless we up-zone again there is no potential for any 41 utilization of a second unit on that property. You could of course divide it off and create a 42 second unit in the main house but in houses of that size it just doesn't happen. Hasn't happened 43 since World War II probably, maybe if you go to the 1960s where there were communes in large 44 houses that is one other possibility, but it so limits the utility of the land. 45 Page 21 1 So for me the other reason for doing a maximum house size is to at least make accommodation 2 such that if somebody wanted to buy a property and they were interested in doing an agricultural 3 business of some kind of agricultural purpose on that property all of the FAR isn't taken up in a 4 house. There are outbuildings that could be utilized for that. There are going to be people who 5 are going to use their outbuildings for squash courts and such and we are not limiting that either. 6 It has been really an interesting kind of -it has been interesting to just watch this because the life 7 of the misinformation from my perspective has been really phenomenal in this process. This 8 process has gone on for so very, very long to address the zoning on 114 properties. It has been 9 absolutely phenomenal in that regard too. I have great respect and appreciation for all of the 10 effort that has gone on with this proposal both with subcommittee members and the Staff, and 11 certainly the members of the public. I just find it really puzzling as to how some of these topics 12 get a life of their own and they seem to continue as we witnessed tonight about the house that 13 you can see from the Foothills. 14 15 The 1978 Settlement, those properties, it isn't and Staff will correct me if I misstate, it isn't an 16 irrational, and this word wasn't used I am making it up, it isn't' irrational or unfair that those 17 smaller parcels have the same development right as larger parcels. That development involved 18 the dedication of permanent dedicated open space and that has to be remembered. But that isn't 19 a part of the discussion this evening. 20 21 So Site and Design does address a great deal of the issues, it doesn't address them all, not what 22 Staff is proposing but what maybe three of us are proposing with the maximum house size 23 addresses just a baby step I think in the right direction. For that reason I won't be supporting the 24 motion. 25 26 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 27 28 Commissioner Keller: I guess I am sort of the swing vote. So I have been hearing a lot of 29 different things. 30 31 Commissioner Holman: I am so sorry I didn't mean to presume your outcome. I apologize. 32 33 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So what I was wondering is what Commissioners Holman 34 and Fineberg were suggesting as an alternative as opposed to not supporting the current motion. 35 I would encourage Commissioners Holman and Fineberg to make a substitute motion, which I 36 could then consider which way I want to turn, based on that. Thank you. 37 38 Chair Garber: While Commissioners Fineberg and Holman are thinking about that I have a light 39 from Commissioner lippert and I was going to speak just briefly before I hand it off to 40 Commissioner lippert. 41 42 I would encourage the Commissioners that are considering not supporting the motion to think 43 about Commissioner Keller's question and in particular for Commissioner Fineberg to 44 emphasize again the difference in the scale of what this zone presents versus by comparison the 45 R-l District. 46 Page 22 1 As Commissioner Holman mentioned there are only 114 parcels of which only 79 are buildable, 2 that is 79 households, which is perhaps seven square blocks in the R-1 District. Those 79 3 households are spread over instead of those seven blocks it is spread over 314 acres. The 4 percentage of the impact is very, very low even in the worst of circumstances it is very, very low, 5 which hopefully would not happen. 6 7 As a reminder, I was just reviewing myself the list of items that are part of the Site and Design 8 criteria, of which there are 12, I won't read through them, but they are on page 16. They do 9 focus on quite a number of the impacts that many of the Commissioners have brought up. 10 Commissioner Lippert and then Holman. 11 12 Commissioner Lippert: I had a process question for City Attorney. We have an even number of 13 members here, if we had a split vote here, does that mean all the previous work that was done 14 that has been already recommended moves forward to Council and that this one portion just 15 doesn't move forward with the recommendation? 16 17 Ms. Tronquet: Well, the motion has moved the Staff recommendation, which covers basically 18 all of exhibit A, which is the ordinance itself, so a tie vote on that motion would be no action. At 19 your last meeting you did recommend that the ordinance move forward at that point and then 20 discussion of maximum house size return. But at this point the motion has been made to approve 21 all of exhibit A, which is the Staff recommendation. 22 23 Commissioner Lippert: So an amendment or a substitute motion might embody moving forward 24 the previous motion without the addition of the limit on house size? 25 26 Ms. Tronguet: Sure. 27 28 AMENDMENT 29 30 Commissioner Lippert: I would like to make an amendment to your motion. That amendment 31 would be that the previous action that the Planning and Transportation Commission took move 32 forward to the City Council sans the maximum house size. 33 34 Ms. Tronguet: I believe that is similar or almost exactly wl;lat the motion was, so it was the 35 same. 36 37 Vice-Chair Tuma: I was just going to ask for a clarification. 38 39 Commissioner Lippert: That is why I was asking that question as to what happens to all the 40 previous work that was done and almost in consensus of the Commission. 41 42 Chair Garber: Commissioner '{uma. 43 44 Vice-Chair Tuma: Let me try this a slightly differently. Is it permissible for us to break this into 45 two separate motions? The current motion would cover everything other than maximum house 46 size. We could vote on that and have a second motion that covers whether or not the ordinance Page 23 1 should be amended to add a maximum house size. Would that be pennissible from a legal 2 perspecti ve? 3 4 Mr. Williams: I was just going to say you could do that or you could do the reverse too and vote 5 on the maximum house size issue on its own and then you go with the rest of the whole 6 ordinance either includes or does not include that. 7 8 Ms. Tronquet: I think the motion that you made in your last meetings on that portion still stands. 9 So if you wanted to confinn your action on that and then make a recommendation on whether the 10 maximum house sizes should be included I think thatis perfectly fine and the Council gets clear 11 direction on your recommendation for both of those issues. 12 13 Vice-Chair Tuma: So moved. 14 15 Chair Garber: So essentially the motion is to vote to not include the maximum house size with 16 the ordinance. Is that correct? 17 18 Mr. Williams: Pardon? 19 20 Chair Garber: The effective motion then is to move that the maximum house size not be 21 included in the ordinance as previously moved by the Commission in the last meeting. 22 Commissioner Tuma. 23 24 Vice-Chair Tuma: With due respect I actually think it is slightly different than that. If it is 25 framed that way we are decided on the issue of maximum house size yea or nay. What my intent 26 here is to have a vote on everything other than the maximum house size, put that to rest. That 27 would be motion number one. When that is decided then have a second motion on whether to 28 recommend maximum house size or not. I think if we do it the other way we are sort of 29 precluding the second motion and I don't want to do that. 30 31 Chair Garber: Okay. 32 33 Commissioner Holman: Can I get one clarification, please? 34 35 Chair Garber: Please. 36 37 Commissioner Holman: I just want to make sure because Commissioner Lippert I think 38 referenced, correct me if I am wrong, the previous ordinance that we had passed and that would 39 move forward. I just want to make sure that Commissioner Tuma is referencing the ordinance 40 that is before us tonight because there were some corrections or additions in this. I want to make 41 sure you are referencing the ordinance tonight. 42 43 Vice-Chair Tuma: Absolutely referencing the ordinance tonight because as you said the 44 ordinance tonight does have some modifications. What the ordinance tonight does not have is 45 any reference to a maximum house size. 46 Page 24 1 Commissioner Holman: Yes, appreciate it being broken in two and appreciate the clarification. 2 3 Chair Garber: The action still remains with Commissioner Lippert here because he had created 4 the amendment, which has yet to be seconded. 5 6 . Commissioner Lippert: I just want to clarify for Commissioner Holman that yes, it is the 7 language that is before us this evening sans the house size limitation. I was not here for the 8 previous hearing and so I only had the benefit of reading through the minutes. 9 10 Chair Garber: So Commissioner Tuma would you please state the motion? 11 12 MOTION 13 14 Vice-Chair Tuma: I would move that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend 15 to the City Council approval of the proposed revisions to Chapter 18.28, Attachment A, and the 16 associated draft Negative Declaration. 17 18 Chair Garber: Just for the procedure's sake we are abandoning the first motion and that is being 19 replaced with this one that you have just made. Am I understanding correctly? I am getting 20 nods of approval. 21 22 The seconder will again second the motion. Is there any discussion on this item? Commissioner 23 Keller. 24 25 Commissioner Keller: I thought we were going to vote on the maximum house size issue first 26 and then vote on the other issue second. Is that what we are doing or are we doing it the other 27 way around? 28 29 Vice-Chair Tuma: Other way around. 30 31 Commissioner Keller: So the question is procedurally if we approve the motion that moves this 32 forward how can we then procedurally further amend that to change the maximum house size? 33 That doesn't make sense to me. If you were first to vote on the maximum house size, which 34 could be an amendment to the process or some sort of amendment voted on on that but I am not 35 sure how you can do two separate motions the first approving something and the second one 36 changing that if that is not an amendment to the motion as opposed to a second motion. I am 37 confused. 38 39 Vice-Chair Tuma: That was the exact question I had asked the City Attorney and she said we 40 could break it into two separate motions. 41 42 Commissioner Keller: I can understand you breaking it into two separate motions but if you do 43 it in that order you are actually .... 44 45 Chair Garber: Would the Attorney like to weigh in? 46 Page 25 1 Ms. Tronquet: We have a suggestion. What Commissioner Keller is saying does make some 2 sense. Why don't we ask for an amendment to the motion to include the maximum house size, 3 get a vote on that, and then depending on the outcome of that we can have a vote on the 4 remainder without the maximum house size. Does that make sense? 5 6 Commissioner Keller: You mean the resulting motion whether or not the house size amendment 7 passes. 8 9 Ms. Tronquet: Exactly, thank you. 10 11 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 12 13 Vice-Chair Tuma: No. Of that is the desire of the Commission I will withdraw the motion then 14 because I am not prepared to make that motion. 15 16 Mr. Williams: No, no we understand that. We don't expect that you would make that motion. 17 You have made your motion. If someone else on the Commission would like to have the 18 maximum house size limitation included then there needs to be an amendment to the motion by 19 one of you to do that just like any other motion. So if somebody makes that amendment then the 20 Commission votes on that and then you come back to a main motion that either is the same as 21 what we have had or it is a motion to approve everything with the maximum house size. 22 23 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 24 25 Commissioner Keller: I think it is worthwhile pointing out exactly what we moved. It was on 26 Attachment D, page 291ast time. It was Commissioner Holman's motion. If Curtis thinks this 27 would be agreeable I was going to offer a motion that might actually settle that and would be to 28 move the Open Space ordinance come back to the Planning Commission, (1) for discussion of 29 maximum house size after appropriate notification; and (2) that the items included in the motion 30 that were set forth earlier be agreed upon. That doesn't actually move accept that in terms of 31 moving it forward to the Council in terms of last time, essentially it said it comes back to us. 32 33 Chair Garber: That is where we are tonight. I think the opportunity here is to ask for a friendly 34 amendment. 35 36 Mr. Williams: It is not going to be a friendly amendment. 37 38 Chair Garber: So then you would have to create a substitute motion or just an amendment that 39 would. Commissioner Tuma. 40 41 Vice-Chair Tuma: Point of clarification for Commissioner Keller. The motion had nothing to do 42 with Commissioner Holman's motion from last time. This is a motion anew and I will state it for 43 the third time. The Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to the City Council 44 approval of the proposed revisions to Chapter 18.23, Attachment A, and the associated draft 45 Negative Declaration, Attachment G. That is tonight's motion. It has nothing to do with the 46 previous motion made by Commissioner Holman. Page 26 1 2 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman and then Fineberg. 3 4 AMENDED MOTION 5 Commissioner Holman: So Staff is looking for an amendment. So I will propose an amendment 6 that includes a maximum house size, not necessarily the ones stipulated, a maximum house size 7 in the Open Space District. 8 9 Chair Garber: Maker? I am assuming the maker has to accept this. 10 11 Commissioner Holman: No, he will not accept it I know. So I am looking for a second to my 12 separate amendment. 13 14 Chair Garber: I see. 15 16 SECOND 17 18 Commissioner Fineberg: I second it. 19 20 Chair Garber: Okay, Commissioner Fineberg seconds it. I need a point of clarification here. 21 This isn't a substitute motion and it is not a friendly amendment. So does it need to be voted on 22 before we get back to the primary motion? Okay. Would the maker like to speak to their 23 motion? 24 25 Commissioner Holman: I think we have had enough conversation about it. I just did want to 26 note that it is possible that we might agree on a maximum house size if we don't stand with the 27 proposal in the Staff Report. 28 29 Chair Garber: Seconder, would you like to speak to your second? 30 31 Commissioner Fineberg: I would concur with Commissioner Holman. Looking back in 32 tonight's discussion we really have not talked about the wisdom or lack of wisdom depending on 33 perspective of the maximum house size indicated in the Staff Report on page 2. So the idea of 34 having simply the language of a proposed maximum would mean that at some point we would 35 have to come back have discussion, decide what that maximum would be. So I don't know how 36 that would be handled but it seems wiser than abandoning ship. 37 38 Chair Garber: I am not seeing any other lights. I take that back. Commissioner Keller. 39 40 Commissioner Keller: I am sympathetic with the idea of some maximum house size because if 41 you look at Attachment E it is kind of silly that the 314-acre parcel can build a house of 480,000 42 square feet. So some idea of a maximum house size makes sort of sense. Exactly what it is I am 43 open to further discussion. . 44 45 AMENDED MOTION FAILS (3-3-0-1, Commissioners Holman, Fineberg, and Keller for; 46 Commissioners Garber, Tuma, and Lippert against; and Commissioner Rosati absent) Page 27 1 2 Chair Garber: All those in favor of the amendment as stated say aye. (ayes) Those opposed? 3 (nays) We have a split vote with Commissioners Holman, Keller, and Fineberg voting aye and 4 Commissioners Garber, Tuma, and Lippert voting nay. 5 6 We now can go to the main motion, yes? 7 8 Ms. Tronguet: Yes. 9 10 MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Rosati absent) 11 12 Chair Garber: So let us vote on the main motion. Do we need to restate it? Those in favor of 13 the main motion vote aye. (ayes) Those opposed? That passes unanimously with 14 Commissioners Holman, Keller, Garber, Tuma, Fineberg, and Lippert voting aye and 15 Commissioner Rosati absent. 16 17 The attorney has a comment? 18 19 Ms. Tronguet: Did you close the public hearing? 20 21 Chair Garber: I was about to. We will close the public hearing. 22 Page 28 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: ATTACHMENT G PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Clare Campbell, Planner April 15, 2009 DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Environment Zoning Ordinance Update: Review and Recommendation of Draft Revisions to Chapter 18.28 related to Development Standards in the Open Space (OS) District; Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and a 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) review and recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed revisions to Chapter 18.28 (Attachment A) and the associated draft Negative Declaration (Attachment G). BACKGROUND On June 13, 2007, the PTC recommended approval of Chapter 18.28, Special Purpose Districts: PF, OS, and AC, with focused discussion on the Open Space (OS) district. One ofthe key revisions that was made to the OS zone was the addition of section 18.28.070(1) to clarify that, with respect to impervious cover limitations in the OS zone, all paved surfaces (including semi- pervious paving) count as impervious surface limitations, except 1) gravel driveways and 2) portions of driveways across scenic setbacks (e.g., along Page Mill Road). The PTC included this requirement so that excess impervious cover gained by using semi~pervious surfaces could not be added to the residence to increase house size. The PTC directed staff to assemble a working group to evaluate potential approaches to credit semi-permeable materials against impervious cover in conjunction with maximum house size, FAR, or other new regulations to assure that house size retains an appropriate scale. An OS working group comprised of OS district residents, open space advocates, two members of the PTC and staffwas assembled and has met five times since October 2007 to discuss the above mentioned issues and provided a forum for the residents to share their concerns as they related to City of Palo Alto Page J other sections of the os regulations. The neighborhood association, Palo Altans Protecting Open Space (P APOS), provided a position paper on its concerns that the working group has worked from as the base document for the on-going group discussions. Attachment D provides the initial PAP OS position paper and staffs initial response. On September 24, 2008, the PTC conducted a Study Session on the proposed revisions to the Open Space district. Staff has incorporated many ofthe comments received at that meeting into the proposed revisions below. The PTC minutes from the meeting are included as Attachment C. DISCUSSION Based on the comments received during the Study Session, staff has revised the preliminary recommendations for revisions to the OS zone district. Below are the recommendations that were discussed at the Study Session with additional clarification as to what has been modified since that meeting. The draft ordinance, Attachment A, provides specific language for the following recommendations: 1. hnpervious Coverage/Floor Area Ratio should be based on a sliding scale to determine the maximum allowable and to provide incentive to maintain or restore native vegetation. This recommendation has not been modified, except to add non-residential standards: 3.5% impervious cover and 5% floor area ratio, with greater allowances as approved by Council through the Site and Design Review process. 2. Impervious Cover Calculation should include all paved surfaces (with some exceptions noted) and classified as 100%, 75%, 50%, or 25% impervious, based upon the material and construction method to be used. This recommendation has not been modified. 3. Review Process should be simplified with a clearer understanding of what a Minor project would be in the OS zone and creating two levels of Major project review based on the scope of work proposed. The language has been streamlined; the threshold for higher level review has been reduced to 1,000 sffrom 2,000 sf; and second dwelling units have been elevated to major project review from a minor project review process. 4. Follow-Up Arborist Report should be required five years after the final sign-off of the project completion. This report shall evaluate the health oftrees and significant landscape that were required for screen planting or and/or were designated as protected plantings on the approved plans for the project (clarification of existing language). This recommendation has not been modified. 5. Second Dwelling Units may be permitted if the minimum lot size is three (3) acres and shall follow theResidential Estate (R-E) District standards for second dwelling units (18.10.070 (b», except that the allowed maximum height for attached units shall be 25 feet. The minimum lot size has been increased to five acres. City of Palo Alto Page 2 6. Additional Parking in 200' Special Setback may be allowed iflocated at least 30' from the affected property line; those parking spaces cannot be the designated 4 required. The 30' setbackfromproperty line has been increased to 50'. 7. Trash Enclosures should be permitted, with design review, within the front setback, including Special Setbacks, providing it is not more than six (6) feet tall, covered, fitted with self closing gates, and screened. The access to the enclosure shall not be located on the side facing the street. This recommendation has been modified to include the sizing of the enclosure shall be the most minimal to achieve the purpose of enclosing and screening containers. 8. Skylights. The light emitted from skylights shall be minimal during the night hours. Utilizing treatments such as translucent glass, shading systems, and interior light placement can reduce the night glare. This recommendation has not been modified; the existing requirement prohibiting white glass has been maintained. 9. Change the District Name. Staff supports changing the name to "Open Space Residential." Staff has not made revisions to the naming of the district. ALTERNATIVES There are a number of possible permutations of the various specific recommendations above that could be considered by the Commission. In addition, some Commission members have suggested imposing slope-density requirements and/or maximum house size restrictions to further reduce development potential on Open Space district lots. Each ofthese alternative approaches is discussed below. Slope-Density: Slope-density requirements are imposed in some hillside communities in the Bay Area, such as Woodside and Los Altos Hills. The provisions require a detailed topographic map, generally divided into 3 or 4 categories of slopes, such as 0-15%, 15-25%, 25-35%, and over 35%. The slope-density formula may then be applied to allowable total development, total paved area, or total floor area, or a combination thereof. The following table outlines estimated impervious surface limitations and other development potential for a 10-acre lot in Palo Alto, Woodside, and Los Altos Hills for four assumed "average slopes," using the most restrictive zoning category in those communities and with some basic assumptions regarding area devoted to floor area versus paved areas. Note that Woodside does not vary development on a site by average slope, but uses slope-density to establish the allowable number oflots in a subdivision. Impervious Cover and Floor Area Examples Palo Alto Woodsidel Los Altos Hills § Average Slope Impervious Area,( 15,246 sf 16,187 sf' 150,000 sf Floor Area 17,844 sfJ 11,979 sf 60,000 sf City of Palo Alto Page 3 Palo Alto Woodside' Los Altos Hills 20% Average Slope Impervious Area' 15,246 sf 16,187 sf 117,855 sf = Floor Area 17,844 sf 11,979 sf 47,142 sf 25% Average Impervious Area 15,246 sf 16,187 sf 101,783 sf Floor Area 17,844 sfj 11,979 sf 40,713 sf 30% Average Slope Impervious Area:t 15,246 sf 16,187 sf 69,638 sf Floor Area 17,844 sf 11,979 sf 27,855 sf 1 ... Only applIes slope-densIty fonnula to subdIvIsIons to detennme allowable number of lots. 2 Includes paved areas plus building footprints (assumes 60% of total floor area) 3 Assumes minimum 2,500 sf paved surfaces and second story floor area at 40% of total floor area. 4 Assumes 40% second story floor area at 40% of total floor area. Staff notes that Portola Valley (very similar to Woodside's regulations) and Saratoga also use slope density restrictions, and some communities in Marin do as well. Staff has not attempted to apply a slope density approach to specific properties in the OS district, as to do so would require calculating areas of slope within each category, which is beyond the scope of staff's resources. Staff does not believe that applying slope-density limitations in the OS zone in Palo Alto would be productive, given: 1) more than half the lots existing have been developed under only impervious cover criteria, 2) a complex process is required to accurately calculate and review slope-density calculations, 3) the extent of development allowed currently is highly restrictive at 3.5% ofthe site, and 4) there is a preponderance of lots of 1-3 acres in the OS zone, which would be further restricted by slope density requirements, though staff does not believe that those are the lots that have concerned the Commission regarding the extent of development; those lots are already most likely to require variances, which would be addressed with the sliding scales for impervious cover and floor area ratios. A new approach to limiting impervious cover would also cause significant problems with lots that have been subdivided with specific allowances for impervious cover. Staff continues to believe that adequate protection is provided in the site and design review process to address OS criteria such as site visibility and protection of native vegetation. Maximum House Size: Maximum house size requirements are another development tool imposed in some hillside communities in the Bay Area, such as Woodside (8,000 square feet), Portola Valley (85% of total floor area allowed), and Saratoga (8,000 square feet). Again, staff has not recommended such a limitation due to the use of the Site and Design Review process to address City of Palo Alto Page 4 the visual impacts of the home. However, there is no significant burden on staff to implement a maximum house size limitation, such as exists with the slope-density approach, so a maximum house size restriction remains a policy determination for the Commission and Council. For most properties, a maximum house size limit probably wouldn't come into play, but it would affect larger properties. If the Commission wishes to proceed with that approach, staff recommends that we renotice the ordinance revisions and reach out to the larger property owners to assure their input at a subsequent meeting. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Zoning Ordinance Update is intended to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that the proposed amendments reflect the intent and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to minimize impacts new development on views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides. Attachment F provides a list of related Comprehensive Plan policies. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQA requirements. The 20-day public comment period for this document runs from April 8, 2009 through April 27, 2009. NEXT STEPS Upon direction from the Commission, staff will revise the ordinance and forward it to the Council for final review and recommendation or return to the Commission, if that is preferred. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Red-line Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose Districts) B. Maps ofthe OS Zone District C. PTC Study Session Minutes, September 24, 2008 D. PAPOS Position Paper on Open Space Zoning Regulations with Staff Responses and PAPOS Response, 01114/2008 E. Summary Table of OS Parcels F. Comprehensive Plan Policies Regarding Open Space G. Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study COURTESY COPIES PAPOS Prepared by: Clare Campbell, Planner DEP ARTMENTIDIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: __ C::.....~<.s.:~~_\)J'--~~"""""""'''-''~IL'''4 ___ _ Curtis Williams, Interim Director City of Palo Alto Page 5 ATTACHMENT H 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Verbatim Minutes 3 April 15, 2009 4 5 EXCERPT 6 7 Zoning Ordinance Update: Review and Recommendation of Draft Revisions to Chapter 18.28 8 related to Development Standards in the Open Space (OS) District; Environmental Assessment: 9 An Initial Study has been completed and a Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance 10 with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. 11 12 Chair Garber: Okay, Item number 2, Zoning Ordinance Update Review and Recommendation of 13 Draft Revisions to Chapter 18:28 related to Development Standards in the Open Space District. 14 Environmental assessment and initial studies have been completed and a Negative Declaration 15 has been prepared. 16 17 Does Staff have a presentation? 18 19 Ms. Clare Campbell, Planner: Yes, yes we do. So I will go ahead and get started with the 20 review of the recommendations, and then Curtis will jump in and discuss some other items as 21 well. 22 23 Just a little bit of background. The Planning Commission reviewed and commented on the Open 24 Space District back in June 2007, and then shortly after that, the Council did adopt the revised 25 Chapter in September of 2007. With discussions with the Commission, Staff was directed to put 26 together a working group to evaluate some of the larger issues that had not quite been resolved 27 yet associated with house size, floor area and impervious coverage. Basically, Staff was working 28 with residents of the Open Space District and two of the Commissioners, and a couple of Open 29 Space advocates,and we met approximately five times. We reviewed and discussed some of the 30 concerns that the citizens had, as well as the issues that Staff was focusing on, based on 31 comments from the Commission. 32 33 Back in September, we did have a Study Session, and Staff presented recommendations, and the 34 nine core recommendations that we represented in September have been modified slightly based 35 on comments that we received at that time, but they are pretty much intact with what we had 36 presented previously, so I will go ahead and go through those. 37 38 Previously, we had proposed for impervious coverage in floor area, it should be based on a 39 sliding scale to determine the maximum allowable to provide, and to provide incentives for 40 maintaining or restoring native vegetation. We added clarification for nonresidential 41 development, and we put in 3.5 percent impervious cover and a 5 percent floor area ratio 42 maximum, and then we also put in that these could be considered for higher numbers, if it went 43 through a Site and Design Review, and Council took a look at that, reviewed those, and approved 44 that. The impervious coverage calculations should include all paved surfaces. There are some 45 exceptions that we've talked about in the past, and classified as either 100 percent, 75 percent, 50 Page 1 1 percent or 25 percent impervious, based on the types of material that is being presented. This 2 proposed recommendation hasn't been changed since we discussed it last September. 3 4 For the review process, we presented a hopefully more simplified process with a clear 5 understanding of what a minor project would be for the OS in creating two levels of a major 6 project review based on the scope of work proposed. When we met last time, we talked about 7 having a 2000 square foot threshold for that base level, higher level review. We were looking at 8 2000, and then that was too high a threshold, and then we reduced that to 1000 square feet for 9 that project. Also, we included a second dwelling unit that would also have to go through this 10 higher level review instead of a staff level review. 11 12 The next item is the Followup Arborist Report, and that should be done five years after the final 13 sign-off of the project. Basically, this is unchanged from what we had just discussed previously, 14 but we did add a clarification that it should also apply to sites that received the bonus floor ratio 15 incentive, and so that gets verified and checked on. 16 17 For second dwelling units, they may be permitted if the minimum lot size is three acres. This is 18 what we presented in September. We have increased that from three to five acres, based on 19 comments, and basically follow the RE Standards which have not been changed since we met 20 last time. 21 22 For parking, additional parking in the 200-foot setback, special setback, may be allowed if 23 located at least 30-feet from the affected property line, and what we have changed since that, 24 since we met, was that we increased it from 30 to 50 feet from the property line. 25 26 Some of the other items included trash enclosures. We modified this particular requirement to 27 specify that the sizing of the enclosure should be the most minimal to achieve the purpose of 28 enclosing and screening the containers, and we did say that it should be something that we could 29 do through Design Review, and we would allow that in the special setback, so that was what we 30 had talked about last time. 31 32 Skylights, we did not change anything from what we had discussed previously, and we want to 33 emphasize that the existing requirements that are in the Code already, about prohibiting white 34 glass,is being maintained. I know that was an issue for some Commissioners. 35 36 And we had shown that we were supporting the name change to Open Space Residential, but 37 based on feedback from the Commissioners last time, we have not incorporated a name change 38 to the District with this proposed revision. 39 40 Two other items that we have revised or added to the Chapter, is that the floor area calculations 41 should be based on the same criteria as the low-density residential districts, as specified in the 42 definitions section, so the same as in Rl property, for example, and basements should also follow 43 the Rl Standards for floor area ratio calculation, with the addition that "basement areas shall 44 count if any portion is constructed on a slope in excess of 10 percent." 45 Page 2 1 There were a few other comments that were made by more than one Commissioner that Staff had 2 considered, but we did not incorporate them into the revised Chapter, and we can also discuss 3 those more tonight if we need to. 4 5 One of the comments made was that second dwellings should be limited to a smaller size, and 6 there was no specific square footage discussed, but that was just put out there. Another one was 7 to create a subcommittee, a Planning and Transportation Subcommittee to be included in the 8 review of smaller, 1000 square foot plus, projects. Those are the ones that we proposed go 9 through the standard Staff review process. 10 11 [Background discussion] That's right, that's right. I'm sorry. Scratch that. 12 13 Another item that was brought up was the maximum house size, and Curtis will talk about that in 14 more detail in a little bit, and also another issue was the limitation on the Pool Impervious 15 Coverage Exemption. Basically, it was a limitation discussion, either limited to one pool or 16 having some kind of a number, or maybe a partial exemption instead of 100 percent exempt for 17 that water surface area. 18 19 Now, it's Curtis' tum. Thanks. 20 21 Mr. Williams: Thank you, Clare. Ijust want to touch briefly on a couple of the key parameters 22 for development slope density that were discussed as alternatives in the Staff report, and at the 23 Commission meeting last time, for slope density and maximum house size. 24 25 One of the issues was with slope density where we had looked at some of the other cities that use 26 it, and also I was hoping to maybe have an example or two of sites in the Open Space and try to 27 apply that, but one of the reasons that we have concern about doing it is that it takes a lot of 28 information to do that, topography maps and then dividing it up into different groupings of like 29 0-10 percent, 10-20 percent, 20-30 percent, over 30 percent, and that kind of analysis, and we 30 don't have the resources to do that. So we didn't get to look at an example. 31 32 We had provided this table previously to show some of that, particularly Woodside, Los Altos 33 Hills and Portola Valley, which are three that you are very familiar with, that use slope density. 34 This is also to show, to some extent, there are some maximum house sizes in some of these cities 35 as well. Woodside has 6000 square feet that can go up above that if the lot is over-sized. 36 Saratoga has 8000 square feet. Portola Valley is 85 percent of the total floor area. So those are 37 some of the concepts we were working with and that we have shown you before. 38 39 In looking at the two issues, the maximum house size from an administration standpoint is a 40 fairly easily criterion to use. Our concern about that had been, and continues to be, that you have 41 a lot of discretion through the site review to look at each house and determine the appropriate 42 locations and mitigations for limiting house size and in some cases the house can be very big and 43 not be seen by anybody. In other cases, not so big and highly visible, so it is so varied that we 44 think that it's pretty difficult to just adopt amaximum house size in this zoning district. 45 Page 3 1 The issue of slope density is one that, on the flipside, there is some innate sense to using that in 2 terms of relating to the slope of the land, the difficulty and the disturbance associated with 3 building on it, but the points that we made before (and continue to be concerned about) are the 4 amount of, again, analysis taken to draw that up and for Staff to analyze those things and the 5 additional calculations. And, secondly, that so much of this area is already built-out that it seems 6 to us to be kind of punitive to go into the remaining lots and say now you are under a different, 7 and more stringent, standard than all of the other properties out there that are already built, 8 recognizing that some of those will be rebuilt as well, but there isn't an awful lot of 9 redevelopment that occurs out in that zone. 10 11 Our sense is, at this point in time, that this might have been a good idea when 10 percent or 20 12 percent of the lots were built-out, but now that's quite a burden to impose slope density 13 requirements, so we wouldn't suggest that. 14 15 The approach that the Ordinance takes is it does basically two things. One, is that it creates now 16 a graduate scale of impervious cover, and it adds to that a floor area limitation, and the floor area 17 limitation is also graduated so that it is a higher percentage for smaller lots and a lesser 18 percentage for the larger lots. Once you are up to the lO-acre standard lot sizes for the OS 19 district, you are at the 3.5 percent impervious coverage that we have in there, and then you 20 additionally layer in a floor area ratio that is going to be more restrictive than anything that we 21 have today in terms of the actual square footage of the structures on the site. 22 23 Then, the second step in that process, is that we have provided some incentive to get a little 24 higher floor area ratio on these lots if a certain percentage of the site is retained in some kind of a 25 permanent fashion as either in its native condition or restored to a native vegetative state, or we 26 have added flexibility at this point which was not laid out last time to you, and this might need 27 some discussion, in agricultures types of uses. So it maybe that, in terms of looking at some 28 sustainability issues that we've talked about and the City has looked at, in terms of and around 29 the issue of agriculture and locally grown food, and that might be something that might also fit 30 into this category and would likely require some kind of restrictive covenant or some mechanism 31 . that would prescribe that these areas are left that way. 32 33 As Clare mentioned, we'd have a five-year check-in and monitoring of that as well, but with that 34 kind of (and depending on the size of the site) a certain percentage of the site being retained there 35 which, really, we think goes towards the goal of the Open Space District to preserve native 36 vegetation and agricultural uses, that this would justify this modest increase in "a bonus" floor 37 area ratio and, hopefully, achieving the intent of the Open Space District while allowing for more 38 flexibility. 39 40 We provided these examples last time. The hope on the smaller lots with the graduated scale 41 was that we would provide some additional flexibility for development there and minimize the 42 need for variances, as you can see on the one-acre lot with 1525 square feet of impervious cover 43 is patio and a driveway and you don't have a house, so it's very difficult to make that work. 44 Even with what is proposed, that is pretty restrictive, so we think those are workable numbers. 45 They do result in slightly more impervious surface being allowed than is currently the case, but 46 again overall in the big picture it is still very restrictive for the area. Page 4 1 2 The next steps are for the Commission to review this Ordinance. We do have it in Ordinance 3 form, and if you move it forward, we will schedule it for Council and take it to them for final 4 approval. Thank you. 5 6 Chair Barger: Thank you. For the benefit of the public that has gathered for this item here, there 7 are three steps to the remaining hearing of this item, one of which is the opportunity for 8 Commissioners to ask questions, another and the second of which is the opportunity for the 9 public to make comments, and then third for the item to come back to the Commission for 10 discussion and a Motion. 11 12 I would like to, given the hour, and thank you for sticking around so long here, let me ask you, if 13 you would like to (by a showing of your hands) go first and ask your questions so that you can 14 get out of here, we can do that. Alternatively, you can wait for us to ask our questions, and I'll 15 try to keep it to within let's say 10-15 minutes, and then you can have your comments, which 16 would keep you here a little longer. So, by raising your hands, if you would like to go first 17 (before the Commission) please raise your hand. I see one, which I guess means, two. For those 18 that would like to hear the Commissioner's questions before they make their comments, please 19 raise your hands, and that's what we will be doing. 20 21 Commissioners questions, and let's see if we can keep it to 10 or 15 minutes. Commissioner 22 Keller, you had your light on first. 23 24 Commissioner Holman: Chair Garber, if I might, I'm sorry, a procedural issue, and perhaps this 25 is for the City Attorney, but if there are folks who have time constraints, given the hour, perhaps 26 the two who would like to speak could go ahead and speak, and then the others could follow. 27 28 Mr. Larkin: I think that's to the discretion of the chair. 29 30 Chair Garber: Would the two that had raised their hands like to speak first? Herb Borock, you 31 will have three minutes, and Mark did you want to speak too? Go ahead. 32 33 Herb Borock, p.o. Box 632: Thank you, Chair Garber and Commissioner Holman. I'll just take 34 a moment of your time about one of the items which is the impervious coverage calculation on 35 Attachment A, the redline draft, Page 14, Paragraph one (1). This appears to continue the current 36 process where the calculation is a private discussion between the Applicant and the Planning 37 Director, and that the public does not participate. It's not a question of a typical public hearing 38 process where the public can submit substantial evidence to determine what the correct 39 calculations should be. I had previously given the Commission, when such evidence sometime 40 ago when this issue was first on your agenda, including a reference from one of the 41 manufacturers, Reema Stone, where the calculation depends upon the type of soil and the slope 42 and the length of time that this stone has been in place, and the language here is essentially 43 arbitrary language. It does not allow anyone, except the Applicant, the ability to question the 44 Director's decision, and I believe that should be part of the public process. I understand it is in 45 the Applicant's interest to put in some kind of paving that would work in terms of run-off, but 46 also some Applicants would prefer to use that as an excuse just to build something bigger, by not Page 5 1 counting some that (if you looked at substantial evidence) would indicate it didn't do what it's 2 supposed to do. So that's one change that I would suggest. Thank you. 3 4 Chair Garber: Thank you. Mark Conroe. 5 6 Mark Conroe, 805 Los Traneos Road: Our family has been owners out here for about 20 years, 7 long-suffering members of the Commission, Staff and fellow Open Space-ers. Firstly, I want to 8 recognize and applaud Curtis and Clare and Dan, Samir and any other members of the Open 9 Space working group who spent the last couple of years running what I thought was a functional 10 process. 11 12 I have five comments, all somewhat technical, that comment on Staff's recommendations. 13 14 On the' second dwelling units, you will notice that tonight they are recommending something 15 new, and that's going from a three-acre to a five-acre site to have a second dwelling unit. One 16 practical implication of this, which I think should be considered, is that some sites it might be 17 appropriate to have a detached garage, and usually you would throw some living space above 18 that. I think this, for any site under five acres, it wouldn't allow for that. So I would ask, since 19 we're in that and our family owns one of those sites, that you either consider going back to three 20 acres, or allow a detached garage. Again, all this is subject to the new proposed FAR limits. 21 22 Second of all, I encourage you to follow Staff's recommendation on house size regulations. The 23 FAR is accomplishing that. There is a large drop in existing code compared to the new FAR 24 limits, so I think those are restrictive enough. 25 26 Third comment, on the FAR bonus, for example, on a five-acre site, you only get it if you leave 27 90 percent of the site undisturbed. We think that is a little too restrictive and maybe reduce that 28 to 80 percent and you accomplish, I think, what the Code is setting to do. 29 30 Related to that, on the "certain agricultural uses," I would note that our site for 120 years has 31 been planted with olive trees and for about 50 years has been growing vegetables and fruit trees, 32 so I would ask that those uses be mentioned. Some other places around us have grapes. 33 34 Finally, as to "process minor grading work goes to the City Council under proposed by the 35 Staff," I would ask that this be handled by Staff. It appears to be an overkill otherwise, and also 36 if you want to plant a tree that goes to the City Council, or at least it should clarify that you can 37 plant a tree, or if you need to do minor grading, that can be handled at the Staff level under a 38 minor Site and Design Review. 39 40 Thanks for hearing us tonight. 41 42 Chair Garber: Thank you very much. Commissioner Keller, Vice-Chair Tuma, Commissioner 43 Fineberg, and then myself. 44 45 Commissioner Keller: A couple of quick questions. It said that maximum height of an attached. 46 dwelling is 25 feet. What is the maximum height of a detached dwelling, a separate dwelling? Page 6 1 2 Ms. Campbell: It's 25 feet. 3 4 Commissioner Keller: Okay, so next to it, a height of anything is 25 feet? 5 6 Mr. Williams: You're talking about a detached second dwelling unit, which I believe is one 7 story and 17 feet, but we will check that. It's whatever the Residential Estate (RE) Zone says. 8 9 Commissioner Keller: So the maximum height of the primary dwelling is 25 feet, is that the 10 idea? 11 12 Mr. Williams: Right, so if you've got a second dwelling part of that, then that is part of the main 13 dwelling at 25 feet, if it's detached. 14 15 Commissioner Keller: So if it's part of the primary dwelling, then essentially it's by the primary 16 dwelling rule of 25 feet, and if it's a second unitla second separate building, then the maximum 17 is 17, is that correct? 18 19 Mr. Williams: Right. 20 21 Commissioner Keller: The second thing is, maybe my mind is kind of warped, but I had trouble 22 trying to figure out the meaning of Page 14, bullet number 8, and I am hoping that you will 23 figure out a better way to word that so people can figure out what you are talking about, because 24 it's a little obtuse for me. 25 26 I think what you meant is that them minimum impervious cover is based on the presumed size of 27 the parcel, before you do the reduction for the dedicated Open Space that is non-develop-able, 28 and I'm not sure if that's what this means. 29 30 Mr. Williams: We have a, and I think it's only one, and I'll be corrected by members of the 31 audience if it's not, but one Development Agreement that has nine or ten lots in it that had that 32 specific provision that the lots could be smaller than ten acres, but there was a large Open Space 33 that was set aside and that, because of that, each of those individual lots (even though they were 34 less than ten acres) could be treated as ten-acre lots for the purpose of the Ordinance. That is 35 really it, and so maybe what we do is that we just come in here and we cite that Development 36 Agreement and say th~t Development Agreement is operative for builders' lots or something like 37 that. 38 39 Commissioner Keller: Right, what you are basically saying is that they are treated as if they are 40 ten-acre lots, and I am not sure if this wording actually implements what you said. 41 42 The next, and my final thing here, is I'm trying to figure out Table 3, which is on Page 7 of the 43 Draft, and here is where my confusion is. It's that this gets to a question I think I asked the last 44 time, which is if you have three acres being five percent of impervious coverage and five percent 45 of floor area ratio, at two percent, when it's two acres, you said it was half of 7.5 and half of 5, 46 which is 6.25. Page 7 1 2 Well, what I'm wondering is, why is three acres not one acre at 7.5 and two acres at 5? You 3 know, it's kind of confusing. Where do you get the breakpoint, because if you have 2.9 acres, 4 it's not quite three acres,and you actually might have this anomaly where if you do the 5 averaging you actually get more than if you don't do the averaging. So I'm confused by that. 6 7 Chair Garber: So if I am understanding, would/if each one of these four parcel size types had a 8 maximum and a minimum, would that answer your question? 9 10 Commissioner Keller: Well, there is an example above which says that the two acre site is 11 treated as one acre at 7.5 and one acre at 5, okay? So what happens if you have a 2.9 acre site? 12 Is it treated as one acre at 7.5, and 1.9 acres at 5? And then when you get to a three acre site you 13 actually lose impervious cover, so I'm confused. There are a bunch of numerical glitches here 14 that I don't understand. 15 16 Mr. Williams: What it is saying, and it's not saying one acre of your site of considered one at 17 7.5 and one acre at 5.5. It's saying that if you've got a two acre lot and you are prorating and 18 splitting it right down the middle, between one and three acres, then you are going to split right 19 down the middle between 5 and 7.5. 20 21 If you have a 2.9 acre lot, you are going to take th,e ratio of that difference between one and three 22 acres and apply that ratio to the same, prorate it between 5 percent and 7 percent, or 7.5 percent, 23 and so it is going to probably be 2.9 is going to work out to be probably like 5.2 percent or 24 something like that, and then you would do it again, between three and five and between five and 25 ten. 26 27 Clare had, rather ingeniously, put together a table of like from one acre to ten acres by a tenth of 28 an acre, or something, I don't know, or at least within one acre of each one of those, but what 29 that did is that it prorated it between one and ten acres and you got some pretty big numbers and 30 our thought was you really shouldn't start going higher until you get down to three acres or 31 something like that, so that's why there isn't as much. There's a much bigger difference between 32 like three acres and one acre than there is between ten acres and three acres, so you keep 33 pinching it d0wn a little bit until you really do get down to the smaller lots in the District. 34 35 Commissioner Keller: So then let me make this slight suggestion which is just to better transmit 36 your intent. If you could, instead of having an example of two acres, had an example of 2.5 37 acres, because my problem with two acres is that you are not sure what the' calculation is 38 meaning, but with 2.5 acres the interpretation is a lot easier to figure out than what's going on, 39 that's it one-quarter of the way towards three acres, and three-quarters away from one acre, and it 40 explains what's going on. 41 42 Mr. Williams: We'd be glad to do that, and I think that in the reality, when we actually 43 implement this, we will create a table like Clare said and we will probably have that by a tenth of 44 an acre or all the way through and give those numbers to Applicants and interested parties. 45 46 Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma and Commissioner Fineberg. Page 8 1 2 Vice-Chair Tuma: Just two quick questions. On Page 8 of 17 of the Ordinance, where you have 3 the section dealing with nonresidential use, and it talks about somebody wanting something other 4 than the 3.5 to 5 percentages, then they would go to the Planning and Transportation 5 Commission and Council in Site and Design Review. I thought we were going to use a 6 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process for that. 7 8 Mr. Williams: Excuse me, a CUP is required for some kinds of uses like educational uses or 9 some of these nonresidential uses do require CUPs. Some of them don't, so all of them require 10 Site and Design Review, so the thought was to be sure we are covering all of them and that the 11 Commission and Council weigh in on that and make that determination, so you may want to see 12 something differently for greenhouses, for instance, than if it's an educational building that isn't 13 necessarily as closely tied to the Open Space use as greenhouses mightbe. 14 15 Vice-Chair Tuma: And then the other, just if you could address one of the speakers brought up 16 an issue regarding the need for someone to go to Council if they wanted to plant a tree or a minor 17 grading. Can you talk about it, and just address that? 18 19 Mr. Williams: Yes, I think, and I don't know if we need to make a change in the Ordinance or 20 not, but we do have a minor Site and Design Review that was for very minor things like that, that 21 is a Staff level review, and it's basically triggered by the same as like a minor Architectural 22 Review. 23 24 Vice-Chair Tuma: Is that Page 10, Item B 1. 25 26 Ms. Campbell: Yes, it is. 27 28 Mr. Williams: That doesn't reflect ... that says "follow minor Staff level procedures as 29 outlined," oh, okay, so that does cover it, so most of those kinds of things will go through that 30 process at a Staff level review and not have to come to the Commission or be put on a Council 31 agenda. 32 33 Chair Garber: And if I may follow on there, Vice-Chair Tuma, under item 2B, there, the projects 34 that comprise less than 1000 square feet, is that where you were suggesting a tweak to that, 35 where that particular paragraph would then go up to Item Number 1, am I understanding that 36 correctly? 37 38 Ms. Campbell: No, what happened in the September Study Session, I think there were some 39 comments from at least two Commissioners saying that, for this level of project, that there would 40 be some interest in having a subcommittee sit in to hear about or keep up on those levels of 41 projects, and not necessarily being involved actively with decisions or action taking. 42 43 Mr. Williams: And if I could add, when you saw this in September, basically 2000 square feet 44 was the threshold for Commission review, and under 1000 dropped back to needing the Staff 45 review and the sense of the Commission seemed to be that you wanted either 1000 to be that 46 threshold or you wanted this Commission's committee to review between 1000 and 2000, so it Page 9 1 was a little more straightforward to push the threshold to 1000, and there was also an indication 2 that you wanted second units, even though they are not even 1000 square feet, to come through 3 the Commission process, too, so we included the second units also. 4 5 Chair Garber: I'm going to ... Commissioner Fineberg, excuse me. 6 7 Commissioner Fineberg: Staying on Page 10 for a moment, how many sites in the OS area, 8 approximately, are between five and ten acres? I'm looking at the item that used to be A. It's 9 now 1. "Second dwelling units shall only be permitted on sites with a minimum site area." It 10 was ten and now five, so what impact is that change going to have? 11 12 Chair Garber: Does attachment E help at all, that chart? 13 "14 Ms. Campbell: So on the attachment with the table that lists all of the parcels, it gives the basic 15 breakdown of the top, how things are split up, so the lots that are basically ranging from 5-10 16 acres, there are about 30 of those parcels. It has the different lot sizes, just a general breakdown 17 of each of them. 18 19 Chair Garber: Out of total of how many parcels? 20 21 Planner Campbell: Seventy-nine. 22 23 Commissioner Fineberg: I'm seeing attachment E. Maybe you are looking at something 24 different. This may be 30 or 40 parcels. 25 26 Mr. Williams: It should say "OS Partial Summary" at the top, and it's a table. 27 28 Commissioner Fineberg: And it's a single page, one-sided, ah, two columns, got you, okay. So 29 it looks like there is a significant number on my chart, about half the volume is between five and 30 ten acres. 31 32 Mr. Williams: Well, we've got the numbers at the top there, and it says the number of 33 developable lots, 0-5 acres, number of lots ... 34 35 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so 38 percent then of the parcels will be allowed to have that 36 second dwelling unit. 37 38 Mr. Williams: Right, if they don't already. Some of them may. 39 40 Commissioner Fineberg: That seems significant. Can you comment on whether you think that is 41 a beneficial change, or is that consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals of keeping the area 42 undeveloped? 43 44 Mr. Williams: I think it is, in that particularly it's, and I mean it's 30 lots, and it may be 38 45 percent of the lots, but the acreage area is very considerable and the operative thing is that the 46 amount of development allowed on the site does not increase, and it is still counted against the Page 10 1 impervious cover. It's counted against floor area ratio as it is proposed here, as well, so if you 2 are doing a second unit, that is an area that you cannot put into a house or cabana or some 3 impervious cover standpoint, patios and pools and whatever, so it all adds up to the same amount 4 of total development on the site. 5 6 Commissioner Fineberg: Something I think might be a correction on Page 10 of 17, still, Item 7 Number 3, the last sentence refers to "second dwelling units shall follow standards," and it 8 continues on "with the exceptions outlined in subsections A and B above," and, I'm sorry, Page 9 1O? 10 11 Mr. Williams: That should be one and two, you are correct. 12 13 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so, okay because some changes were made from A's to 1 's and 14 2's. Okay, could you comment on Mr. Borock's comment about only the Applicant being able 15 to appeal the Director's decision, and I believe that had to do with the impermeability, if I 16 understood his comment correctly. 17 18 Mr. Williams: Right, that was on the outline, Page 14, where it outlines the paved surfaces 19 calculations. The way this is worded, and it could be worded differently, but essentially before 20 the Ordinance was amended a couple of years ago, Staff was calculating iNhere was virtu~Ily 21 any permeability to a surface, then it was considered 100 percent permeable. If it was paved, it 22 was zero, and so the Commission's change to that was essentially almost the reverse and 23 virtually everything counted as no permeability except for gravel and so that's the way it is now. 24 25 So what we are looking at here is saying there are these various gradients in between, and some 26 materials clearly have a certain permeability. These days, we have pretty good data about the 27 level of permeability. and the kind of construction that needs to take place to be sure that they are 28 permeable, because a lot of them require the base to be constructed in a certain way that they are 29 truly permeable. And if we have a question, we could use our Public Works Engineering section 30 to look at that. 31 32 You know, if it's a Site Design project, and it's a Commission-reviewed project, you are going to 33 see that if you have questions about that, then we need to look at gathering more information and 34 justifying why we came up with a certain number, so certainly the Commission could question 35 that. 36 37 The language here, in the last sentence, says that the "applicant may provide information and soil 38 report to outline the baseline permeability in specific areas proposed for coverage," and that is 39 mainly because there are some areas where you have this really strong clay feature that doesn't 40 have much permeability already, and so you may be able to justify that what you are putting in 41 there is more permeable and then you would get some credit for doing that. 42 43 I don't think we have any objection. We can certainly make that more generic and just basically 44 say that information may be provided relative to that point, and it doesn't have to be the 45 Applicant; it can be whoever, but it's not, and until it gets to the Commission level, most likely 46 somebody is not going to know that is going to be there. Page 11 1 2 But, if somebody wanted to bring in at that point some evidence that, in fact, that they don't 3 think this particular surface has that kind of permeability, then we'd have to address it as part of 4 the project and the Environmental Review, and justify that level, so we would be glad to make 5 that more generic wording if that would help. 6 7 Commissioner Fineberg: Are there any Industry Standard definitions like certain types of pavers 8 are rated by the manufacturers? Is there some rating system that can be referred to or relied on, 9 or is it'completely subjective? 10 11 Mr. Williams: It's not completely subjective. It's that there are rating systems. I don't think our 12 Public Works folks would suggest one. But what they might suggest, and what I think they 13 would use, is that there is a handbook, a storm water quality handbook. It is used pretty broadly 14 in the Bay area. It has pages and pages of different kinds of materials, what their permeability 15 ratings are, what their permeability ratings are when they are on slopes as opposed to flat, how 16 they have to be constructed to get certain permeability levels in terms of the base material that 17 goes below them and that kind of thing. So, there are documents that do outline that, and that's 18 what we typically would rely on. 19 20 Chair Garber: And those sorts of comments would come through on specific project reviews and 21 they are part of the requirement because they have been adopted by the municipality, and/or they 22 would be made comments when they are reviewed by Public Works. 23 24 Mr. Williams: Right, and they would probably be referenced in the environmental review. 25 26 Chair Garber: I mean, that sort of technical stuff is outside the auspice of us. I mean, we can 27 require it, but the actual review and the exercise of checking that is by [unclear] inspectors. 28 29 Commissioner Fineberg: I was just asking this question because right now, the way I read the 30 Zoning Ordinance, the Applicant provides the information and the Director has the discretion of ·31 whether to consult with Public Works and then there is no requirement that Public Works apply 32 any rigorous analytical method to it. So I think there is room in that this be made a more 33 rigorous process, where there is fairness and hopefully without creating a huge burden of work 34 for Public Works, if there are these Industry Standards. Thank you. 35 36 Chair Garber: I'm going to skip me. Commissioner Holman, and I'll just make comments later. 37 Commissioner Holman . . 38 39 Commissioner Holman: Page 14, Number 3, and what's been changed in Number 3. "Portions 40 of primary driveways located in the 200-foot scenic setback should not be counted as impervious 41 up to a width of 20 feet, assuming the primary residence is located beyond the 200-foot setback." 42 43 Well, I would hope to goodness that the primary residence was beyond the 200-foot setback, but 44 the other thing is, I was wondering how Staff would feel about an addition to that language that 45 would say "up to a width of 20 feet, and if it is of a natural appearance," understanding that we Page 12 1 have compatibility requirements, but you can have a tented concrete, for instance, and its still 2 concrete, so I am wondering how Staff would feel about adding that language. 3 4 Mr. Williams: I think that's fine. 5 6 Commissioner Holman: Great, thank you. On Page 7, of 17, "as a requirement of receiving 7 bonus FAR, the property owner shall enter into a covenant that is recorded with the property and 8 would apply to all future property owners." 9 10 There is no penalty associated with that, and what ends up happening a lot of times, with any 11 Code enforcement, is that it's really the burden on the City because it's not cost recovery, and 12 it's not ... the City Attorney wants to say something. 13 14 Mr. Larkin: I was going to say, I would suggest a covenant acceptable to the City Attorney or 15 something like that, and what we would normally require is some standard language that would 16 allow us to get injunctive relief and require it to be put back to its prior state. 17 18 Commissioner Holman: So could this language be amended to say that the covenant would 19 require a penalty clause, or however you want to phrase it? 20 21 Mr. Larkin: Right, enforcement provisions would be one, but it wouldn't be necessarily a 22 penalty, because you wouldn't want to say it's a hundred-dollar penalty as that hundred dollars a 23 hundred years from now may be not very much money. 24 25 Commissioner Holman: I'm not in any means suggesting a specific dollar amount. I would 26 never do that. 27 28 Mr. Larkin: So I think that we could say to include enforcement provisions acceptable to the 29 City Attorney, or something like that. 30 31 Commissioner Holman: Okay, so could we amend the language to include that, okay, thank you. 32 33 Maximum house size, just to go there for a minute. Staff provided, and thank you for the 34 information, but Staff provided examples of what other communities do, and in light of our 35 carbon footprint policy adopted by the Council, I'm interested in that and also because of our 36 Green Building and the biggest green building that is built to Green Building standards is still not 37 as green as a small house built with the same Green standards, and so I'm interested in that. 38 39 Staff comments that many of the parcels near the Open Space District are already developed. 40 Some will be, over time, redeveloped and there are some that are undeveloped. How many 41 parcels might this apply to, or is there any thought of that? 42 43 Mr. Williams: About maximum house size, if we had that? Well, assuming again that we are 44 looking at the larger sites, and I don't know if that's the intent or not, but when we get up to that 45 6000-8000 square foot number that some of the other cities have that this is sort of the threshold, 46 and then I think we are again approaching that five-acre kind of cut-off, so we've got the 30 lots Page 13 1 between five and ten acres and another 18 that are more than 10 acres, and so that's 48 parcels, 2 total. Now, whether they are, and how many of those might be redeveloped or already have 3 homes on them, that would be speculative, but that is how many lots we have of those sizes. 4 5 Commissioner Holman: And the other approach is allowing no more than 85 percent of the 6 allowable FAR based on impervious to be contributed to the main house. Neither approach 7 actually limits the amount of development; it just limits that amount and maximum size of the 8 house, is that correct? 9 10 Mr. Williams: Right, both are intended to limit the amount of the house and additional square 11 footage available on the site could be used for a second dwelling unit or a pool house, or a shed 12 or artist studio, or whatever. 13 14 Commissioner Holman: I'm still interested in that and we will see if other Commissioners are as 15 well. 16 17 And, Parking and Scenic Setback, one quick question is, and I actually might refer to the 18 architect on the Commission this evening, is skylights, and I had issues with this before, because 19 there are some things that you just cannot monitor. They provide ventilation, but so do windows 20 and doors, etc. 21 22 So I am just wondering if there is any kind of reasonable consideration you might have to offer 23 towards a maximum skylight dimension, and you can think on that. 24 25 And then, Parking and Scenic Setback, there are no limitations, and this was another issue. 26 There are no limitations on how many spaces might be accommodated there. It's not allowed 27 now. People do it sometimes, and it has to be screened. Does Staff have any concerns about the 28 parking and the scenic setback being used for the primary parking or how large it might become? 29 30 Mr. Williams: I think the language says it's not to be used for the primary parking, the four 31 spaces, and if you are question is that somebody may still use it that way, I don't know and it's 32 kind of hard to regulate that aspect of it. I don't think we have a concern about it, primarily, 33 because it is not like we get complaints about people seeing hordes of cars parked out there from 34 driving up Page Mill Road or something. So it hasn't really been a problem at this point, and 35 maybe because we don't allow it, but I don't think that it's a problem, but I also don't think that 36 it's a problem that put some number in there either, probably. 37 38 Commissioner Holman: My only concern is that I haven't noticed, anyway, a maximum number 39 of parking spaces accommodated so it's the "you build it/they will come" sort of thing. So that 40 is the issue that I raise. 41 42 Chair Garber: That is all the questions that I have. We will go to the public. Daniel Dulitz, 43 followed by Cathy Cartmell and then Richard Geiger again. You will have three minutes. 44 45 Daniel Dulitz, Palo Alto: Okay, yes, goodnight. First of all, thanks to the Staff and 46 Commissioners for participating in this process over the previous years, including visits to the Page 14 1 Open Space District and a consultative process that I would agree with a previous speaker was 2 functionaL 3 4 My comments, I will try to keep them brief. My first question, or my first shortest question, is 5 whether in 18.280.70B 1 and I think this is on Page 10, whether "minor projects" is adequately 6 defined. 7 8 There is a cross-reference to another section that I have not looked up, but the e.g. does not 9 necessarily full enumerate all the things like planting trees on a nonspecific ally approved 10 landscaping plan that might relevant. 11 12 Secondly, and a more general point, the proposal as it stands is a compromise. The residents and 13 owners of the Open Space District who have participated in public meetings and the community 14 working group were unanimous in opposing slope density limits, floor ratio and maximum house 15 sizes even though many of us have very modest properties. Yet, we note that the proposal, as it 16 stands, does impose maximum floor area ratios that are quite restrictive. I won't argue against 17 them, even though they will substantially reduce the usefulness of some lots in the Open Space 18 District without improving the environmental feel of the open space. There were probably a few 19 truly gigantic projects that were built in the past that perhaps should not have been allowed. The 20 floor area ratios will prevent those exceptional projects, and so I agree that they are not 21 completely without merit. 22 23 Since the current proposal prevents these exceptional cases, I think there is little justification {or 24 additional restrictions such as slope density. The impervious coverage limits remain very strict, 25 between 95% and 97% of each lot must remain fully permeable. Reducing house sizes further 26 will not make an appreciable difference to the feel of the environment. 27 28 Finally, I will note that during the course of the rezoning, there have been several public 29 meetings and a community working group. As one might expect, the greatest participation has 30 come from the people who live in the Open Space District every day. While those who visit the 31 Open Space might enjoy it for a few hours a week, we who live there enjoy it for hours ever day. 32 We are bicyclists, hikers, equestrians, gardeners and naturalists. We are deeply committed to the 33 environmental values of the Open Space District, yet during this process, we who live in the 34 Open Space have unanimously asked that the already strict zoning restrictions not be made more 35 strict. 36 37 I feel like we have a particular insight into the character of the area and the city in which we live. 38 We have a good understanding ofthe costs and benefits ofthese regulations and we ask that 39 particularly burdensome changes, beyond those that have already been proposed by staff, not be 40 imposed on the people most affected. 41 42 Chair Garber: Cathy Cartmell to be followed by Richard Geiger. 43 44 Cathy Cartmell, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. I'm Cathy Cartmell. I'm President 45 of PAPOS, which is Palo Altans Protecting Open Space. It is the neighborhood association in 46 the Open Space District of Palo Alto. I have lived in Palo Alto since 1984, so about half of my Page 15 1 life, and most of my adult life. I have owned property in the Open Space District since about 2 1988. We bought our property because we loved it, and because it would increase in value over 3 the coming years, based on the Zoning Ordinance. I am sorry that more of my neighbors are not 4 here to express themselves and their views, but please realize we have been working on this, the 5 OS District Regulations, for the City which has been going on for two years now, so attendance 6 has dwindled a little bit. 7 8 The Planning Commissioners and City Council represent all the citizens of Palo Alto and act on 9 our behalf. You represent me. You represent my neighbors. As your constituents, I believe in 10 less government with fewer and simpler regulations rather than more and more complicated 11 regulations. 12 13 We, in PAPOS, share the City of Palo Alto's desire to keep the Open Space as Open Space for 14 future generations, but please realize that the Open Space Zoning Regulations are already very 15 strict, the strictest in Palo Alto. 16 17 As you can see, from my little piece of paper that I pulled out. This is the RI District and what 18 they are allowed to do, and this is what the Open Space District is currently regulated as, so you 19 can see that this is already very strict. 20 21 PAPOS is against adding maximum house size to the regulations. Size restrictions are already 22 implicit in the current regulations. PAPOS is against adding slope density formulas to the 23 regulation. There is no reason to make the already difficult approval process more difficult. 24 25 P APOS would like to see all Open Space property owners enjoy the benefits of a second 26 dwelling unit, even those under five acres. PAPOS is against adding FAR to the Open Space 27 Zoning Ordinance, adding a 3.5 percent FAR on ten acres cuts the theoretical house size on 28 larger properties in half. The 6 percent FAR for one acre is too restrictive, given that there are 29 several one-acre properties in the OS District which currently have much larger homes. The 6 30 percent FAR creates an inequity of value between neighbors. 31 32 PAPOS is against the difficult law and expensive approval process currently in place for the OS 33 District, and just for Commissioner Holman's information, we have no parking on the street up 34 there, so it is very difficult if someone comes to visit you to park any cars. If you had a dinner 35 party of three couples, you would have no place to park those people. 36 37 I did just want to comment on one section regarding the basements, that if there is a 10 percent 38 slope, that only gives a three-foot droop over a 30-foot wide house and this is not enough to 39 make it a legitimate story for day-lighting a basement, so it really doesn't make a whole story, so 40 to count that as a whole floor, then, it is really still a basement, even if it is only a three feet. 41 42 Thank you Commissioners. 43 44 Chair Garber: There is a question from Commissioner Fineberg for Cathy. 45 Page 16 1 Commissioner Fineberg: Cathy, thank you. Would you put up, and maybe Staff could help you 2 with this if it is not turned on, the two pages you showed to us, so we can see what they are? 3 Thank you. 4 5 Chair Garber: It might be helpful, Cathy, if you know what the acreage of each one of those 6 examples are. 7 8 Ms. Cartmell: Well, this just goes percentages. Yes, this just shows the percentage oflot 9 coverage that someone in Rl can cover, so the double-hatched area is the building coverage, and 10 the single hatch area is how much they could pave on a property, so impervious surface area. So 11 they are allowed to pave 90 percent of their property in the Rl District. And then in the OS 12 District the regulation is a little different in that they regulate impervious coverage rather than lot 13 coverage, so we are only allowed 3.5 percent of our property, so it's just that they show kind of 14 in g~neral the percentage of property that you are allowed to cover. 15 16 Chair Garber: Okay, thanks. Richard Geiger, three minutes. 17 18 Richard Geiger, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. I've typed up a few pages since 19 before I came here, so I'll just go through and read them because I don't want to get too 20 distracted by only having three minutes to make comments on this major issue in my life. 21 22 First of all, I will just say that I object to almost every aspect of this Zoning Ordinance, flatly. 23 I've owned my land since 1958, and that was long before the City zoned it and annexed it. They 24 zoned it one acre like it was in the County, and then after we built our house they down-zoned 25 this to ten acres, and the house is situated not within the current zoning regulations. The setback 26 is maybe 100 feet for the house, but the 200 feet is the requirement on Page Mill Road, and I'm 27 just going to read the rest of this. 28 29 This zoning applies to almost one-half of the City. There are many sections over this area that 30 are very different in physical characteristics. There are many sections that are served by City 31 Utilities in different ways. There are many land parcels that have been developed under different 32 zoning laws and regulations. Prior to the down-zoning by a factor of lO-to-l in the 70s, the area 33 was developed with the City installing utilities based on one-acre zoning. Houses were built and 34 located on the properties based on the one-acre zoning, and that's almost all of the houses up 35 there, or many of them. When the 10 acre zoning was implemented, none of the houses met this 36 new zoning in location or size of the houses already built. Special variances are required for all 37 activities, remodeling, etc. on the houses. This involves very high fees, delays, arbitrary 38 decisions on allowing or denying the actions, changes or remodeling. Zoning Ordinances should 39 be written for this area of the City that are based on what is there now, what would make 40 variances unnecessary, and what would fit in without really affecting the environment or the 41 overall density. 42 43 Considering the vast public Open Space lands surrounding the private parcels, and I will throw 44 this in there, there are thousands of acres that surround this section of Page Mill Road ... 45 46 Chair Garber: Why don't you finish your letter, and then ... Page 17 1 2 Mr. Geiger: Okay, thank you. This Ordinance seems to be written in such a way that it allows 3 arbitrary decisions to be made at every step of the way. Denying the use of property can be 4 made on the basis of the undefined wording and vague statements contained in the Ordinance. 5 This new revised version of the Open Space zoning has only been available in the last few days, 6 which did not allow enough time for me to thoroughly review it before approving it. I would 7 request a few more weeks be allowed to thoroughly review it. 8 9 Passage of this Ordinance will mean that this type of Zoning Ordinance can be applied to other 10 sections of the City, especially if only limited areas are involved, and there are enough voters to 11 approve such an ordinance. This Ordinance can be used a guide in writing ballot measures to be 12 put before the voters. There are several areas of this City that need down-zoning as much as, or 13 more so, that this southwestern area of the City to protect the environment as well as to protect 14 the pocketbooks of homeowners. 15 16 The developed areas of the southwestern section of the City are surrounded by many thousands 17 of publicly-owned lands and do not really need protecting from over-development or flooding 18 from naturally occurring rainfall. I personally object to every aspect of this ordinance. The IC 19 and the FAR numbers, especially the FAR that is the same as the IC. There is no reason to have 20 a FAR as long as there is an Ie. Having a FAR that is the same as the IC discourages second 21 stories. It encourages spreading out the single-story houses, and it makes no sense, and among 22 other things, it is vague, has very excessive fees, long delays in approval or denial and denies the 23 reasonable use of my property. 24 25 Overall, the real intent of the Open Space Ordinance appears to be to prevent the use of private 26 property. Thanks for listening to me. I could point a vague use/vague statement ... 27 28 Chair Garber: Mr. Geiger, I think ... 29 30 Mr. Geiger: ... like agriculture and Open Space uses, and list a bunch of things ... 31 32 Chair Garber: Mr. Geiger ... 33 34 Mr. Geiger: ... and similar uses not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of this Chapter. 35 Who is going to define those words. Anyway, thank you. 36 37 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners? Comments? Can we get to Motion and then have 38 discussion around that, or are there general comments that any of the Commissioners would like 39 to make. Commissioner Fineberg. 40 41 Commissioner Fineberg: I have a quick question, if I could. Regarding Commissioner 42 Holman's comments about a potential consideration of maximum house size, if you've got a ten- 43 acre lot, and I'm picking that just arbitrarily, what would the maximum house size be? We've 44 got it quoted with percentages, but would that mean? How big would a house be, maximum size, 45 on a ten-acre lot? 46 Page 18 1 Mr. Williams: It's difficult to say, under the existing Code, because you have to make certain 2 assumptions about how much of your impervious coverage you are going to use for a house 3 versus for a pool, etc. etc., and then how much of a second story you are going to have, or a first 4 floor. But we use some basic assumptions of 80 percent of the impervious cover going to the 5 house and that the second story is about 80 percent of the first story size. 6 7 Using that assumption, a ten-acre lot would have allowable floor area of 21,954 square feet, 8 which theoretically could all be the house size, then. Under the proposed limitations, instead of 9 21,954 square feet, that would be 15,246 square feet. And then there is actually a bonus, too, if 10 you did 95% ofthe lot site was left in native vegetation or agriculture than it would be a little bit 11 more at 17,424 square feet. 12 13 Commissioner Fineberg: Is that analysis somewhere in here, and I missed it? 14 15 Mr. Williams: You have the PowerPoint presentation, the Table is Slide 13, Development 16 Example. 17 18 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so we can take that column that says this site FAR with bonus 19 and that could equate to the ground floor of the house? 20 21 Mr. Williams: That would equate to the total floor area. 22 23 Commissioner Fineberg: Including driveways and other impermeable surfaces? 24 25 Mr. Williams: No, floor area is in enclosed structure area, first and second floor added together. 26 27 Commissioner Fineberg: First and second. Got it, okay. Thank you. 28 29 Chair Garber: Sorry, is that it Commissioner Fineberg? 30 31 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes, thank you. 32 33 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner Rosati. 34 35 MOTION 36 37 Commissioner Keller: Let me try to throw out a Motion here, if I may, and I'd be happy to 38 entertain Amendments to it to just get it going. 39 40 The first thing is to move Staff recommendations with the following Amendments: 41 42 On Page 14 of the Ordinance, which is paragraph M, and I think this is 18.28.070M, let's see. 43 No, old Ml. It's new M which is the old L, sorry. 44 45 Chair Garber: Okay, and Item Number Ml, that starts, "All paves surfaces ... " 46 Page 19 1 Commissioner Keller: All paved surfaces, correct. Two Amendments to this. 2 3 The First Amendment is that where it says "all paves surfaces shall be classified as 100 percent, 4 75 percent, 50 percent or 25 percent impervious based on the material that is to be used and its 5 use," okay, because I think that the use of the materials is also important, not just the material, 6 but the use of the material, okay. 7 8 The second thing to this is that you figure out a wording for this in order to make this subject to 9 any member of the public allowing to add input, and I'll give Staff discretion in tenns of how to 10 add input to that. Okay? 11 12 The second change is with respect to the same section, except that it's paragraph three, and that 13 is the driveway within the scenic setback should be of a natural appearance. 14 15 The third changes is on Page 7, which is letter "a" which is, let's see, and let's be clear, 16 18.28.050b, number one, letter "A," amend this in the appropriate way to have an enforcement 17 provision that allows the City to require specific perfonnance or other penalties, and if you figure 18 out the appropriate wording of that. 19 20 The next item is 18.28.070b, and let me figure out where that is, and in particular in paragraph B 21 on Page 10, it's Bl and to specifically add that minor landscaping changes that involve less than 22 10 cubic feet, or changes that involve less than 10 cubic feet in grading change is to be 23 considered minor. So if they move 10 cubic feet, and I'm just coming up with something, and 24 maybe someone has a better number, but I'm just trying to quantify what "minor" might be in 25 that regard or relatively minor. 26 27 And, two changes that I am just going to reiterate to Staff so they have them, and these do not 28 have to be in the Motion, but I'm just going to mention them. 29 30 One is that Page 14 and 18.28.070, Paragraph 8, and I guess it's old L, new M8, and you are 31 going to figure out how to word that better, and similarly on 18.28.050 Bl, Table 3 on Page 7, 32 you are going to change the example to make it clear what you are talking about, something like 33 2.5 acres, and that's my Motion, and I'll be happy to entertain changes based on that. 34 35 Vice-Chair Tuma: Second. 36 37 Chair Garber: Seconded by Vice-Chair Tuma. Would the Maker like to speak to his Motion. 38 39 Commissioner Keller: I have tried to get in here the gist of what I think that people have 40 suggested and tried to write them down, and I would also like to thank Chair Garber and Vice- 41 Chair Tuma for their work, and also the members of the public in the Open Space community, 42 and other interested parties in their work in putting this together. And I would like to thank Staff 43 for their work in bringing this forward. This has been a deliberate process, and I think that as is 44 with all compromises, not everybody is happy with everything, but I think this is a reasonable 45 compromise, and it would be nice to have this done, and enacted. 46 Page 20 1 Chair Garber: And the Seconder? 2 3 Vice-Chair Tuma: Actually, I had a question for the Planning Director. Any thoughts on 10 4 cubic feet as the right threshold here? I think Commissioner Keller was throwing it out there and 5 it strikes me as a bit low. 6 7 Mr. Williams: I think we already have a cut-off that you don't need a permit if it is under 100 8 cubic feet, so I think that we would stick with the 100 cubic feet which is not a lot of grading. 9 We have a ... and lwas just saying, Commissioner Keller, that you don't require permit under 10 100 cubic feet, so I think that would be a more appropriate number, and I had that question too of 11 Clare and that actually would be different. A hundred cubic yards gets to be a lot more, so. 12 13 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yeah, I was actually thinking it was 10 cubic yards. I hadn't realized it was 14 feet. 15 16 Mr. Williams: Yeah, so if we could use 10 cubic yards, I think that would be better, or 100 cubic 17 18 Vice-Chair Tuma: That is essentially just slightly more than a good-sized dump truck. 19 20 Commissioner Keller: Let me just point out that if you look at Page 10, B2, it refers to the 21 threshold for Consent Calendar is the 100 cubic feet, so I was trying to pick something smaller 22 for one ... 23 24 Mr. Williams: Right, and I think it might be 100 cubic yards is ... 25 26 Commissioner Keller: Okay, so is the suggestion that I amend this to B2 be 100 cubic yards, and 27 to have Bl be 10 cubic yards? 28 . 29 Mr. Williams: Yeah. 30 31 Commissioner Keller: Okay, I'll make that Amendment. 32 33 SECOND 34 35 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yes, that would be acceptable. Okay, so with that, and in speaking to the 36 Motion, the only thing, and this is a second I suppose, the only thing that I would like to say, 37 having been a part of this process, is that it is actually quite nice to hear the comments from those 38 who were involved with this. I would agree and associate myself with the comments of the 39 members of the public in terms of it being a functional process. There is some give and take, and 40 in a compromise no one is 100-percent happy, and I think that is kind of where we have come to. 41 I think we were in a better position than we were before, but I really do sincerely appreciate the 42 process and the folks that were involved. While we were able to disagree and debate certain 43 things, there was a great degree of, I think, earnest effort to make things better. While we may 44 disagree about some of the things along the way, I really applaud the members of the public and 45 as Ms. Cartmell said, the numbers have dwindled from when we first started in terms of those 46 who were here, but I don't think the passion or the caring has dwindled at all on behalf of the Page 21 1 members of the public, and I'm glad that you folks could come here and stick it out to this hour 2 and carry forward the sentiments of the members of the public up there, and I think we have 3 taken 'a lot of that on board, and I think that at the end of the day there are a few things that we 4 just didn't come to an agreement on, but there is a lot that we did, and I'm thankful for that 5 process. Thank you. 6 7 Chair Garber: Commissioner Rosati, Commissioner Holman and then Commissioner Fineberg. 8 9 Commissioner Rosati: I have a question about a comment made by Mr. Conroe, regarding 10 detached garages on properties that are less than, is it five acres, or three acres? Can you 11 comment on that? 12 13 Mr. Williams: Yes, I think what he was suggesting was that we allow detached garages with 14 second units above them. Detached garages are allowed. They are subject to now the 15 impervious cover floor area ratio limitations, but we do not allow, virtually in any of our Zoning 16 Districts, for second units, second story above-the-garage second units. There were a number of 17 them built some time ago, and we do have them around town, but generally all of the detached 18 second unit requirements are one-story and 17 feet. 19 20 Chair Garber: Is that it? Anything else? Commissioner Holman and then Commissioner 21 Fineberg. 22 23 Commissioner Holman: Yes, I also want to express appreciation to the Commissioners, the 24 public and Staff for participating in the process, and also gratitude to Staff for not recommending 25 the change of the District, and the reason is because the purpose of the District is to protect the 26 Open Space character and residential is an allowed use, but to put in the name changes, I think 27 the purpose and characteristics that would be proposed in the District, so I'm happy that that 28 didn't happen. 29 30 My question for Staff is, there are standing conditions of approval for the Open Space District. 31 Would it be appropriate to reference those because staff comes and goes, commissioners come 32 and go, and I get concerned sometimes that they get lost. Would there be an appropriate place to 33 reference those? It's like a checklist of standing conditions. 34 35 Mr. Williams: You mean to actually put those in the Ordinance itself, because we do have/we 36 did add the language about "Standard Conditions of Approval" on Page 16 that says that we 37 should maintain those standard conditions of approval. 38 39 Commissioner Holman: I overlooked that. Thank you very much. 40 41 Mr. Williams: Yeah, that was in there. The last go-around, the Commission made that addition 42 a couple of years ago. 43 44 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. I had overlooked that this was already in there. 45 Page 22 1 And then one quick question having to do with parking in the scenic setback, is there a reason 2 that it is only 50 feet, because it's a 200-foot setback, so I'm wondering why it's only 50 feet? 3 4 Mr. Williams: Because it's more than 30 feet than it was last time. 5 6 Commissioner Holman: Fifty feet isn't very far, and especially ... 7 8 Mr. Williams: Wen, I think because, as Cathy Cartmell pointed out, there are instances where 9 you may have a nice flat spot where you can tum out, off the driveway and park your car, 10 particularly for visitors coming, and then you may not have another spot until you get up to the 11 house, or you may not have spots at the house if your own family is parking there. It needs to be, 12 and it should be, a distance that we are pretty comfortable that there is a requirement for it to be 13 screened, but even without that [screening], we are pretty comfortable in that area that it is likely 14 to be somewhat hidden and so I think 50 feet does that. 15 16 You know, it's not magic, but it's that we had 30 feet, and we thought that in most places up 17 there probably is enough to kind of hide the parking space, but we went with 50 as the 18 Commission obviously was not comfortable last time with 30, and we thought 50 was a workable 19 number. 20 21 Chair Garber: I'm sorry, did you have more, otherwise I was going to make just a comment 22 related to the ... 23 24 Commissioner Holman: Yeah, did you have any thought about maximum skylight size or 25 dimensions? 26 27 Chair Garber: I don't have a specific suggestion there, you know, sort of the maximum size of a 28 skylight that you can buyout of a catalog is probably in the area of 12 square feet or something 29 of that sort, you know, 3 x 4 feet. I'm hesitant, and I guess where my mind was going is that we 30 could create a limitation but you WOUldn't, for instance, want to ... 31 32 Commissioner Holman: I'm okay with that, if what you can generally purchase is no more than 33 12 square feet, that range, then people can buy or make custom ones, but/and then the other one I 34 had asked Commissioners to, and well, let me go back to the parking in the scenic setback. I'm 35 not going to be able to craft specific language, but I would feel more comfortable if there was an 36 alternate proposal that was submitted to Council if the Commission is comfortable with this, 37 such that parking was allowed in the scenic setback, and hang on her just a second, at 100 feet 38 unless no reasonable site was available and then it would defer to the 50-foot. 39 40 Chair Garber: Some comments regarding that. I think one of the learnings that I had, and I think 41 Vice-Chair Tuma had, in walking through a number of the sites up there, is that there are sites 42 where you could be lO-foot from Page Mill and not see the car. The other circumstance that 43 often occurs is that, because of the topography, there are houses that have to exist within 200 44 feet, and there is literally no place to park and it is very difficult to get around, so I'm 45 comfortable with 30 feet, although I was not here at the last meeting to participate in that 46 conversation. Page 23 1 2 I'm also comfortable with the 50 feet, in that there is going to be plenty of opportunity to keep 3 cars from becoming dominant in the experience of moving up and down Page Mill. I have no 4 doubt that there will be requests for variances because there will be circumstances where those 5 who are trying to get that to occur just wiIl not be able to have them. 6 7 Commissioner Holman: You noted that I did include the 50-foot allowance. 8 9 Chair Garber: Yes. Yeah, yeah, I'm just reporting sort of from the field here. 10 11 Commissioner Holman: Yeah, so are you okay with that alternate being provided to Council? 12 13 Chair Garber: State it again for me please, I'm sorry. 14 15 Commissioner Holman: That, and I'm not going to be able to draft the language, Curtis? 16 17 Mr. Williams: Yeah, I think what it would probably say is something to the effect that parking, 18 other than the required parking space, could be allowed within the scenic setback, not closer than 19 .100 feet, unless let's say the Director determined that there was not a feasible location in which 20 case that it could be located no closer than 50 feet, or something like that. 21 22 Commissioner Holman: That sounds good. 23 24 Chair Garber: I'm good with that. Maker and the Seconder? 25 26 Commissioner Keller: I'll accept that. 27 28 Chair Garber: Alright. 29 30 Commissioner Holman: And then my last comment is, I actually do favor a maximum house 31 size and the reason is because it breaks up, and it doesn't affect how much can be developed on a 32 site, but I favor a maximum house size and I doubt the Director on what his notions were on this 33 and he gave me numbers of, and not to put you on the spot here; but there are numbers we have 34 seen bandied about, and there is a basis for them on Woodside, a suggestion of 8000 square feet 35 where the lot is less than 10 acres, to 12,000 where the lot is over 15 acres. 36 37 The reason is because it breaks up the development. You still want the buildings to be clustered. 38· That is consistent with the open space requirements. It reduces the roof form. The other thing 39 that it does, and I look at some of the projects that have come forward that have been just really, 40 really large single homes that have really expansive roof forms and what happens with that is 41 that the tree canopy gets interrupted. I don't care how compatible the roof form is, the tree 42 canopy gets interrupted so you see the bare spot. There is a gap in the tree canopy. 43 44 Those are the two reasons why I support a maximum house size. There are some green aspects 45 to this because houses get used more intensely, typically, than other buildings on a site, but that's 46 my reasoning and rationale, and I'm hoping that would be accepted as a Friendly Amendment. Page 24 1 2 Commissioner Keller: Do I understand your Amendment to be that 85 percent of the allowed 3 FAR may be as part of the primary dwelling? 4 5 Commissioner Holman: That is not what I said. I said maximum house size. That's a different 6 approach. The 85 percent is a different approach. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: Well, I don't know what is your proposal then? I am confused. 9 10 Commissioner Holman: Maximum house size of 8000 square feet on parcels of less than 10 11 acres and 12,000 on parcels over 15 acres. 12 13 Mr. Williams: And then you would need to talk, actually, and maybe those kinds of ranges, but 14 it doesn't really speak between 10 and 15 acres. 15 16 Commissioner Holman: That's true, it doesn't. 17 18 Mr. Williams: So you can say 10,000 or whatever. 19 20 Commissioner Holman: Ten thousand is fine. 21 22 Mr. Williams: But those are just numbers based on sort of similarities some other cities have. 23 24 Chair Garber: Let's get some discussion on this topic. Commissioner Rosati. 25 26 Commissioner Rosati: I have a question for Mr. Williams, given his experience in other cities 27 that have this limitation, if you could comment on that, please. 28 29 Mr. Williams: Well, the other cities that have this that I am particularly aware of, and especially 30 Woodside, have had this for a long time, so there is some consistency there that has been there 31 for a long time. I think the major concern I'd have is sort of introducing it now, but in those 32 communities I think it has had some beneficial affect of tending to avoid having some really 33 huge homes. On the other hand, there are sites I've seen in those communities where they could 34 easily add a much bigger home, and nobody would ever have known it, and it would not have 35 affected anyone. 36 37 I think that's the fundamental problem here is that each site is a bit different and you have Site 38 and Design Review to look at everyone and sort of make some of those determinations. I know 39 it's hard to say no, you go smaller, because it's going to big, so it's hard to say that. And then 40 the flipside also is that those sites tend to then spread out more, the development, when they have 41 those, and they tend to become more like compounds and that kind of thing, where you have got 42 several different buildings on a site and sometimes it looks like multiple homes, but it is not 43 reall y, so that's sort of the down side, but where it's been in affect for a while, it's been helpful 44 in preventing the really very large homes that you see in the country, on the opposite side of Los 45 Altos Hills, which has some slope density regulations and all of that kind of thing, but it doesn't 46 have any kind of maximum house sjze, so you get above about two acres and the sky is the limit Page 25 1 with the house sizes, and you kind of see that, but then those are much more exposed than what 2 we are talking about here, I think, for the most part, in terms of having less vegetation than we 3 would see in the Open Space District here. 4 5 Commissioner Holman: If I might, Curtis points out one thing, in that it is very difficult and on 6 what do you base it? I've never seen support for affecting a project that comes forward that has 7 an enormous house, and I don't mean to name projects. You all have seen them, either out there 8 or you have reviewed projects here. How would you require a 25,000 square foot house to break 9 the mass up more or build around trees so that the roof form just doesn't just cause this bald spot, 10 basically, in the side of the hill, so that is really one of the primary reasons why I'm interested. 11 12 Again, it doesn't limit the amount of development that they are allowed, and they would still 13 have to cluster. I agree with Curtis that it might seem more like a compound but I don't know 14 that this is a bad thing. You would still want it clustered so that it's close by and you are not 15 disturbing a lot more land. 16 17 Chair Garber: Are you saying that for a site that would allow 20,000 square feet of house, that 18 you would allow a number of structures up to some limit? I mean, if you had a maximum house 19 size of 8000, you would be able to put two of those on a piece of property that had 20,000 square 20 foot allowable? 21 22 Commissioner Holman: Well, you can't put two houses on it, but you have the same 23 development privilege as you would if there was no maximum house size. It just wouldn't be in 24 the house. 25 26 Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma. 27 28 Vice-Chair Tuma: I am open to a discussion about this topic and I think we should discuss it. 29 However, I think there is a note made in the staff report which I think makes a lot of sense. It's 30 almost midnight, and we are talking about an issue which we really have not spent much time 31 debating. We haven't spent much time investigating it and one of the things that was in the Staff 32 report is that if we wanted to explore this issue, we should re-notice this discussion and reach out 33 to those who would be affected and do some more research. I think if we want to go down this 34 path, I don't think the way to do it is to add it on almost at midnight. 35 36 I think we should, and I don't know if we could go and move forward with the Ordinance as is, 37 without this issue resolved, and come back on this issue as another Amendment to the 38 Ordinance, or do something different, but I don't/and I'm not opposed to it. . 39 40 I'm opposed to it at this hour without the opportunity to really understand what the impacts are. 41 We are sort of somewhat arbitrarily picking 8000. We don't know, and I just, and I mean it is 42 anticipated that this might come up and the suggestion was that if we were going to do it, let's re- 43 notice it and get the information out there. 44 45 I would, if I was someone who read this, and I had a IS-acre parcel and I read this, and it said, 46 well, they are not going to decide this issue tonight, so if it comes up, I'll find out about it, and Page 26 1 then we'll deal with it, and then we come through and we recommend these limitations, I think 2 that is problematic. 3 4 Commissioner Holman: That's fair. 5 6 Chair Garber: Does the Maker want to support that Amendment, or you were offering it as an 7 Amendment, were you not? 8 9 Commissioner Keller: Let me ask this question. Looking at Attachment E, it looks like there are 10 a couple of really large parcels, some/one 314-acre parcel, one 164-acre parcel, one 139-acre 11 parcel, one 44-acre parcel and then a 24-acre parcel. In other words, there are five really large 12 parcels. Do we know what those parcels are? You know, for example, there are things 13 belonging to the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, and stuff like that. Are any of 14 those privately owned, or are those public, or what? 15 16 Ms. Campbell: Okay, the first two, the large ones, the 314-acre and the 164-acre lot, those are 17 owned by a private company. They were previously known as Kaiser Cement, but I think that 18 there has been a name change, so they are owned by it, and I think they have extraction and 19 mining purposes. If you look at an aerial photo, there is nothing actually happening on these 20 particular parcels, but if you look a little bit more to the right, you can see this big patch that has 21 already been worked on already. I don't think, and it doesn't seem or appear, that any change is 22 going to happen. I mea:n, who knows, but it doesn't look that way. 23 24 And the third lot that you mentioned, the one that is 139 acres, that is own by just a private 25 citizen. 26 27 Commissioner Keller: And the 44 acres and the 20 acres, do you know are those private citizens 28 as well? . 29 30 Ms. Campbell: Yes. All of the lots that are listed on this listing, we've/I've taken out the City- 31 owned parcels, the golf course and the Mid Peninsula Open Space lots, so that way we know that 32 those lots-are not going to be turned over for development, and all the ones that are there and are 33 listed are all privately owned. 34 35 Commissioner Keller: Thank you, so basically what we have is a situation which there is 36 potential for some of the large lots to be redeveloped at some point with really eventually big 37 houses or subdivided into pieces, or whatever. 38 39 Chair Garber: As a reminder, your Seconder probably would not support the Amendment. 40 41 Commissioner Keller: Well, then it probably doesn't matter whether I support it, so is that 42 correct? The Seconder will not support it? 43 44 Vice-Chair Tuma: Like I said, I can't support doing it tonight without more investigation and 45 understanding. What I would propose is that, and with the procedure, I don't know what the best Page 27 1 thing is to do here, but could we vote on the Ordinance as it is, and then request that this topic 2 come back to us for further discussion and possible Amendment? 3 4 Mr. Williams: Yes, you could do it in one or a couple of ways. One is you could recommend 5 the Ordinance move forward to Council and come back after we have noticed the other aspect of 6 it, and that one issue will come before you. Or, we could hold the Ordinance going to Council in 7 abeyance until you've had that opportunity so that the Council does not see it in two pieces. Or, 8 you could just basically maybe do like a straw poll supporting the Ordinance as it is now and 9 saying you are going to defer your final vote until we provide notice of the maximum house size 10 proposal and then come back with that, and my guess is that we are talking about probably 45 11 days or something like that to put a notice together, get it out there and allowing people to have 12 the time to call and ask questions and then get back on the Commission's Agenda. 13 14 Commissioner Keller: If we were going to consider this, I do think it makes sense to give the 15 public an opportunity to weigh in on this, because I agree with Vice-Chair Tuma, they have not 16 weighed in on it, and so I see a couple of different options. I think it's awkward for us. If we are 17 going to come back to this soon, I think it's awkward for us to pass the Ordinance and then 18 amend it later. That seems like an odd process. 19 20 What I would suggest is that we have two straw votes. One straw vote is on the current proposal 21 as is, as to whether people support that, and actually let's do it in the other order. First have a 22 straw vote on whether people want to consider a maximum house size limitation, and if people 23 want to consider it, then we can have a straw vote on whether people liked this, what we have 24 already done with the potential addition of a maximum house size Ordinance, and that will also 25 give us where to go, because otherwise if there is not enough support for a maximum house size, 26 then coming back to it just doesn't make any sense. Does that ... 27 28 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yeah, I think the first part of that, having the straw vote on whether we want 29 to consider this topic at all. The other thing that I want to do is make sure that we don't come 30 back and revisit any of these other issues when we come back, and so whether that is done by 31 straw vote, or whether that is done by passing on the recommendation and then having the 32 Planning Department hold that in abeyance while we come back on the other issue, whatever 33 way we do that, Ijust don't want to reopen anything that we have already decided tonight when 34 we come back. 35 36 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Commissioner Holman. 37 38 Commissioner Fineberg: I believe we should have a discussion on the maximum house size but I 39 agree with Vice-Chair Tuma that at midnight without public notice it would be inadvisable to 40 vote on it tonight. My concern is that the Ordinance is kind of a package deal, and it's a 41 compromise. There is a giving and a taking to craft something that hopefully is a good 42 Amendment to the Ordinance. If we separate out one aspect that's purely a taking, it becomes 43 something that is a negative on one issue as opposed to something in its entirety where there is a 44 give and a take. I would not want to see it passed with then a separate item coming back and I 45 would agree that, if it comes back to us as a package, that we can each refrain from undoing the Page 28 1 progress that we have made tonight, and that be the only, and is there a mechanism that the 2 discussions limited to that additional point, and then that the vote would on the entire package? 3 4 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yeah, it's called a 12-inch ruler, and you get wrapped on the knuckles if you 5 start going back to the other things. 6 7 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, I would favor that with the continuation then. 8 9 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 10 11 SUBSTITUTE MOTION 12 13 Commissioner Holman: If Curtis thinks this would be agreeable, I was going to offer a Motion 14 that might actually settle that and that would be to Move that the Open Space Ordinance come 15 back to the Planning Commission 1) for discussion of maximum house size after appropriate 16 public notification, and 2) that the items included in the Motion that was set forth earlier will be 17 agreed upon. 18 19 SECOND 20 21 Commissioner Keller: I'll second that. 22 23 Chair Garber: No, that we are agreeing to the Motion as was initially presented to us. 24 25 Commissioner Holman: So point of clarification it is so that the Amendment will come back to 26 us as previously agreed, but we are not approving the previous Motion. That's correct. 27 28 Commissioner Keller: In other words, we are directing staff to amend the Ordinance as per my 29 original Motion, and come back to us with the consideration of maximum home size? 30 31 Commissioner Holman: That is correct, except we are not piecemealing it. We are just getting 32 clarity that we are not going to reopen those topics again. 33 34 Chair Garber: And we have an Acceptance by the Maker and the Seconder. You are offering a 35 ... was that a Substitute Motion? 36 37 Commissioner Holman: That was the Motion. 38 39 Chair Garber: So you are retracting your ... 40 41 Commissioner Holman: No, it's the same thing. It's just a clarification of perhaps what the 42 Motion was. 43 44 Commissioner Keller: I'll take Karen's proposal as a Friendly Amendment. 45 46 Vice-Chair Tuma: And I will support that. Page 29 1 2 Commissioner Holman: I was making it as a separate Motion. 3 4 Chair Garber: Yes, I think the way to do this Commissioner Keller is for you to retract your 5 Motion and adopt Commissioner Holman's Motion. 6 7 Commissioner Keller: Okay, I will retract my Motion and second Commissioner Holman's 8 Substitute Motion. 9 10 Chair Garber: All those in favor, say aye (ayes) all those opposed? The motion passes. Page 30 CORRESPONDENCE OS Zone District Revisions ATTACHMENT I Staff received comment letters from the residents of the Open Space zone district. These letters were generally unsupportive of added regulations to the district, as well as the potential addition of a Maximum House Size regulation. Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Len Lehmann [Ien@vitelus.com] Friday, May 01, 2009 2:25 PM Campbell, Clare Subject: Comments on the proposed Maximum House Size, OS district Clare, Page 1 of2 . Please kindly circulate this correspondence to the members of the Planning and Transportation Commission, and add it to the public record on the proposed Maximum House Size within the OS district. Thank you, Commissioners: I oppose the inclusion of a Maximum House Size within the revised Open Space district zoning. The rule appears arbitrary, unnecessarily harsh, and likely to promote undesirable consequences. [1] The Commission has not yet stated what problem it is trying to solve, why the problem is significant, and why the problem can't be mitigated through other, less imposing, means. The residents of the district are content with the current rules and broadly oppose the proposed changes, including a Maximum House Si~e. The Commission has requested staff to propose a variety of solutions to a problem which is not clear. I did hear one commissioner say at a past meeting that a large house would necessitate staff, and consequently commuting trips by staff. However, no facts have been introduced to support the case that there are too many trips at present, or that limiting house size would substantially reduce traffic. There has been no comparison, for example, between the traffic load introduced by home staff as compared with traffic load associated with other permitted uses, such as educational institution, senior home, agricultural, or recreational. Staff load is clearly inconsequential compared with these other activities. I also heard a previous comment by a commissioner saying that a large house would require large resource consumption. This is true, but if this is the problem the problem the City is trying to solve it would be much more effective to restrict inefficient architecture throughout the city, or to limit square feet per resident throughout the city, rather than limiting square feet per acre solely in the Open Space. [2] The proposed rule reduces the property value of properties owned by citizens within the District. Neighboring properties in Portola Valley, neighboring unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County, neighboring unincorporated areas of San Mateo County and Los Altos Hills permit more development than is even currently permitted in the Palo Alto Open Space. The proposed rule change would reduce the permitted intensity of develop by up to 65% for a 10 acre property. The proposed rule change could reduce property values substantially and therefore it seems to me that the City has a significant burden of showing the public benefit of the changes. [3] The Commission has already asked staff to restrict development on the basis of impervious coverage, and again on the basis of FAR. A Maximum House Size would be a third, and unnecessary, layer of restriction, three tools to accomplish the same, unclear, goal. [4] I don't see "House" or "Maximum House Size" defined in 18.04 of the Municipal Code. The term is very unclear. Does it mean the size largest residential structure? Does it mean any structure, or the sum of all structures? Does it include the garage if it is attached? If it is unattached? How does this concept apply if the property is used as an old-age home? How does the concept apply for non-residential uses? [5] I am concerned that these changes to the zoning rules will ultimately promote a monoculture of similarly- sized residential use. Currently, one of the most appealing things about the OS zone, and completely consistent 6/15/2009 Page 2 of2 with the General Plan, is that there is great diversity here, oflot size, of topography, and of use. We have educational and research institutions, recreation, agriculture, at least one winery, as well as residential uses. We should encourage this diverse use, and not focus so greatly on residential that we drive other uses out of the zone and that the area becomes, frankly, boring. Respectfully, Leonard Lehmann Property Owner 850 Los Trancos Road City of Palo Alto, OS District 6115/2009 Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: David Hopkins [dhopkins12@hotmail.com] Saturday, May 16,20094:37 PM Campbell, Clare Subject: OS zone proposed maximum house size To the Planning and Transportation Committee of Palo Alto: Dear Committee Members, Page 1 of 1 We are long-time residents of Palo Alto in the OS zone district. We can appreciate that the City wants to maintain a rural environment in this area. At the same time, as property owners we are very concerned about the imposition of new zoning restrictions that will affect our ability to expand our home and the value of our property. Given that the proposed action to impose significant new constraints on maximum house size in the district will affect the freedom of property owners to build on their land, and therefore the value of their land, the City should have a major and compelling reason to impose these restrictions. Yet, we have not heard any reason articulated by the staff or the Planning and Transportation Committee. We understand that the new focus on house size was triggered by the Goldman residence at the top of Alexis Drive. This property occupies a very sensitive spot in the eyes of the City due to its proximity to Foothills Park and since it is in the direct view line of the park's Lookout Point. In this regard, it is unique. Had that house been located on practically any other property in the OS zone, it would not have offended the City and its residents much, if at all. Given this fact, is it fair to penalize a hundred or so OS zone residents, many of whom live nowhere near or visible from the City's park lands, due to this one special situation that cannot be undone? We hope, therefore, that you might agree that the interests of the property owners, who, after all, are citizens of Palo Alto, are not at odds with the City's interests in this instance. Please do not pass these restrictions on maximum house size. If you must do so, please reconsider the logic of allowing the specified maximum house size --proposed to be 12,000 sq. ft. --on a is-acre lot, but not on a 9-acre (or 2-acre) lot. If there is a compelling reason to restrict house size, why would it apply differently to different lot sizes? Even a 2-acre lot can accommodate a 12,000 or a 20,000 sq. ft. house and still have a considerable amount of land to act as a buffer zone. You already have control over this through the existing restrictions on impervious coverage ratio, so why do you need more? Thank you for your consideration. David and Rosemary Hopkins 920 Laurel Glen Dr. Palo Alto Hotmail@ has ever-growing storage! Don't worry about storage limits. Check it out. 6/15/2009 Page 1 of2 Campbell, Clare From: Altman, Vernon [Vernon.Altman@8ain.com] Sent: Saturday, lVIay 16.20095:19 PM To: Campbell, Clare Cc: David Hopkins Subject: FW: as zone proposed maximum house size To the Planning and Transportation Committee of Palo Alto: Dear Committee Members, The following email was sent to you by my friend and neighbor, David Hopkins. I want to express my complete agreement with David's email. In my opinion, this entire movement by the City of Palo Alto is unwarranted and is an inappropriate challenge to the rights of property owners. When we purchased our land and built our home in Palo Alto, we did so in good faith that the City would abide by the restrictions in force at that time. The City did so. Our home was carefully reviewed by all relevant City representatives from the Planning Department to City Council. We carefully operated within our rights as established by the City, and asked for no variances in process or restrictions. It seems only fair that you should continue to maintain good faith with property owners in the as by enforcing existing conditions and restrictions through your existing processes, versus imposing new ones that seem arbitrary and without rationale. I Sincerely and respectfully request that you and your colleagues leave the current policies, procedures and restrictions in place. With the one exception indicated in David's email, the City has effectively controlled development in the as for decades. Existing policies, procedures and restrictions should serve the City well into the future. Vernon E. Altman 928 Laurel Glen Drive Palo Alto, CA 94304 From: David Hopkins [mailto:dhopkins12@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 4:42 PM To: Altman, Vernon; stluciw@yahoo.com; mark@presidiodp.com; paposna@yahoogroups.com; winfriedwilcke@earthlink.net; fkirkman@earthlink.net; amazing_grace41@hotmail.com; lawinvest@mac.com; pingem@yahoo.com; dulitz@gmail.com; Cathy Cartmell Subject: FW: OS zone proposed maximum house size I just send this letter in to the City if anyone is interested. I doubt whether it will make any difference, but I guess we should still voice our opinions to the staff and P&T Committee before they act. From: dhopkins12@hotmaiJ.com To: Subject: as zone proposed maximum house size Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 16:37:04 -0700 To the Planning and Transportation Committee of Palo Alto: Dear Committee Members, We are long-time residents of Palo Alto in the as zone district. We can appreciate that the City wants to maintain a rural environment in this area. At the same time, as property owners we are very concerned about the imposition of new zoning restrictions that will affect our ability to expand our home and the value of our property. Given that the proposed action to impose significant new constraints on maximum house size in the district will affect the freedom of property owners to build on their land, and therefore 6115/2009 Page 2 of2 the value of their land, the City should have a major and compelling reason to impose these restrictions. Yet, we have not heard any reason articulated by the staff or the Planning and Transportation Committee. We understand that the new focus on house size was triggered by the Goldman residence at the top of Alexis Drive. This property occupies a very sensitive spot in the eyes of the City due to its proximity to Foothills Park and since it is in the direct view line of the park's Lookout Point. In this regard, it is unique. Had that house been located on practically any other property in the OS zone, it would not have offended the City and its residents much, if at all. Given this fact, is it fair to penalize a hundred or so OS zone residents, many of whom live nowhere near or visible from the City's park lands, due to this one special situation that cannot be undone? We hope, therefore, that you might agree that the interests of the property owners, who, after all, are citizens of Palo Alto, are not at odds with the City's interests in this instance. Please do not pass these restrictions on maximum house size. If you must do so, please reconsider the logic of allowing the specified maximum house size --proposed to be 12,000 sq. ft. --on a is-acre lot, but not on a 9-acre (or 2-acre) lot. If there is a compelling reason to restrict house size, why would it apply differently to different lot sizes? Even a 2-acre lot can accommodate a 12,000 or a 20,000 sq. ft. house and stili have a considerable amount of land to act as a buffer zone. You a Iready have control over this through the existing restrictions on impervious coverage ratio, so why do you need more? Thank you for your consideration. David and Rosemary Hopkins 920 Laurel Glen Dr. Palo Alto Hotmail@ has ever-growing storage! Don/t worry about storage limits. Check it out. Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check~it~t. _________________ NOTICE __________________ -------- This electronic mail transmission, including any attachments,contains confidential information of Sain & Company, Inc. ("Sain") and/or its clients. It is intended only for the person(s) named, and the information in such e-mail shall only be used by the person(s) named for the purpose intended and for no other purpose. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other persons, or by the person(s) named but for purposes other than the intended purpose, is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then destroy this e-mail. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relateto the official business of Sain shall be understood to be neither given nor endorsed by Sain. When addressed to Sain clients, any information contained in this e-mail shall be subject to the terms and conditions in the applicable client contract. 6115/2009 Page 1 of 1 Campbell, Clare From: Mark Conroe [mark@presidiodp.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:07 PM To: Campbell, Clare; Williams, Curtis Subject: Comments to Proposed OS District Regulations Dear Planning Commissioners, Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the OS Working Group and for listening to those Palo Alto property owners who are intimately and significantly impacted by the proposed changes to the OS District Regulations. As you consider what details to include in the proposed regulations, I would ask that you consider the following comments: 1. Max House Size: Given that the size of proposed OS homes are not only limited by the 3.5% of impervious coverage rule but also subject to the newly created FAR limitations (which have reduced the size of proposed homes by up to 50%), it seems unnecessarily harsh to also impose a further restriction related to maximum home size, especially for 5-10 acre parcels of land (especially one set at 8,000 sJ.). Also, would this maximum house size include the secondary structure allowed (thereby further reducing the primary home size to less than 8,000 s.f.)? 2. Second Dwelling Units: I would ask that you go with Staffs originally recommended minimum 3 acre site requirement for a Second Dwelling Unit (instead of 5 acres). Again, the area of the homes are being significantly reduced and providing this flexibility for sites that are 3 to 5 acres in size would not increase the size of allowable home area, just the distribution of it. 3. flCertain Agricultural Uses" /FAR Density Bonus: Many properties in the OS area have had agricultural uses associated with them since the 1800s. For example, the property that my family has owned for decades has 100 year old olive trees and was used for vegetable and fruit growing for decades. Therefore, the density bonus related to FAR should include as flnative vegetation" vegetable and fruit growing areas (for example, since 50% of our property has been used for decades for fruit and vegetable growing, suggesting that 90% of it should not have these uses is unrealistic and certainly would not provide any opportunity for a bonus). 4. Minor Site and Design Review: Please clarify that landscaping changes/additions and grading less than 100 cy are included in this category. I can't imagine that anyone intends to require that the planting of a few trees should require the City Council's time and scrutiny, months of staff time, and cost thousands of dollars in application fees. It seems to us that the Planning Staff can handle small items such as these. Thanks again for your consideration, . Mark Conroe 575 los Trancos Road 612912009 Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Hello Ms. Campbell Sharon Luciw [stluciw@yahoo.com] Sunday, June 28, 2009 4:32 PM Campbell, Clare The proposed changes to the Zoning regulations for the Palo Alto Open Space District are excessive. It is the City Council who approves variances to the ordinance and therefore the directive you have received is a result of their own decisions. The changes currently being proposed are based on the results of what appears to be an arbitrary decision to grant permission to build a large structure on private property in the Open Space District. . In the last Planning and Transportation meeting on the proposed changes for the Open Space District, a suggestion was made by one of the commissioners to add roof size to the ordinance. Also the words'bald spots' in the Open Space District was used and is not a term I am familiar with to describe the Open Space District area. These capricious comments give the appearance the commission members are ill equipped to manage this change to the ordinance. . The proposed drastic changes to the ordinance may result in diminished property values and not allow the development of reasonably sized homes. I am very concerned the process has been arbitrary since the only reason the meetings began with the property owners was due to the property owners taking notice in writing to the commission. Proper notification and procedure for including the owners was not followed at the on set, making the results and recommendations illegitimate. The proposed changes are onerous and the commission needs to review the reasons behind the changes and the process before proceeding any further. Sincerely, Sharon Luciw 1 Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Subject: cathy cartmell [cathy@cartmelltam.com] Monday, June 29,20093:17 PM Campbell, Clare OS District Comments for July 8 meeting The Planning and Transportation Commission c/o Clare Campbell Planning Division City of Palo Alto Dear Commissioners, PAPOS, Palo Altans protecting Open Space, the Neighborhood Association for the Open Space District, holds these positions on the following five topics regarding changes to the Open Space Zoning Ordinance. NO FAR. The current 3.5% impervious coverage is already excessively restrictive. The proposed 5%-6% impervious surface coverage for the smallest properties is too excessively restrictive. For example, a one acre (43560 sf) property in the Open Space District would only be allowed a 2600 sf. home but in the R-1 District a 17,500 sf (.4 acres) lot is allowed a 6000 sf house. The only issues in the Open Space District which are different than issues in the R-1 District that would concern the general public are visibility issues and visibility issues can be handled in a more equitable way. The proposed restrictions will also create disparity between neighbors. A one acre property under the new rules would be allowed a 2600 sf house when a next door neighbor with the same size property has an existing +5000 sf house. NO MAXIMUM HOUSE SIZE. The current 3.5% impervious coverage already restricts house size. For example, in the R-1 District a 6000 sf house is allowed on a 17,500 sf (.4 acre) lot but with the proposed changes to the open'space zoning ordinance only an 8000 sf house would be allowed on a 9 acre (392,0400 sf) property. This is not close to porportional, especially when the only issue that concerns the general public are visibility issues. ALLOWANCES FOR AGRICULTURE USE. We appreciate the provision included in the draft that addresses this need, although it is subject to individual approval and subsequently may never be allowed. 2nd DWELLING. All properties should be allowed to have a second dwelling unit. A 43,560 sf lot is large enough to accommodate a second dwelling especially since the allowed square footage remains constant, and that the R-1 district in Palo Alto allows a second unit on 8100 sf lot APPROVAL PROCESS. The approval process even as proposed is long and arduous and extremely expensive. Cathy Cartmell President of PAPOS on behalf of PAPOS 1 Cam pbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Subject: cathy cartmell [cathy@cartmelltam.com] Tuesday, June 30, 20093:32 PM Campbell, Clare OS comments July 8 Planning Commission Planning and Transportation Commission c/o Clare Campbell Planning Division City of Palo Alto Dear Commissioners, Following are my thoughts and comments on the proposed changes of the Open Space Zoning Ordinance First I want to applaud the city of Palo Alto's representatives, Clare Campbell, Curtis williams, Commissioner Dan Garber, and Commissioner Samir Tuma for their efforts in working with the homeowners, and other interested parties on the study group convened on the zoning ordinance for the Open Space District in Palo Alto. They all are extremely patient, very professional lovely people with which to work. I endorse and second all the communications sent by my neighbors to the Planning Commission regarding the Open Space Zoning Ordinance, including comments from, PAPOS, Gary Gechlik, Len Lehman, Mark Conroe, David Hopkins. The property owners in the Open Space District are virtually all in agreement about the major issues as out lined in the letter from PAPOS. 2 years ago at the beginning of this process, the Planning Commissioners assured us at the that they just wanted to 'close the loop holes' in the current zoning ordinance that had developed due to recent technical advances in paving. But 'closing the loop holes' has ballooned into a whopping 71% reduction of development rights (this example is of my property since the actual percent varies because every single property is different) currently held in the OS District. The proposed changes to the Open Space zoning ordin~nce go way too far. This is the very definition of Downzoning. Visibility, the real issue The only issue that is different in the OS District, than in other districts in Palo Alto, are visibility issues, in other words visibility of the house from public areas. All other issues are very similar to all other districts in Palo Alto. Visibility issues can be handled in more direct ways then FAR and Maximum House Size. In fact it is already addressed in the OS District Zoning Ordinance I believe as 'Open Space Review criteria'. But by addressing visibility issues by introducing much more restrictive measures in the form of FAR and Maximum House Size the City of Palo Alto places an unfair burden on a minority group of property owners. To quote Dennis Coyle from his book 'Property Rights and the Constitution' "When the cost are concentrated and the benefits spread widely, the rights of the few are the most likely to be abused". The Study group We, the interested parties, have been working on this issue for over 2 years now. multiple planning commission meetings, 5 'study group' meetings and even some city council meetings if I remember correctly. The draft of the ordinance that the planning department presented after 5 meetings of the study group does not represent the positions of a large majority of the participants of the study group on the major issues but was developed independently by the planning department. I believe that the homeowners participation in the study group did have an impact on some of the minor issues but when it came to the major issues, such as FAR, Maximum House Size, and 2nd Dwelling units the Planning Department had a plan of their own and paid little regard to the homeowners positions. Though Home Owners repeatedly asked what was the motivation for the huge changes the Planning Department was proposing for the Open Space District, we were never given the reasons. So I ask, What are the Planning 1 Departments motivations to reduce development rights by half (FAR) and now almost half again (Maximum House Size)? The study group worked very well at allowing the homeowners to express their positions both about the regulations and the actual planning process. But the commissioners that attended the study group meeting were not allowed to express their opinion (citing the 'Brown Act' or something) nor could they represent the planning commissions intentions when talking to the study group. But, hopefully they were sensitized to the many issues confronting the property owners. So the discussions evolved around the homeowners positions but the conclusions produced by the Planning Department did not reflect these positions. As the actual residents and property owners we are the major stakeholders, we are by far the most effected class. We are a very small group of 80 or so properties and 70 or so property owners (if I remember correctly). You definitely could say we are a minority in Palo Alto. A minority which you are regulating. So our positions on these issues are important. What is the purpose of a study group if not to find a consensus of the participants or at least a majority of the participants? What is the purpose of the study group when the planning department simply imposes its will on the study group? At the last Planning commission meeting I heard commissioners comments on the successful give and take of the rule changes. In reality the proposed zoning ordinance changes are almost all 'take' with very little give, taking 71% of the remaining development rights I have. Aside from approx 30 properties between 5 and 10 acres which will be able to now have a second dwelling unit, really there was no 'give' to the property owners to balance the substantial taking. (A second dwelling does not increase the allowable development area) Over the 2 years we have been talking to the city of Palo Alto, many of the property owners in the OS District have come to the conclusion that the actual property owner's positions made little to no difference in impacting the staggering changes to the OS Zoning Ordinance the Planning Department is proposing. We are the actual constituency. We are Palo Alto Citizens. We are Palo Alto property owners You represent us and as the property owners and the residents. We are the most effected by these proposals. We are adversely effected by these changes but the City of Palo Alto has chosen to disregard the adverse effects on this minority constituency. I believe as the actual owners of the properties effected we should have the most to say about the rules regarding our properties. These rules effect the commissioners and all other people in only very minor ways. Where is the 'government of and for the people. ' Legal issues My understanding is that a widely held guideline in California suggest that a 95% reduction of property for 'environmental reasons' may constitute a taking. The City of Palo Alto has already taken 96.5% of every property in the OS District when they imposed a 3.5% Impervious Coverage Limit for all property in the Open Space District. To reduce something by 96.5% than say the reduction was not enough and that you are going to take another 71% off that would be a great sale at Macy's, but this is not a sale, these are my property rights you are taking to supply to the public at a highly discounted rate. The reSUlting rights of development retained is a miniscule 1% (29% of 3.5%)of property rights I would say that a 99% taking is well past the 95% marker. The issue of unreasonable taxes, was addressed in a recent court case. As property owners we are taxed on our whole property but are already prohibited from using 96.5% of our property not to mention the further proposed reduction resulting in a mere 1% of remaining property rights. The fee or tax is in the form of land (the prohibition from using your own land) not cash. The court found this to be an indirect form of taxation. Is reducing the allowable development of a whole district by 96.5% and an additional approx 71% equal to a taking? Or is it an improper tax or fee on development? The extravagant 3.5% impervious Coverage The current zoning regulations made back in the 1960's I think, left the homeowners with the extravagant amount of 3.5% Impervious Coverage only because the city was taking 96.5% of the property. Essentially meaning the property owner only retains 3.5% of the property. Well I say the City of Palo Alto taking 96.5% of my property is already taking too much and that the city proposing to take two thirds of the remaining rights is unbelievable. The Planning Department proposing already to impose a new regulation in the form of FAR, effectively cutting the development area by 50%. And now you are proposing to cut this amount almost in half again by imposing additional regulations in the form of maximum house size!!!! 2 No maximum house size Why did the Planning Commission wait to raise the issue of maximum house size till literally the 12th hour. The issue of Maximum House Size was not brought up until 11:45pm on the night the commission was voting on an already extremely restrictive os zoning Ordinance. The issue was brought forward as a 'friendly amendment' to the movement to accept the proposed draft of the Open Space zoning Ordinance with 'minor' changes. Why did the planning commission not discuss this with the working group we had 5 meetings over the course of more than a year? I do not recall anyone from the planning commission presenting maximum house size to the study group. I think it is in the very least disingenuous not to have had a frank discussion with the interested parties in an open forum, such as the study gro~p. Apparently the Planning Department does not think someone should be allowed to have a big house. Traditionally in our society this is determined by who can afford a big house. Certainly this is how it is throughout Palo Alto. No FAR Here's the thing, the city has already taken 96.5% of our property. The planning department is now proposing an FAR which cuts the development area of OS properties in half and now you want cut that in half again by imposing additional regulations regarding house size. Enough already. The city of Palo Alto has taken too much from us. Second Dwelling Unit for alIOS properties To argue that granting all properties a second dwelling unit in the Open Space District will generate too much traffic is contraindicated by the policies in The Open Space District and The City of Palo Alto, for that matter, which both promote heavy recreational use of their Open Space Areas. This recreational use requires people to drive to the Open Space. So, to say properties under 5 acres can not have a second dwelling unit because it might generate an additional 40 cars (2 additional cars per property effected). These cars are dispersed into 2 entirely different areas in the OS District, so 20 cars per area, seems contraindicated by other City of Palo Alto Policies. Palo Alto going green For instance if the argument is we want to be a greener city so we are reducing allowed development because development is not green. Then, this principal has to be applied equally to all Property owners in Palo Alto not just property owners in a single district in Palo Alto. If the reason is green, then, you must reduce all development equally, not select one group to say they must be green and the rest of Palo Alto does not have to be held to the same excessively high standards. This is signaling out a minority for different treatment then .the majority. To be fair reduce everybody's developable area by 71~ every commercial propertu and every residential property in the City of Palo Alto. If you want to be really fair first impose a 3.5% lot coverage and then reduce the remaining developable area by 71%. 'Bald Spots' in them there hills Someone on the Commission was concerned that big roofs would create 'bald spots' in the trees. There are bald spots in the trees allover the place up here. I have about a 2 acre bald spot on my property, my neighbors also have various size 'bald spots', as does the Los Trancos Open Space land across the street. Visually a roof will not appear any differently then these naturally occurring 'bald spots'. Creating a disparity of values between neighbors Such a drastic change in the zoning law creates a great inequity between neighbors. Where one neighbors house may be 4 times larger than the neighbor who wants to build now creates great inequity between neighbors. A one acre property, remember that is 43560 sf., can certainly easily accommodate a 5000 sf. house. To restrict these properties to a 2600 sf. house when the next door neighbor was allowed over 5000 sf just a few years ago is not fair. Allowing a property to have a house only half the size of their next door neighbor. This is not fair. I don't get it. Visibility is the only issue and visibility issues can be accommodated in so many differents ways, that to create this kind of disparity between neighbors is unnecessary. 3 Disparity between neighborhoods, os and R-1 See also the 6000 + 3000 house in the R-1 district someone else mentioned. In the R-1 District of Palo Alto you can build a 6000 sf. house on a 17500 sf. lot, but in the Open Space District a one acre property, 2.4 times bigger than the 17,500 sf. lot in the R-1, would only be allowed a 2600 sf. house. I don't get it. Visibility is the only issue and visibility issues can be accommodated in so many other ways, that to create this kind of disparity between neighborhoods is unnecessary. The City of Palo Alto would never attempt to reduce the development area of a commercial property or a larger group residential properties by first 96.5% then an additional 71%. Permit process Why are we saddled with an unwieldy excessively expensive permit process that cost each property owner in the least tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars)? The development of more and more rules add tremendous expense and burden to Palo Alto citizens and is not necessary, it is not necessary. The planning process is very expensive, I am just an ordinary person making less than an ordinary living. As a citizen of Palo Alto, The City should be making my life easier, less expensive, not adding such huge burdens. Set the record straight. my case I guess I should be embarrassed, but back around 1988 I bought my property not just for our home but also as a long term investment, 21 years so far. And yes that purchase value was based on the zoning ordinance. I hear time and time again various people claiming that the owners knew the rules when they purchased their properties so too bad for them, this is simply not always the case. I would like to set the record straight for my situation any way. Not everyone knows what they are walking into when they buy property in the OS District. I have to say before we purchased our property we did our due d~ligence and investigated the zoning laws but at the time the 'special' 200 foot scenic setback on Page Mill Rd was not written down in the Zoning Ordinance and no staff member was aware of the 200 ft scenic setback or disclosed the special scenic setback to us at the time. Also the surrounding houses were all built based on the 35 foot setback. So we did purchase the property only to find out about the 'special' 200 foot setback much later after we owned the property. So those who say all those property owners knew what they were getting into, it ain't necessarily so. And incase you did not realize it 200 feet is a huge amount of property, and I do find it excessive and an unfair purden. Especially when there are other more direct ways to mitigate the visual impacts a house makes. Government I have to agree with Gary very strongly that you as a City have to ask yourself, What is the point of government? Tyranny, I hope not. The government is to be of and for the people. What is the reason for government? Certainly to maintain order. And the mission of the Planning Department in particular, perhaps health, safety, and welfare. Also consider the basis of government, The California Constitution Article 1, Section 1, "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." when deciding about the proper role of the Planning Department in Society. Then, ask yourself Are these drastic changes to the Open Space Zoning Ordinance necessary because of health safety and welfare issues? Or are they necessary to uphold the inalienable right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting ones property? Because it looks like downzoning to me. What can I say, the over whelming majority, the huge majority, of interested parties have been against FAR, and Maximum House Size but the Planning commission continues to pursue these changes to the Open Space Zoning Ordinance. 3 minutes is just not enough when you are making decisions that impact myself and my property to such a great degree. Your decisions on this matter will have very little 4 effect on any of you or any other resident of Palo Alto for that matter. However, these rules do have massive impacts for the 80 or so properties in the Open Space District, of which I own one. Remember you must be fair and equitable to us and not hold us to standard not applied elsewhere in Palo Alto. Certainly visibility issues are a burden that many property owners in the Open Space District appreciate but this is very different than house size or FAA. Cathy Cartmell Homeowner Architect 5 Comprehensive Plan Policies That Relate To Development in the OS Zone Land Use Designation Description ATTACHMENT J Open Space/Controlled Development: Land having all the characteristics of open space but upon which some development may be allowed. Open space amenities must be retained in these areas. Residential densities range from 0.1 to 1 dwelling unit per acre but may rise to a maximum of 2 units per acre where second units are allowed, and population densities range from 1 to 4 persons per acre. Land Use and Communitv Design Polices & Programs POLICY L-l: Continue current City policy limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the urban growth boundary. Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for very low~intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area. Retain undeveloped Baylands northeast of Highway 101 as open space. POLICY L-69: Preserve the scenic qualities of Palo Alto roads and trails for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians. PROGRAM L~71: Recognize Sand Hill Road, University Avenue, Embarcadero Road, Page Mill Road, Oregon Expressway, Interstate 280, Arastradero Road (west of Foothill Expressway), Junipero Serra Boulevard/Foothill Expressway, and Skyline Boulevard as scenic routes. • Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway link the Bayshore Freeway to Interstate 280. Northeast of EI Camino Real, a wide rjght~of~way and ample landscaping make the Oregon Expressway portion of the corridor visually pleasing. Further west, the corridor has wide setbacks within Stanford Research Park. Design requirements imposed by Stanford University have set a high aesthetic standard for this segment. West of Interstate 280, Page Mill Road climbs steeply through native woodlands and grasslands towards Skyline Boulevard. Views are exhilarating as one approaches Skyline Boulevard. Skyline is a State~ designated scenic highway. • Arastradero Road winds through the lower foothills and leads to scenic Alpine Road in Porto.la Valley. To protect views and scenic qualities, Palo Alto has established a 200~ foot setback along upper Page Mill Road, Skyline Boulevard, and the portion of Arastradero Road in the lower foothills. • Foothill Expressway-Junipero Serra Boulevard is extensively bordered by undeveloped Stanford lands. Where development eXists, large setback reqUirements maintain a rural character on the western edge of the City. Natural Environment Goals. Polices & Programs Goal N-l: A Citywide Open Space System that Protects and Conserves Palo Alto's Natural Resources and Provides a Source of Beauty and Enjoyment for Palo Alto Residents. POLICY N-l: Manage existing public open space areas and encourage the management of private open space areas in a manner that meets habitat protection goals, public safety concerns, and low impact recreation needs. Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT F Part of the City's commitment to maintaining the foothills and baylands as open space is a commitment to environmentally sound management and, maintenance practices. Ecological values must be protected to realize the full aesthetic, recreational, safety, and educational benefits of open space. POLICY N-3: Protect sensitive plant species resources from the impacts of development. POLICY N-4: Preserve the foothill area as predominantly open space. This policy applies to public land, Stanford University land, and private land in the foothill area. POLICY N-6: Through irnplementation of the Site and Design process and the Open Space zone district regulations, minimize impacts of any new development on views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides. PROGRAM N-6: As part of the design review process for proposed development in the Open Space zone district that exceeds 6,500 square feet, require that "story poles" be erected with outlining tape depicting the building's location, bulk and height to aid in assessing the potential visual impacts of the proposed project. POLICY N-7: All development in the foothill portion of the Planning Area (i.e., above Junipero Serra Boulevard) should be consistent with the following criteria: City of Palo Alto Open Space Development Criteria 1. The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. As much as pOSSible, development should be sited so it is hidden from view. 2. Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend above the nearest ridge line. 3. Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring properties. 4. Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats. 5. Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance. 6. EXisting trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches, measured 4.5 feet above the ground level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation should be retained as much as possible. 7. Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to minimize the need for grading. 8. To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. 9. Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. 10. Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention technique. 11. Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible from off-site. 12. Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment.) 13. For development in unincorporated areas, ground coverage should be in general conformance with Palo Alto's Open Space District regulations. Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENTF POLICY N-17: Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property. POLICY N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. Water quality in San Francisco Bay has been degraded over time by pollutants from urban runoff, sewage, sediment, industrial discharges, ships, and a wide variety of other sources. Significant progress has been made in controlling water pollution from "point" sources like wastewater plants and industry. "Non-point" sources have been more difficult to contain, since they include a wide range of activities and are dispersed throughout the community. Emissions and residual materials from vehicles including metals, by-products of combustion, oil and grease are the greatest concern, but even activities like grading and lawn care can create problems. For example, preliminary data in the mid-1990s indicated that as much as 80% of the urban runoff copper load is coming from vehicle brake dust. Pollutants like copper, diazinon, lead, and zinc, are routinely carried by rainwater from paved surfaces and lawns to the City's storm drains and creeks. The programs below are intended to reduce non-point source pollution and restore water quality in the creeks and Bay. POLICY N-22: Limit the amount of impervious surface in new development or public improvement projects to reduce urban runoff into storm drains, creeks, and San Francisco Bay. PROGRAM N-34: Evaluate the use of permeable paving materials that allow for natural percolation and site drainage. POLICY N-53: Minimize exposure to wildland and urban fire hazards through rapid emergency response, proactive code enforcement, public education programs, use of modern fire prevention measures, and adequate emergency management preparation. PROGRAM N-79: Minimize fire hazards by implementing low density zoning in wildland fire hazard areas. Page 3 of 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I ATTACHMENT K City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment . California Environmental Quality Act DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: April 7, 2009 Project Name: Project Location: Applicant: Owner: Project Description: Background Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations The Open Space (OS) zoning district is located in the most southern region of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, between U.S. Highway 280 and Skyline Boulevard. The OS zoning district is comprised of approximately 114 parcels. City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 On June 13, 2007, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommended approval of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.28, Special Purpose Districts: PF, OS, and AC, with focused discussion on the Open Space (OS) district. The PTC directed staff to assemble a working group to evaluate potential approaches to credit semi-permeable materials against impervious cover in conjunction with maximum house size, floor area ratio, or other new regulations to assure that house size retains an appropriate scale. An OS working group comprised of OS district residents, open space advocates, two members of the PTC and staff was assembled and met five times from October 2007 through June 2008 to discuss the above mentioned issues and provided a forum for the residents to share their concerns as they related to other sections of the OS regulations. Proposed Project Based on the direction given by the PTC and working closely with the OS residents, staff proposes revisions to the following regulations in the OS zone district: 1. Impervious CoveragelFloor Area Ratio for residential development should be based on a sliding scale to determine the maximum allowable and to provide incentive to maintain or restore native vegetation. Non-residential calculation should be a defined percentage. 2. Impervious Cover Calculation should include all paved surfaces, with some exceptions noted, and classified as 100%, 75%, 50%, or 25% impervious, based upon the material and construction method to be used. 3. Review Process should be simplified with a clearer understanding of what a Minor project would be in the OS zone and creating two levels of Major project review based on the scope of work proposed. Page 1 of2 4. Follow-Up Arborist Report should be required five years after the final sign-off of the project completion. This report shall evaluate the health of trees and significant landscape that were required for screen planting or and/or were designated as protected plantings on the approved plans for the project (clarification of existing language). 5. Second Dwelling Units may be permitted if the minimum lot size is five (5) acres and shall follow the Residential Estate (R-E) District standards for second dwelling units (18.10.070 (b», except that the allowed maximum height for attached units shall be 25 feet. 6. Additional Parking in 200' Special Setback may be allowed if located at least 50' from the affected property line; those parking spaces cannot be the designated 4 required. 7. Trash Enclosures should be permitted, with design review, within the front setback, including Special Setbacks, providing it is not more than six (6) feet tall, covered, fitted with self closing gates, and screened. The access to the enclosure shall not be located on the side facing the street. 8. Skylights. The . light emitted from skylights shall be minimal during the night hours. Utilizing treatments such as translucent glass, shading systems, and interior light placement can reduce the night glare. II. DETERMINA TION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto's procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project located on San Antonio Road and frontage roads from Alma Street to U.S. Highway 101 Interchange could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: x The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures for traffic impacts have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. 04"07:09, Project Planner Date Page 2 of2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. PROJECT TITLE Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations 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 Clare Campbell City of Palo Alto 650-617-3191 4. PROJECT SPONSOR City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 5. PROJECT LOCATION The Open Space (OS) zoning district is located in the most southern region of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, between U.S. Highway 280 and Skyline Boulevard. The OS zoning district is comprised of approximately 114 parcels, see Figures 1 and 2. 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: There are four Comprehensive Plan land use designations associated with the Open Space zoned parcels. The land use designation that applies to the majority of the area is Open Space/Controlled Development. The proposed revisions to the Open Space zone district are consistent with the associated land use. designations. The four land use designations, as described in the Palo Alto 1998 -2010 Comprehensive Plan, are the following: Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 1 Negative Declaration Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 2 allli"J.;:" .. };:::rL _r,,,", 1Im!!!!l!"'~ l!Iit~'!'I!~';'. !I!iIlI!l':i'"'' 1Im!!!!l!-" . "",." . Figure 2: Open Space Zone District py FooUillis ;. Park Revisions to the Open Space Zone District ","",.,uu",mo Page 3 Negative Declaration Single Family Residential: Includes one dwelling unit on each lot as well as conditional uses requiring permits such as churches and schools. Specific areas may be zoned to allow second units or duplexes where they would be compatible with neighborhood character and not create traffic and parking problems. The net density in single family areas will range from 1 to 7 units per acre, but may rise to a maximum of 14 units in areas where second units or duplexes are allowed. Population densities will range from 1 to 30 persons per acre. Publicly Owned Conservation Land: Open lands whose primary purpose is the preservation and enhancement of the natural state of the land and its plants and animals. Only compatible resource management, recreation, and educational activities are allowed. Streamside Open Space: The corridor of riparian vegetation along a natural stream. Hiking, biking, and riding trails may be developed in the streamside open space. The corridor will generally vary in width up to 200 feet either side of the center line of the creek. However, along San Francisquito Creek between El Camino Real and the Sand Hill Road bridge over the creek, the open space corridor varies in width between approximately 80 and 310 feet from the center line of the creek. The aerial delineation of the open space in this segment of the corridor, as opposed to other segments of the corridor, is shown to approximate scale on the Proposed Land Use and Circulation Map. Open Space/Controlled Development: Land having all the characteristics of open space but upon which some development may be allowed. Open space amenities must be retained in these areas. Residential densities range from 0.1 to 1 dwelling unit per acre but may rise to a maximum of 2 units per acre where second units are allowed, and population densities range from 1 to 4 persons per acre. This designation is found on the Former ITT Property. 7. ZONING The proposed revisions to the Open Space (OS) zone district are consistent with the District's purpose statement. The purpose and intent of the OS district is to: (1) Protect the public health, safety, and welfare; (2) Protect and preserve open space land as a limited and valuable resource; (3) Permit the reasonable use of open space land, while at the same time preserving and protecting its inherent open space characteristics to assure its continued availability for the following: as agricultural land, scenic land, recreation land, conservation or natural resource land; for the containment of urban sprawl and the structuring of urban development; and for the retention of land in its natural or near-natural state, and to protect life and property in the community from the hazards of fire, flood, and seismic activity; and (4) Coordinate with and carry out federal, state, regional, county, and city open space plans. 8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Zoning Ordinance Update is intended to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the 1998- 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed revisions reflect the intent and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to minimize impacts of new development on views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides. Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 4 Negative Declaration Background On June 13, 2007, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommended approval of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.28, Special Purpose Districts: PF, OS, and AC, with focused discussion on the Open Space (OS) district. The PTC directed staff to assemble a working group to evaluate potential approaches to credit semi-permeable materials against impervious cover in conjunction with maximum house size, floor area ratio, or other new regulations to assure that house size retains an appropriate scale. An OS working group comprised of OS district residents, open space advocates, two members of the PTC and staff was assembled and met five times from October 2007 through June 2008 to discuss the above mentioned issues and provided a forum for the residents to share their concerns as they related to other sections of the OS regulations. Proposed Project Based on the direction given by the PTC and working closely with the OS residents, staff proposes revisions to the following regulations in the OS zone district: 1. Impervious CoveragelFloor Area Ratio for residential development should be based on a sliding scale to determine the maximum allowable and to provide incentive to maintain or restore native vegetation. Non-residential calculation should be a defined percentage. 2. Impervious Cover Calculation should include all paved surfaces, with some exceptions noted, and classified as 100%, 75%, 50%, or 25% impervious, based upon the material and construction method to be used. 3. Review Process should be simplified with a clearer understanding of what a Minor project would be in the OS zone and creating two levels of Major project review based on the scope of work proposed. 4. Follow-Up Arborist Report should be required five years after the final sign-off of the project completion. This report shall evaluate the health of trees and significant landscape that were required for screen planting or and/or were designated as protected plantings on the approved plans for the project (clarification of existing language). 5. Second Dwelling Units may be permitted if the minimum lot size is five (5) acres and shall follow the Residential Estate (R-E) District standards for second dwelling units (18.1 0.070 (b», except that the allowed maximum height for attached units shall be 25 feet. 6. Additional Parking in 200' Special Setback may be allowed if located at least 50' from the affected property line; those parking spaces cannot be the designated 4 required. 7. Trash Enclosures should be peimitted, with design review, within the front setback, including Special Setbacks, providing it is not more than six (6) feet tall, covered, fitted with self closing gates, and screened. The access to the enclosure shall not be located on the side facing the street. 8. Skylights. The light emitted from skylights shall be minimal during the night hours. Utilizing treatments such as translucent glass, shading systems, and interior light placement can reduce the night glare. Please review the proposed revised Chapter 18.28 (Attachment A) for additional details on the above mentioned revisions. 9. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The Open Space (OS) zone district is comprised of mostly open space preserve lands with limited single- family uses distributed near the major access roads. The OS is located up in the foothills of Palo Alto and generally extends to the city limits. The surrounding uses of the majority of the area is park land, open space reserve (Los Trancos, Rancho San Antonio, Skyline Ridge, Russian Ridge, Long Ridge) and unincorporated county land (Santa Clara and San Mateo) that have limited single family use. Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 5 Negative Declaration ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) 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 adeqnately snpported if the referenced information sonrces show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will 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 measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less 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 (initigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, 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 Used. 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 (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page 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 less than significance. Zone District Regulations Page 6 Negative Declaration DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following En.vironmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The left-hand colunm in the checklist 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 Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Uoless Impact Would the project: Mitigation Incorporated a) Substantially degrade the existing visual 1,2,3,4 X character or quality of the site and its surroundings? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1,2-Map X public view or view corridor? IA,3,4 C) Substantially damage scenic resources, 1,2-Map X including, but not limited to, trees, rock L4,3,4 outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan 1,2,3,4 X policies regarding visual resources? e) Create a new source of substantial light or 1,4 X glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? f) Substantially shadow public open space 1,4 X (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21 ? DISCUSSION: All individual projects proposed in the Open Space (OS) district are subject to Site and Design review. The Site and Design review 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. The existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code requirements include the following Open Space Review Criteria that shall be considered in the Site and Design review of all development of land in the OS district: 1. The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from view. 2. Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend above the nearest ridge line. 3. Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring property. Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page? Negative Declaration I 4. Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats. 5. Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance. 6. Existing trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches, measured 4.5 feet above the ground level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation should be retained as much as possible. 7. Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to minimize the need for grading. 8. To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. 9. Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. 10. Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention technique. 11. Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible from off-site. 12. Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment.) The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations will not create any new aesthetic impacts. All individual proposed projects in the OS are subject to Site and Design review to address aesthetics; CEQA analysis and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. 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 agriculture 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 Fannland, Unique Fannland, 1,2,4 X or Fannland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Fannland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2-X use, or a Williamson Act contract? MapL9,4 c) Involve other changes in the existing 1,2-X environment which, due to their location or MapL9,4 Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations PageS Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated nature, could result in conversion of Fannland, to non-agricultural use? DISCUSSION: There are two parcels in the Open Space (OS) district that are designated as "Prime Farmland." These two parcels are owned and operated bya golf and country club. The proposed revisions to the OS zone district regulations do not encourage development nor change the existing uses that have been established on these two parcels and therefore is anticipated to have no impacts on agricultural resources. Mitigation Measures: None Required C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay 1,4 Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation indicated by the following: 1. Direct andlor indirect operational 1, 4 emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day andlor 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PMIO); ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) 1,4 concentrations exceeding 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) i D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to i D, E or F; or c) project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 1,4 increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 9 Potentially Significant Issues .... Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact x x x x Negative Declaration I Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels 1,4 X of toxic air contaminants? i. Probability of contracting cancer for the 1,4 X Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl)· exceeds lOin one million ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-1,4 X carcinogenic T ACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (I) for the MEl e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 1,4 X f) substantial number of people? Not implement all applicable construction 1,4 X emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? DISCUSSION: The Open Space district is located within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the regional agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions from stationary sources in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and through its planning and review process. All development in Palo Alto is subject to the BAAQMD regulations. The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations will not create any new air quality impacts. All individual proposed projects will be reviewed for impacts and are subject to CEQA. Mitigation Measures: None Required D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 1,2-X directly or through habitat modifications, on MapNl, any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, 3,4 or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 1,2-X riparian habitat or other sensitive natural MapNl, community identified in local or regional plans, 3,4 Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 10 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated policies, regulations, including federally protected wetlands as defmed by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? c) Interfere substantially with the movement of 1,2-X any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife MapNl, species or with established native resident or 3,4 migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,3,4, X protecting biological resources, such as a tree 11 preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.1O)? e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat 1,2,4 X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? DISCUSSION: The Open Space (OS) district provides habitat for a broad range of wildlife and plants, including some designated as protected or sensitive either by the State of California or through Federal designation. All development projects are subject to Site and Design review in addition to the environmental review (CEQA) to ensure an environmentally sensitive project is approved. The Site and Design review 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. The proposed revisions to the as district regulations will not create any new biological impacts. All individual proposed projects in the as are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. Mitigation Measures: None Required E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural 1,4, 12 X resource that is recognized by City Council Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page II Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Tban No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated resolution? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,2-X significance of an archaeological resource MapL8, pursuant to 15064.5? 4 ! c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1,2-X paleontological resource or site or unique MapL8, geologic feature? 4 d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2-X interred outside of formal cemeteries? MapL8, 4 e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or 1,2-X 1) eligible for listing on the National and/or MapL7, California Register, or listed on the City's 4, 12 Historic Inventory? Eliminate important examples of major periods 1,2,4 X of California history or prehistory? DISCUSSION: Throughout the Open Space (OS) zone district there are low to moderate sensitivity areas for archaeological resources. For all projects, if during grading and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner's office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations will not create any cultural impacts to the affected area. All individual proposed projects in the OS district are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by- case basis for potential impacts. Mitigation Measures: None Required F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Tban No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to potential -. . .. substantial adverse effects, including the -.---... --- risk of loss, injury, or death involving; --- i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, 4, 7 X as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 12 Negative Declaration • ! Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2-X MapN1O, 4 iii) Seismic-related ground failure, 2-X including liquefaction? MapNS, 4 iv) Landslides? 2-MapNS X 4 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss 1,4 X of topsoil? c) Result in substantial siltation? 1,4 X d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 2-X unstable, or that would become unstable as MapNS, a result of the project, and potentially 4 result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 2-X Table l8-1-B of the Uniform Building MapNS, Code (1994), creating substantial risks to 4 life or property? f) Have soils incapable of adequately 1,4 X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? g) Expose people or property to major 1,4,6 X geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? DISCUSSION: The Open Space (OS) zone district would experience a range from weak to very violent shaking in the event of a major earthquake along the San Andreas or Hayward fault. The OS area also has two major geotechnical hazards identified therein. There is a swath of land that has a high potential for surface rupture along fault traces and potential for earthquake-induced landslides where sloped. And, there is a large area that has high potential for earthquake-induced landslides. Although hazards exist, development in the OS area would not expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be addressed through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques, as required by building codes. With proper engineering new development is not expected to result in any significant adverse short or long-term impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity. The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations will not create any new geology, soils and seismicity impacts. All individual proposed projects in the OS are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. Mitigation Measures: None Required Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page \3 Negative Declaration G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,4 X environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,4 X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous 1,4 X or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Construct a school on a property that is subject 1,4 X to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions or accidental release? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list 1,2-X of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant MapN9, to Govermnent Code Section 65962.5 and, as a 4 result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? it) For a project located within an airport land use 1,4 X plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1,4 X airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? h) Impair implementation of or physically 1,2-X I interfere with an adopted emergency response MapN7, plan or emergency evacuation plan? 4 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 1,2-X ofloss, injury, or death involving wildland MapN7, fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to 4 urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,4 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 site? Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 14 Negative Declaration DISCUSSION: The Open Space (OS) district is located in the Palo Alto foothills, which has been identified as an area of medium to high wildland fire danger. The Fire department has specific requirements of property owners in this area that are directed at fire suppression and control. The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations will not create any new hazards and hazardous materials impacts. All individual proposed projects in the OS district are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. Mitigation Measures: None Required H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 1,4 X discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 1,2-X interfere substantially with groundwater MapN2, recharge such that there would be a net deficit 4 in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., 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 permits have been granted)? ! c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,4 X 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 erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,4 X 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 in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would 1,4 X exceed the capacity of existing or planned storrnwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,4 X g) Place housing within a IOO-year flood hazard 1,4 X area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a IOO-year flood hazard area 1,2-X structures which would impede or redirect MapN6, flood flows? 4 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 1,2-X of loss, injury or death involve flooding, MapN6 Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 15 Negative including flooding as a result of the failure of a N8,4 levee or dam or being located within a IOO-year flood hazard area? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,2-X MapN6, 4 k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,4 X DISCUSSION: All development is required to comply with building codes that address the flood safety issues. All development projects are required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction activities as specified by the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook (CASQA, 2003) and/or the Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (ABAG, 1995). The BMPs include measures guiding the management and operation of construction sites to control and minimize the potential contribution of pollutants to storm runoff from these areas. These measures address procedures for controlling erosion and sedimentation and managing all aspects of the construction process to ensure control of potential water pollution sources. All development projects must comply with all City, State and Federal standards pertaining to storm water run-off , and water quality. The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations will not create any new hydrology and water quality impacts. All individual proposed projects are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. Mitigation Measures: None Required I. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Physically divide an established community? 1,4 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 1,2,3,4 X policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 1,2,4 X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? d) Substantially adversely change the type or 1,2,4 X intensity of existing or planned land use in the area? e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1,2,3,4 X the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? f) Conflict with established residential, 1,2,3,4 X recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 16 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or 1,2-X farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to MapL9, non-agricultnral use? 4 DISCUSSION: The Zoning Ordinance Update is intended to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the 1998·2010 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed revisions to the Open Space district reflect the intent and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to minimize impacts new development on views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides. Along with the OS development regulations, all development projects are subject to Site and Design review in addition to the environmental review (CEQA) to ensure an environmentally sensitive project is approved. The Site and Design review 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. The review process may reduce the scope of a proposed project to less than what is permitted in the OS development regulations to meet the goals and objectives of the OS district. The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations will not create any new land use impacts. Compliance with the designated land uses and zoning is a requirement for all development. All individual proposed projects in the OS are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. Mitigation Measures: None Required J. MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1,8 X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally· important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan 1,8 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 1 (MRZ-l). 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 Revisions to the Open Space Zone Regulations Page 17 Negative Declaration indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto. Mitigation Measnres: None Required. K. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise 1,2,4 X levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 1,2,4 X excessive ground borne vibrations or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient 1,2,4 X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 1,2,4 X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use 1,2,4 X plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1,4 X airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 1,4 X increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1,4 X an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? i) Cause an increase of3.0 dB or more in an 1,4 X existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB? j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1,4 X development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1,4 X than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater? 1) Generate construction noise exceeding the 1,4 X daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more? Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 18 Negative Declaration I DISCUSSION: All development, including construction activities, must comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (P AMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are expected to be less than significant. . The proposed reVISIons to the Open Space district regulations will not create any new noise impacts. All individual proposed projects in the OS district are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. Mitigation Measures: None Required L. POPULATION AND HOUSING 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 1,4 X area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing 1,4 X housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 1,4 X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? d) Create a substantial imbalance between 1,4 X employed residents and jobs? e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local 1,4 X popUlation projections? DISCUSSION: The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations does not encourage growth and development in the district and therefore will not create any new population and housing impacts. All individual proposed projects in the OS are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. Mitigation Measures: None Required 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 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 Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 19 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 1,2,4 X b) Police protection? 1,2,4 X c) Schools? 1,2,4 X d) Parks? 1,2,4 X e) Other public facilities? 1,2,4 X DISCUSSION: The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations does not encourage growth and development in the district and is not anticipated to generate a significant number of new users as to create impacts to the existing public services for the City. All individual proposed projects in the OS are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. Mitigation Measures: None Required N. RECREATION 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 increase the use of 1,2,4 X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration ofthe facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational 1,2,4 X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? DISCUSSION: The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations does not encourage growth and development in the district and is not anticipated to generate a significant number of new users as to create impacts to the existing City recreational facilities. All individual proposed projects in the OS are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. Mitigation Measures: None Required Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 20 Negative Declaration O. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than NO Significant Significant Significant IMPACT Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 1,4 X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 1,4 X a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, 1,4 X including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 1,4 X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,4 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,4 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 1,2,3,4 X programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & bicycle facilities)? h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection 1,4 X to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four'seconds or more and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more? i) Cause a local intersection aheady operating at 1,4 X LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more? j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate 1,4 X from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause critical movement delay at such an intersection aheady operating at LOS F to increase by four seconds or more and the L critical VIC value to increase by 0.01 or more? k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F 1,4 X or contribute traffic in excess of 1 % of segment capacity to a freeway segment aheady operating at LOS F? 1) Cause any change in traffic that would 1,4 X increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 21 Negative Declaration Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? m) Cause queuing impacts based on a 1,4 X comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts 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. n) Impede the development or function of 1,4 X planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? 0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1,4 X result of congestion? p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,4 X DISCUSSION: All development projects must be submitted for Site and Design review and in that review the traffic impacts will be considered. The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations do not encourage growth and development in the district and is not anticipated to generate transportation impacts. All individual proposed projects in the OS are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated On a case-by-case basis for potential impacts. Mitigation: None Required P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Tban No Impact Significant Significant Significant . Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of 1,2,4 X the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new 1,2,4 X water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new 1,2,4 X storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of . which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to 1,2,4 X serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 1,2,4 X treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 22 Negative Declaration I • Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Tban No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would tbe project: ' Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated conunitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 1,2,4 X pennitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 1,2,4 X and regulations related to solid waste? h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1,2,4 X of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project? DISCUSSION: The proposed revisions to the Open Space district does not encourage growth and development and therefore no significant increase in the demand on existing utilities and service systems or impacts to these services are expected. All individual proposed projects in the OS are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts, Mitigation Measnres: None Required Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Tban No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would tbe project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated I a) Does the project have the potential to 1,2,3,4 X 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 levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have h~pacts that are 1, 2, 3, 4 X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects 1,2,3,4 X which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 23 DISCUSSION: The proposed revisions to the Open Space (OS) district are not anticipated to degrade the quality of the environment or create environmental effects that would adversely impact human beings. Those results would be in direct conflict with the intent of the OS zoning, and the Site and Design review of all development projects. The proposed revisions to the OS regulations are not anticipated to have cumulatively considerable impacts. The OS district provides habitat for a broad range of wildlife and plants, including some designated as protected or sensitive either by the State of California or through Federal designation. All development projects are subject to Site and Design review in addition to the environmental review (CEQA) to ensure an environmentally sensitive project is approved. The Site and Design review 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. The proposed revisions to the OS zoning regulations are not anticipated to create any new or contribute to existing environmental impacts. All OS projects submitted to the City will be analyzed for its specific environmental impacts and the appropriate CEQA review will be completed. Global Oimate 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 outer space, which is lmown as the "greenhouse" effect. The world's leading climate scientists have reached consensus that global climate change is underway and is very likely caused by humans. 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, pursuant to Senate Bi1197 the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is in the process of developing CEQA guidelines "for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions." OPR is required to "prepare, develop, and transmit" the guidelines to the Resources Agency on or before July 1,2009. The Resources Agency must certify and adopt the guidelines on or before January 1, 2010. Assembly Bill 32 requires achievement by 2020 of a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent 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 emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. While the state of California has established programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are no established standards for gauging the significance of greenhouse gas emissions; these standards are required to be in place by 2012. Neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines provide any methodology for analysis of greenhouse gases. Given the "global" scope of global climate change, the chal1enge 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 meaningful 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 environment in which it would occur, and what mitigation measures are available to avoid or reduce impacts. Although greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) generated by future development projects in the Open Space district, as allowed under the Comprehensive Plan, would cumulatively contribute to global climate change, the OS regulations supports limited development while preserving and conserving natural areas. In addition to the OS development regulations and the Site and Design review, the City has adopted green building regulations that apply to all development projects, residential and otherwise, which further facilitates the reduction of the GHG Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 24 Negative Declaration emISSIons of all projects. The proposed revisions to the OS zone district regulations would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with greenhouse gas emissions. All individual proposed projects in the OS will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for its potential impacts. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. Project Planner's knowledge of the site and the proposed project 2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 Zoning Ordinance 4. Proposed Revised PAMC Chapter 18.28, Special Purpose Districts (PF, OS, AC) 5. Staff Report: Properties Enrolled in the Williamson Act 2007-2008 6. Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety and Windload 7. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 8. City of Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan, http;/Iwww.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaifilebanklbJobdload.asp?BlobID=9986 9. Green Building Regulations, PAMC 18.44 10. Tree Preservation Ordinance, PAMC 8.10 11. City of Palo Alto, Historic Inventory List ATTACHMENT A. Proposed Revised PAMC Chapter 18.28, Special Purpose Districts (PF, OS, AC) Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 25 Negative Declaration DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wiD be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will 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 wiD be prepared. I 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 all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Em 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. c=~ proJed lanner Date Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 26 Negative Declaration